Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, San Diego Air Pollution Control District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 211-0105; FRL-6195-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan Revision, San Diego Air Pollution Control

District and Ventura County 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. The revisions concern rules from

the following districts: San Diego Air Pollution Control District

(SDAPCD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VTCAPCD).

The rules control particulate matter (PM) emissions related to visible

emissions and abrasive blasting, respectively. This approval action

will incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP.

[[Page 67420]]

The intended effect of approving these rules is to regulate emissions

of PM in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval

of these revisions into the California SIP under provisions of the CAA

regarding EPA action on SIP submittals and SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality standards.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 5, 1999 without further

notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by January 6,

1999. If EPA receives such comments, then it will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule

will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the Region

IX office listed below. Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report

for the rules 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:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street,

S.W., Washington, DC 20460

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812

San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San

Diego, CA 92123-1096

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 702 County Square Drive,

Ventura, CA 93003

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Irwin, Rulemaking Office, AIR-4,

Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rules being approved into the California SIP include: SDAPCD

Rule 50, Visible Emissions and VTCAPCD Rule 74.1, Abrasive Blasting.

These rules were submitted by the California Air Resources Board to EPA

on June 23, 1998 and January 28, 1992, respectively.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of total suspended

particulate (TSP) nonattainment areas under the provisions of the 1977

Clean Air Act (1977 CAA or pre-amended Act), that included the San

Diego Air Basin (West portion of San Diego County) (43 FR 8964; 40 CFR

81.305). On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672) EPA replaced the TSP standards

with new PM standards applying only to PM up to 10 microns in diameter

(PM-10).1 On November 15, 1990, amendments to the 1977 CAA

were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C.

7401-7671q. On the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, PM-10

areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) of the

Act were designated unclassifiable by operation of law. The San Diego

Air Basin and Ventura County were not among the areas designated

unclassifiable.

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

\1\ On July 18, 1997 EPA promulgated revised and new standards

for PM-10 and PM-2.5 (62 FR 38651). EPA has not yet established

specific plan and control requirements for the revised and new

standards.

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

As part of updating the California SIP, the State of California

submitted many PM-10 rules for incorporation into the California SIP on

June 23, 1998 and January 28, 1992, including the rules being acted on

in this document. This document addresses EPA's direct-final action for

SDAPCD Rule 50, Visible Emissions, and VTCAPCD Rule 74.1, Abrasive

Blasting. SDAPCD adopted Rule 50 on August 13, 1997. VTCAPCD adopted

Rule 74.1 on November 12, 1991. These submitted rules were found to be

complete on August 25, 1998 and April 3, 1992, respectively, pursuant

to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51

Appendix V 2 and are being finalized for approval into the

SIP.

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

\2\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990

(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,

revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

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

SDAPCD Rule 50 is a generally applicable rule that controls visible

emissions from a variety of sources. VTCAPCD Rule 74.1 controls

emissions from abrasive blasting. PM emissions can harm human health

and the environment. These rules were originally adopted as part of

SDAPCO's and VTCAPCD's efforts to maintain the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM-10. The following is EPA's evaluation

and final action for these rules.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a PM-10 rule, EPA must evaluate

the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA

regulations, as found in section 110 and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements

for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans). EPA

must also ensure that rules are enforceable and strengthen or maintain

the SIP's control strategy.

There is currently no version of VTCAPCD Rule 74.1, Abrasive

Blasting, in the SIP. The submitted rule includes the following

provisions:

A Ringlemann 1 (20 percent opacity) standard applies to

abrasive blasting conducted within a permanent building;

A Ringlemann 2 (40 percent opacity) standard applies to

abrasive blasting conducted outside of a permanent building;

All abrasive blasting operations must be conducted within

a permanent building with certain exceptions;

Abrasives used for dry outdoor blasting must be certified

by the California Air Resources Board to meet percent by weight

material standards. Otherwise, wet abrasive blasting, hydroblasting or

vacuum blasting must be used with certain exceptions.

On September 28, 1981, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule

50 that had been adopted by SDAPCD prior to this date.

SDAPCD's submitted Rule 50, Visible Emissions, includes the

following significant changes from the current SIP:

Adds source-specific exemptions;

Relaxes the standard for asphalt plant drop zone

discharges from Ringlemann 1 (20% opacity) to Ringlemann 2 (40%

opacity);

Adds a specific provision for diesel pile-driving hammers

that relaxes the applicable Ringlemann 1 standard not to exceed three

minutes per hour to a Ringlemann 1 standard not to exceed four minutes

during the driving of a single pile or, when kerosene fuel, smoke-

suppressing fuel additives and synthetic lubricating oil are used, a

Ringlemann 2 standard not to exceed four minutes during the driving of

a single pile;

Relaxes the standard for discharges from asphalt paving

equipment with an application temperature specification of 320 degrees

Fahrenheit or higher and pavement rehabilitation equipment from

Ringlemann 1 to Ringlemann 2;

Relaxes the standard for discharges from the operation,

maintenance or testing of fire fighting training units used exclusively

for the purpose of shipboard fire fighting training from Ringlemann 1

to Ringlemann 2.

While some provisions are being relaxed, EPA believes these

relaxations are de minimis and do not violate section 110(l) of the

Clean Air Act. EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined

that they are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and

[[Page 67421]]

EPA policy. Therefore, SDAPCD Rule 50, Visible Emissions, and VTCAPCD

Rule 74.1, Abrasive Blasting, are being approved under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a). A

more detailed evaluation can be found in EPA's evaluation report for

these rules.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation

plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall

be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment 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

relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective

February 5, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives

relevant adverse comments by January 6, 1999.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal 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 received,

the public is advised that this rule will be effective on February 5,

1999 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. 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.

B. 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.

C. 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 is

does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or

safety risks.

D. 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.

E. 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).

F. 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 private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205,

[[Page 67422]]

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.

G. 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).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 5, 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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Particulate matter.

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: November 20, 1998.

Laura Yoshii,

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)(187)(i)(B)(2)

and (256)(i)(B)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(187) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(2) Rule 74.1, adopted on November 12, 1991.

* * * * *

(256) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 50, adopted on August 13, 1997.

[FR Doc. 98-32417 Filed 12-4-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P