Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: California,
[Federal Register: July 23, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 141)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39920-39923]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23jy99-8]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 71-154a; FRL6400-1]
Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of California State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions are rules from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District). These rules were submitted by the State on behalf of the District to provide general permitting requirements and general provisions for the implementation of NSR and other SIP requirements for stationary sources in the District.
This approval action will incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP. EPA is approving these rules to support District new source review (NSR) rules that are required by section 110(a) and part D of Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or Act). These other rules, which are required for areas that have not attained the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for one or more pollutants, will be the subject of a subsequent rulemaking action. Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval of these general provisions and general permitting rules into the California SIP under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, and plan requirements for nonattainment areas.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 21, 1999 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 23, 1999. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that EPA's approval of these rules will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted in writing to Ed Pike at the Region IX mailing address listed below. Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are available for inspection at the following locations:
Permits Office (AIR-3), Air Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Central Region, 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno CA 93726
A courtesy copy of these rules may be available via the Internet at http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sju/cur.htm. However, these versions of the District rules may be different than the versions submitted to EPA for approval. Readers are cautioned to verify that the adoption date of the rule listed is the same as the rule submitted to EPA for approval. The official submittal is only available at the four agency addresses listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Pike, (telephone 415/744-1211), Air Division (Air-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, or pike.ed@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
-
Applicability
The rules being approved into the California SIP in this action are District Rules 1110, 1140, 1150, 2010, 2031,
[[Page 39921]]
2040, 2070, 2080, and 2092. Rules 1110, 1140, 1150, 2010, and 2040 were adopted by the District Board of Directors on December 17, 1992, and submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a revision to the SIP on September 28, 1994. Rules 2031, 2070, 2080, and 2092 were adopted by the District on December 17, 1992, and submitted to EPA by CARB on November 18, 1993.
The District is composed of Fresno County, a portion of Kern County ‹SUP›1‹/SUP›, Kings County, Madera County, Merced County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, and Tulare County. The eight former County air pollution management agencies merged to form the unified Valley- wide District in 1992. The District is designated as a serious nonattainment area for ozone and particulate matter less than ten microns in diameter (PM‹INF›10‹/INF›). The District is designated attainment for the nitrogen dioxide (NO‹INF›2‹/INF›), sulfur dioxide (SO‹INF›2‹/INF›), and carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS, although nitrogen oxides (including NO‹INF›2‹/INF›) and sulfur oxide (including SO‹INF›2‹/INF›) are regulated as precursors to other nonattainment pollutants. For the detailed area designations that apply to the District, please refer to 40 CFR 81.305. The CAA air quality planning requirements for nonattainment NSR are set out in part D of Title I of the Act, with implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165.
\1\ This District includes the portion of Kern County defined in District rule 1020 section 3.44 (adopted November 13, 1996 and approved at 64 FR 13514).
-
Summary of Rule Contents
Prior to the formation of the current District in 1992, EPA had approved separate SIPs for each of the eight individual Counties.‹SUP›2‹/SUP› Today's action eliminates minor variations in the eight separate County SIPs by approving one set of rules that apply across all eight counties. This action will provide consistency and clarity by allowing regulated sources of air pollution, the public, and regulatory agencies to refer to one set of rules for the entire District rather than eight sets of rules.
\2\ Each County SIP generally contains a rule corresponding to each of the current District rules that EPA is taking action on, although the current rules have been renumbered.
District Rule 1110, ``Circumvention,'' prohibits concealment or dilution of emissions to circumvent statutory or regulatory requirements. District Rule 1140, ``Applicability of Emission Limits,'' states that a source subject to multiple emission limits must comply with the most stringent applicable emission or concentration rate unless specifically exempted. Rule 1150, ``Separation and Combination,'' specifies how compliance is determined for emission streams that are combined prior to release to the atmosphere. These rules are contained in the General Provisions section of the District regulations. They contain the procedures for implementing other requirements, but do not contain or directly impose numerical air pollutant limitations.
District Rule 2010, ``Permits Required,'' contains the general requirement to (1) obtain an Authority to Construct permit for a new or modified source; and (2) obtain a Permit to Operate prior to operation. District Rule 2031, ``Transfer of Permits,'' requires District approval for the transfer of a permit to a different person or piece of equipment. District Rule 2040, ``Applications,'' requires that applicants submit all necessary information and specifies the administrative process for the District to act on the application. District Rule 2070, ``Standards for Granting Applications,'' explains the procedures for the District to approve or deny an application for an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate. District Rule 2080, ``Conditional Approval,'' grants the District authority to issue or revise specific written conditions on an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate to assure compliance with air contaminant emission standards or limitations. District Rule 2092, ``Standards for Permits to Operate,'' defines the conditions which must be met in order for the District to issue a Permit to Operate.
-
EPA Evaluation and Action
The air quality planning requirements for nonattainment NSR are set out in part D of title I of the Clean Air Act. EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under part D, including those State submittals containing nonattainment NSR SIP requirements (see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion. EPA has also proposed regulations to implement the changes under the 1990 Amendments in the NSR provisions in part D of Title I of the Act. (See 61 FR 38249 (July 23, 1996)). Upon final promulgation of those regulations, EPA will review those NSR SIP submittals on which it has already taken final action to determine whether additional SIP revisions are necessary.
This rulemaking replaces rules from the following SIPs: Fresno County, Kern County, Kings County, Madera County, Merced County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, and Tulare County. EPA's approval of the following rules replaces similar categories of rules in the individual County SIPs: Circumvention (Rule 1110), Applicability of Emission Limits (Rule 1140), Separation and Combination (Rule 1150), Permits Required (Rule 2010), Transfer of Permits (Rule 2031), Applications (2040), Standards for Granting Applications (Rule 2070), and Standards for Permits to Operate (Rule 2092). Please see the Technical Support Document for a complete list of the SIP rules that EPA is replacing.
EPA has evaluated District Rules 110, 1140, 1150, 2010, 2031, 2040, 2070, 2080, and 2092 and has determined that each rule is consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations and EPA policy. These general provisions and permitting rules will support permitting requirements for major and minor sources in the District (updates to District New Source Review requirements will be the subject of subsequent EPA rulemaking action). Therefore, these rules are being approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as consistent with the requirements of section 110(a), including section 110(a)(2)(C), and part D of Title I of the Act. For additional description of these Rules and EPA's approval action, please refer to the Technical Support Document for this action.
EPA is publishing this direct final approval without prior proposal because the Agency views this SIP revision as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This direct final approval will be effective September 21, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by August 23, 1999.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are
[[Page 39922]]
received, the public is advised that this direct final approval will be effective on September 21, 1999 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
-
Administrative Requirements
-
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.
-
Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
-
Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
-
Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
-
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
-
Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
-
Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
[[Page 39923]]
-
Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filedin the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 21, 1999. 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, General provisions, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, New source review, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: July 7, 1999. Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
-
The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
-
Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(194)(i)(C)(4) and (c)(199)(i)(D)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(194) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(4) Rules 2031, 2070, 2080, and 2092 adopted on May 21, 1992 and amended on December 17, 1992. * * * * *
(199) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(6) Rules 1110, 1140, 1150, 2010, and 2040 amended on December 17, 1992. * * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-18600Filed7-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-
-
