[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39659-39660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14496]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA255-0333; FRL-7228-1]


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 
visible emissions (VE) from many different sources of air pollution. 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.

DATE: Any comments must arrive by July 10, 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; and,
    San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 
East Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-
4111.

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 revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule.
    D. Public comment and final action.
III. Background information.
    A. Why was the 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 SJVUAPCD and submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency              Rule No.                Rule title                 Adopted      Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD...........................       4101   Visible Emissions..................     11/15/01      12/06/01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 22, 2002, EPA found Rule 4101 met the completeness 
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V. These criteria must be met 
before formal EPA review may begin.

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

    EPA has received two prior versions of Rule 4101. SJVUAPCD adopted 
the first version on December 17, 1992 and CARB submitted this rule to 
EPA on September 28, 1994. SJVUAPCD adopted the second version on June 
21, 2001 and CARB submitted the rule on October 30, 2001. EPA has not 
acted on these versions of the rule. While we can act on only the most 
recently submitted version listed in Table 1, we have reviewed 
materials provided with these previous submittals.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?

    Rule 4101 limits the emissions of visible air contaminants of any 
type; usually, but not always particulate matter from combustion 
sources and industrial sites. Specifically, the rule prohibits 
emissions beyond a defined opacity standard. Administratively, Rule 
4101 replaces the individual county-level visible emissions rules now 
in the SIP. The TSD has more information about Rule 4101 and the 
county-level rules it replaces.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must meet Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) 
requirements for nonattainment areas (see section 189), and must not 
relax existing requirements (see sections 110 (1) and 193). The 
SJVUAPCD regulates a PM nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so 
Rule 4101 must fulfill RACM.

[[Page 39660]]

    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate 
enforceability and RACM requirements consistently include the 
following:
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations; Clarification to appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal 
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the 
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe Rule 4101 is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, and SIP relaxations. Prior 
SJVUAPCD constituent county Rules 401, 402, and 403 are now 
consolidated within a single rule format. The cumulative effect of the 
changes to these rules through the creation and amendment of Rule 4101 
does not weaken the pre-existing county-level rules' emission limits. 
The 20% opacity limit is retained, limited exemptions are added, and an 
exemption is removed. The TSD has more specific information on our 
evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    We have no recommendations at this time.

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

A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?

    Visible emission rules with their opacity standards are basic 
components of an air quality regulation program and a general RACM 
requirement for PM-10 regulations. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 
states to submit regulations that control VE emissions. Table 2 lists 
some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local 
agency VE rules.

                Table 2.--PM-10 Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date                                Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
December 10, 1993............  Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that PM-10
                                nonattainment areas implement all
                                reasonably available control measures
                                (RACM) by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (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. 22 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, Nitrous Oxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Particulate Matter, Intergovernmental relations, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound.

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

    Dated: May 2, 2002.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-14496 Filed 6-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M