[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72842-72844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30939]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA144-0375a; FRL-7410-9]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Monterey 
Bay Unified Air Pollution District, Ventura County Air Pollution 
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the 
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) and the 
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under authority of the 
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we are approving 
local rules that address general requirements for continuous emissions 
monitoring systems and the use of credible evidence to demonstrate 
compliance with emission limits under the Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 7, 2003, without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 8, 2003. If we 
receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

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 documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during 
normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP 
revisions at the following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail 
Code 6102T), Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24850 Silver Cloud 
Court, Monterey, CA 93940.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, 
2nd floor, Ventura, CA 93003.
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is not an 
EPA website and may not contain the same version of the rule that was 
submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947.4115.

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What Rules Did the State Submit?
    B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
    C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
    B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules.
    D. Public Comment and Final Action.
III. Background Information.
    A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they 
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBUPACD....................................        213  Continuous Emissions               03/21/01     05/23/01
                                                         Monitoring.
MBUAPCD....................................        421  Violations and Determinations      12/21/94     02/24/95
                                                         of Compliance.
VCAPCD.....................................        103  Continuous Monitoring Systems.     02/09/99     06/03/99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the following dates EPA found these rule submittals met the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V: July 3, 2001 for 
MBUAPCD rule 213; March 10, 1995 for MBUAPCD rule 421; and June 24, 
1999 for VCAPCD rule 103. The completeness criteria must be met before 
formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    We approved a version of MBUAPCD rule 213 into the SIP on July 1, 
1999.
    We approved a version of MBUAPCD rule 421 into the SIP on July 13, 
1987.
    We approved a version of VCAPCD rule 103 into the SIP on December 
14, 1994. At that time, the rule was titled ``Stack Monitoring''.

[[Page 72843]]

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rules?

    MBUAPCD rule 213 includes the following significant changes from 
the current SIP:
    [sbull] The rule is applicable to any source required to install 
CEMS pursuant to a District Authority to Construct or Permit to 
Operate.
    [sbull] A reference is provided to the California Health and Safety 
Code (section 40702--Adoption of Rules and Regulations and section 
42706--Report of Violation of Emission Standard).
    [sbull] The definition of ``Authority to Construct'' is added.
    [sbull] Sources with CEMS are required to develop and comply with a 
Quality Assurance/Preventative Maintenance Procedures Manual.
    MBUAPCD rule 421 includes the following significant changes from 
the current SIP:
    [sbull] Definitions are added for ``Administrator'' and 
``District''.
    [sbull] References are provided to pertinent sections of the CAA.
    [sbull] Any credible evidence or federally-approved monitoring 
methods may be used to determine compliance.
    VCAPCD rule 103 includes the following significant changes from the 
current SIP:
    [sbull] The title was changed from ``Stack Monitoring'' to 
``Continuous Monitoring Systems''.
    [sbull] CEMS sources subject to federal CEMS requirements must 
install and operate equipment in accordance federal regulations.
    [sbull] The requirement for opacity monitoring for gas fired 
boilers was removed.
    [sbull] The time to report violations was increased from 48 to 96 
hours.
    [sbull] The length of time that records must be kept was increased 
from 4 years to 5 years.
    [sbull] The requirement to maintain permanent records was changed 
from ``net and gross'' megawatt-hours to ``net'' megawatt-hours 
produced by a boiler/turbine generator system.
    [sbull] Permanent records are required for a period of at least 5 
years for emisions limits based on calculations.
    [sbull] The requirement for quarterly reports is deleted. Sources 
must report excess emissions and inoperable CEMS upon written request 
from the District.
    [sbull] CEMS data reduction requirements are added for (1) electric 
power generating units subject to a new source performance standards 
(NSPS), (2) large boilers, steam generator and process heaters, and (3) 
equipment with emissions of any single air pollutant greater than or 
equal to either 5 pounds per hour or 40 pounds per day when requested 
by the District to install a CEMS.
    [sbull] Standards of performance are described standards for 
electric power generating units and units subject to NSPS.
    The TSDs have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    These rules describe administrative provisions and definitions that 
support emission controls found in other local agency requirements. In 
combination with the other requirements, these rules must be 
enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing 
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). EPA policy that we used to 
help evaluate enforceability requirements consistently includes the 
Bluebook (``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, 
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook 
(``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have 
more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local 
agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all 
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this 
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we 
receive adverse comments by January 8, 2003, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct 
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in 
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive 
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective 
without further notice on February 7, 2003. This will incorporate these 
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions 
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Background Information

A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations 
that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, 
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health 
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local 
agency's program to control these pollutants. Table 2 lists some of the 
national milestones leading to the submittal of these rules.

                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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 72844]]

IV. Administrative Requirement

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
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 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 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 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 approves 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 approves 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 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 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.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 7, 2003. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 30, 2002.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

    2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs 
(c)(215)(i)(F),(c)(264)(i)(C)(2), and (c)(281)(i)(B) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (215) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 421 adopted on December 21, 1994.
* * * * *
    (264) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (2) Rule 103 adopted on February 9, 1999.
* * * * *
    (281) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 213 adopted on March 21, 2001.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-30939 Filed 12-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P