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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

67497

Vol. 66, No. 250

Monday, December 31, 2001

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).

67498 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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).

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