[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67497-67499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-32104]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 67497]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 071-0298; FRL-7123-8]


Revision to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are proposing a full approval of a revision to the San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 
portion of the California SIP concerning PM-10 emissions from 
industrial processes. We are proposing action on a local rule that 
regulates this emission source under the Clean Air Act as amended in 
1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan 
to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 30, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief 
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    You can inspect a copy of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal 
business hours. You may also see a copy of the submitted rule revisions 
at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East 
Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 744-1135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What are the changes in the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Previous proposed action and public comment
    D. Present proposed action and public comment
III. Background information
    Why was this rule submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule proposed for full approval with the date 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                  Rule #              Rule title               Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..................................     4201  Particulate Matter Concentration.     12/17/92     11/18/93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 27, 1993, we determined that the submittal of Rule 4201 
met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must 
be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved the following versions of submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 
into the portions of the California SIP applicable to each of the eight 
counties that were unified and now comprise the SJVUAPCD:
     Fresno County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration, 
approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
     Kern County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration--
Valley Basin, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
     Kings County Rule 404, Particulate Matter, approved on 
August 4, 1978 (43 FR 34468).
     Madera County Rule 403, Particulate Matter Emissions from 
the Incineration of Combustible Refuse, approved on April 16, 1991 (56 
FR 15286).
     Merced County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration, 
June 14, 1978 (43 FR 25689).
     San Joaquin County Rule 404, Particulate Matter 
Concentration, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
     Stanislaus County Rule 404, Particulate Matter 
Concentration, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
     Tulare County Rule 404, Particulate Matter, approved on 
August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).

C. What Are The Changes In The Submitted Rule?

    Submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 changes are as follows:
     The rules of eight former indiviual county air districts 
that unified into SJVUAPCD are combined. The TSD has more information 
about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

    We evaluated the rule for consistency with the CAA as amended in 
1990 and with 40 CFR part 51. The following guidance documents were 
used for reference:
     PM-10 Guideline Document, EPA-452/R093-008).
     Memorandum, Review of State Regulation Recodifications, 
OAQPS (February 12, 1990).

[[Page 67498]]

    Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the CAA require moderate PM-10 
nonattainment areas to implement reasonably available control measures 
(RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT) for 
existing stationary sources of PM-10. Section 189(b) requires that 
serious PM-10 nonattainment areas, in addition to meeting the RACM/RACT 
requirements, implement best available control measures (BACM), 
including best available control technology (BACT) for existing 
stationary sources of PM-10. SJVUAPCD is a serious PM-10 nonattainment 
areas and is required to implement BACM/BACT.
    However, we have not reviewed the substance of the rules relative 
to BACM/BACT requirements at this time. The rules were approved into 
the SIP in previous rulemakings. We are now merely approving the 
combining of the individual rules into a single equivalent rule 
submitted by the State. Our administrative approval at this time does 
not imply any position with respect to the approvablility of the 
substance of the rules. To the extent that we have issued any SIP calls 
to the State with respect to the adequacy of any of the rules subject 
to this action, we will continue to require the State to correct any 
such rule deficiencies despite our present approval.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    The rule is largely consistent with relevant policy and guidance. 
The adoption of SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 improves the SIP by simplifying the 
eight SIP rules into one rule in the unified District.

C. Previous Proposed Action and Public Comment

    We previously proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval 
for Rule 4201 on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78434). The deficiencies were 
as follows:
     The rule does not meet the requirements of BACM/BACT. 
Other serious PM-10 nonattainment areas have lower particulate matter 
emission limits.
     The rule does not have periodic monitoring requirements.
     The rule does not require recordkeeping for at least two 
years.
    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received a comment from the following party:
    Mark Boese, SJVUAPCD; letter dated January 11, 2001 and received 
January 16, 2001.
    The comment and our response are summarized below.
    Comment I: SJVUAPCD notes the following points concerning the 
proposed limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 4201, 
Particulate Matter Concentration, for not meeting the requirements of 
BACM/BACT and not having monitoring and recordkeeping requirements:
     It is a holdover from an earlier regulatory era that 
regulated Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) instead of PM-10.
     It is somewhat valuable for assuring that existing 
equipment maintains TSP emission controls.
     It is a generic rule not intended to fulfill BACM/BACT 
requirements for regulating PM-10. Specific, focused BACM/BACT 
determinations are or will be made elsewhere.
     Overall, Rule 4201 is of similar stringency to South Coast 
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 404.
     No PM-10 reductions have been attributed to the rule in 
the current PM-10 Plan submittal.
     Rule 4202, which covers sources similar to Rule 4201, does 
not have monitoring and recordkeeping requirements and was approved by 
EPA as meeting the requirements of RACM/RACT.
     SJVUAPCD encourages EPA to either approve Rule 4201 as a 
BACM/BACT rule or approve Rule 4201 as a RACM/RACT rule as was done for 
Rule 4202.
    Response: We have evaluated these points and determined the 
following:
     Rules 4201 and 4202 are old TSP rules from a past 
regulatory era, when similar rules did not have monitoring and 
recordkeeping requirements. We recommend such requirements for a future 
revision of these rules.
     SJVUAPCD is a serious PM-10 nonattainment area and 
therefore must meet the requirements of BACM/BACT for source categories 
that are not insignificant or have major sources. We believe the source 
category for Rules 4201 and 4202 is not insignificant. Therefore, Rules 
4201 and 4202 must meet the requirements of BACM/BACT. However, we will 
do an administrative approval of the eight individual county SIP rules 
without evaluating the substance of the rules at this time. Since our 
proposed action represents an administrative approval only, we may in 
the future require substantive changes to those SJVUAPCD rules, such as 
Rules 4201 and 4202, that regulate PM-10 emissions from existing 
stationary sources to address concerns related to BACM/BACT or to the 
attainment demonstration. Also, over the long-term, SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 
may need to be revised to address deficiencies in enforceability prior 
to our approval of any redesignation to attainment.

D. Present Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is proposing a 
full approval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 to improve the SIP. We will accept 
comments from the public on the proposed full approval for the next 30 
days.

III. Background Information

Why Was This Rule Submitted?

    PM-10 harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the 
CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 emissions. 
Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal 
of local agency PM-10 rules.

                Table 2.--PM-10 Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                                Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978..........................  EPA promulgated a list of total
                                          suspended particulate (TSP)
                                          nonattainment areas under the
                                          Clean Air Act, as amended in
                                          1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR
                                          81.305.
July 1, 1987...........................  EPA replaced the TSP standards
                                          with new PM standards applying
                                          only up to 10 microns in
                                          diameter (PM-10). 52 FR 24672.
November 15, 1990......................  Clean Air Act Amendments of
                                          1990 were enacted, Pub. L. 101-
                                          549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified
                                          at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
November 15, 1990......................  PM-10 areas meeting the
                                          qualifications of section
                                          107(d)(4)(B) of the CAA were
                                          designated nonattainment by
                                          operation of law and
                                          classified as moderate
                                          pursuant to section 188(a).
                                          States are required by section
                                          110(a) to submit rules
                                          regulating PM-10 emissions in
                                          order to achieve the
                                          attainment dates specified in
                                          section 188(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 67499]]

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to 
Executive Order 32111, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely approves state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 
approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose 
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a 
state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does 
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 23, 2001.
Sally Seymour,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-32104 Filed 12-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P