![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Revision to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Related Material
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: December 31, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 250)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67497-67499]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31de01-15]
========================================================================
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.
========================================================================
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