[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20078-20080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9910]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 262-0338b; FRL-7174-3]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, which controls oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 
emissions from glass melting furnaces. We are proposing to approve a 
local rule to regulate these emission sources 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 May 24, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal 
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions 
at the following locations:

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 E. 
Gettysburg Ave., Fresno, CA 93726.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charnjit Bhullar, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3960.

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 Is The Purpose of the Submitted Rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating This Rule?
    B. Does This Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve This rule.
    D. Public Comment and Final Action.
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 addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

[[Page 20079]]



                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency              Rule #         Rule title              Adopted               Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD                                4354  Glass Melting          02/21/02.............  03/05/02
                                               Furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 27, 2002, this rule submittal was found to meet the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met 
before formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Version of This Rule?

    On September 1, 2000, EPA published a limited approval and limited 
disapproval of a version of rule 4354 that was submitted to EPA on 
September 29, 1998.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?

    The EPA published a limited approval and limited disapproval of a 
previous version of this rule because some rule provisions conflicted 
with section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act. Those provisions 
included the following:
    1. Section 3.17.3 and 4.2 allowed unlimited exemption periods as 
long as the furnace operated below 60% capacity.
    2. The equation to calculate the Tier 1 emission limit in section 
5.3 needed to be clarified.
    3. Section 7.1 did not specify a final date for major 
NOX sources to adopt CEMS or alternate continuous monitoring 
methods to prevent avoidance of continuous monitoring by running 
forever without an official ``rebuild''.
    4. Section 7.2.3 did not specify a final date for facilities to 
achieve full Tier 2 compliance.
    5. Section 9.0, 9.4, and 9.7 provided an Alternate Emission Control 
Plan (AECP) which was not consistent with the EPA Emissions Trading 
Policy Statement (ETPS), the Economic Incentive Program Rules (EIP), 
and EPA policies regarding equivalency provisions.
    The TSD has more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating This Rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A) and 
182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) 
and 193). The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 
CFR part 81), so Rule 4354 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate the 
criteria consistently include the following:
    1. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation, Cut points, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations (the ``Blue Book''), U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988.
    2. Guidance Document for Correcting VOC Rule Deficiencies: U.S. EPA 
Region IX and California Air Resources Board, April 1991.
    3. State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendment of 1990 (the ``NOX Supplement to the General 
Preamble''), U.S. EPA, 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.
    4. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
    5. State Implementation Plans for National Primary and Secondary 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, and 
Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas, Title I Part D of the Clean 
Air Act.
    6. State of California, Air Resources Board, Suggested Control 
Measure for the Control of Oxides of Nitrogen from Glass Melting 
Furnaces, September 5, 1980.
    7. Cost Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT), U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, March 16, 1994.
    8. State Implementation Plans (SIPS): Policy Regarding Excess 
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown, dated September 
20, 1999.

B. Does This Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD 
has more information on our evaluation and how the previously 
identified deficiencies have been corrected.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve This Rule

    None.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant 
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in 
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public 
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new 
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final 
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally 
enforceable SIP.

III. Background Information

Why Was This Rule Submitted?

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and 
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. 
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that 
control NOX emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national 
milestones leading to the submittal of this local agency NOX 
rule.

                Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Date                                 Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978.............................  EPA promulgated a list of
                                             ozone nonattainment areas
                                             under the Clean Air Act as
                                             amended in 1977. 43 FR
                                             8964; 40 CFR 81.305.
May 26, 1988..............................  EPA notified Governors that
                                             parts of their SIPs were
                                             inadequate to attain and
                                             maintain the ozone standard
                                             and requested that they
                                             correct the deficiencies
                                             (EPA's SIP-Call). See
                                             section 110(a)(2)(H) of the
                                             pre-amended Act.
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.
May 15, 1991..............................  Section 182(a)(2)(A)
                                             requires that ozone
                                             nonattainment areas correct
                                             deficient RACT rules by
                                             this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 20080]]

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 13211, ``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 (Pub. L. 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: April 10, 2002.
Nora L. McGee,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-9910 Filed 4-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P