Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, South Coast Air Quality Management District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-222-0198; FRL-6506-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan Revision, South Coast Air Quality Management

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions provide for the

exemption of sources from visible emission limits in the South Coast

Air Quality Management District. EPA has evaluated these revisions and

is proposing to disapprove these revisions to the California SIP

because the revisions are not consistent with applicable Clean Air Act

(Act) requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 1999.

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

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

for the rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX

office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule 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, D.C. 20460

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

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

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Bowlin, Rulemaking Office

(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

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

1188.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability of EPA's Proposed Action

This document addresses EPA's proposed disapproval of South Coast

Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 401, Visible Emissions,

as adopted by SCAQMD on September 11, 1998. SCAQMD Rule 401 was

submitted by the California Air Resources Board to EPA on January 12,

1999.

This Federal Register action for the SCAQMD excludes the Los

Angeles County portion of the Southeast Desert AQMA, otherwise known as

the Antelope Valley Region in Los Angeles County, which is now under

the jurisdiction of the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District

as of July 1, 1997.1

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

\1\ The State has recently changed the names and boundaries of

the air basins located within the Southeast Desert Modified AQMA.

Pursuant to State regulation the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area

is now part of the Salton Sea Air Basin (17 Cal. Code. Reg.

Sec. 60114); the Victor Valley/Barstow Region in San Bernardino

County and the Antelope Valley Region in Los Angeles County are a

part of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (17 Cal. Code. Reg. Sec. 60109).

In addition, in 1996 the California Legislature established a new

local air agency, the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control

District, to have the responsibility for local air pollution

planning and measures in the Antelope Valley Region (California

Health & Safety Code Sec. 40106).

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

II. Background of the State Submittal

On January 29, 1985 EPA approved into the SIP a version of SCAQMD

Rule 401, Visible Emissions, that had been adopted by SCAQMD on March

2, 1984. Revisions to this rule were subsequently adopted on April 7,

1989 and submitted to EPA on March 26, 1990. EPA did not act on the

1990 submittal of Rule 401, which is now superseded by the January 12,

1999 submittal.

EPA found the January 12, 1999 submittal of SCAQMD Rule 401,

Visible

[[Page 69212]]

Emissions, to be complete on March 19, 1999, pursuant to EPA's

completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix

V.2

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

\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).

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

The submitted version of SCAQMD Rule 401 includes the following

revisions to the version of Rule 401 approved into the federally

enforceable SIP in 1985:

Adds temporary provision that establishes Ringelmann 2

standard for commercial underfired charbroilers

Adds operational requirements for diesel pile-driving

hammers subject to Ringelmann 2 versus Ringelmann 1 standard

Adds exemption for visible emission generating equipment

used in training visible emission evaluators

Adds exemption for ships performing emergency boiler

shutdowns, tests required by governmental agencies, or maneuvers for

safety purposes

Adds exemption for agricultural operations

The following provides a brief discussion of EPA's evaluation of

SCAQMD Rule 401. A more detailed discussion of EPA's evaluation of the

submitted rule can be found in the Technical Support Document (November

1999), which is available from the EPA Region IX office.

III. EPA's Analysis of State's Submittal

In determining the approvability of a submitted rule, EPA must

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

EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40

CFR part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). These provisions require that submitted rules

are enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP's control strategy.

EPA has evaluated SCAQMD Rule 401, Visible Emissions, as submitted

on January 12, 1999, against the relevant requirements of the CAA and

federal regulations. EPA has interpreted some aspects of the CAA and

regulations in policy and guidance. EPA has identified several

deficiencies with the State's submittal, as follows:

A. The State Has Not Demonstrated Compliance With Section 193 of the

CAA

For SIP provisions which EPA approved before November 15, 1990,

section 193 prohibits SIP modifications applicable within a

nonattainment area unless the modification ensures equivalent or

greater emissions reductions of the pollutant for which the area is

designated nonattainment.

EPA approved an earlier version of SCAQMD Rule 401 as part of the

SIP in 1985, prior to the enactment of the 1990 amendments to the Act

(i.e., prior to November 15, 1990). SCAQMD has jurisdiction over the

South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley Planning Area, which are

serious nonattainment areas for PM-10. Thus, the prohibition in section

193 applies to Rule 401.

SCAQMD states, in documents accompanying the 1999 submittal of Rule

401, that the revisions to the rule would have no net effect on

emissions of particulate matter. However, SCAQMD does not provide an

analyis or any data to support this conclusion, and EPA does not agree

with SCAQMD's conclusion with regard to the new exemption for

agricultural operations. Under submitted Rule 401, agricultural sources

which were subject to a 20% opacity limit are no longer subject to any

visible emissions standard and may now emit up to 100% opacity.

Increases in visible emissions correlate to increases in

particulate matter emissions. Therefore, particulate matter emissions

would likely increase from agricultural operations. For this reason,

SCAQMD has failed to show that the SIP revision will insure equivalent

or greater reductions of PM-10 as required by section 193 of the CAA.

B. The State Has Not Demonstrated Compliance With Section 110(l) of the

CAA

Section 110(l) of the Act provides that EPA cannot approve a

revision to a SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or

any other applicable requirement of the Act. Section 110(l) applies to

SIP revisions affecting both attainment or unclassifiable areas, as

well as nonattainment areas.

As discussed above, the revisions to SCAQMD Rule 401, particularly

the new exemption for agricultural operations, would likely allow

increased particulate matter emissions into the air. Therefore, EPA

cannot approve the revisions to Rule 401 unless SCAQMD provides an

adequate demonstration that the SIP revisions will not interfere with

attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

C. The SIP Revision Does Not Meet the Requirements of Section 189 of

the CAA

Section 189(a) of the CAA requires moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas to adopt reasonably available control measures (RACM), including

reasonably available control technology (RACT) for stationary sources

of PM-10. Section 189(b) of the CAA requires serious nonattainment

areas to adopt best available control measures (BACM), including best

available control technology (BACT).

As a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, SCAQMD must apply the

requirements for RACT and BACT to stationary sources of PM-10. EPA

believes that the requirement to implement RACT and BACT would preclude

broadly exempting agricultural sources of particulate matter from

visible emissions limits, where such exemption would likely result in

increased particulate matter emissions. Therefore, EPA finds the

submitted revisions to SCAQMD Rule 401 to be inconsistent with the

requirements of CAA section 189.

III. Proposed Action

For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to disapprove

California's January 12, 1999 submittal of SCAQMD Rule 401, Visible

Emissions. The effect of this action, once final, will be that the

version of Rule 401 that was approved by EPA into the SIP in 1985 will

remain in the federally enforceable SIP. Specifically, this means that

agricultural operatons will be subject to federally enforceable 20%

opacity limits. Because the 1985 SIP-approved Rule 401 will remain

federally enforceable, this disapproval action does not trigger

sanctions or FIP clocks under section 179 of the CAA.

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.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

proposed regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces

Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and Executive

[[Page 69213]]

Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive

Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure

``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''

``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in Executive

Order 13132 to include regulations that 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.'' Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has

federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the process of developing the

proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has

federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency

consults with State and local officials early in the process of

developing the proposed regulation.

This proposed rule will 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.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 13132 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

Executive Order 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

Executive Order 13045 because it 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

proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities

of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section

3(b) of Executive Order 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 proposed rule will not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities because disapprovals of SIP

revisions under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air

Act do not affect any existing requirements applicable to small

entities. Any existing Federal requirements will remain in place.

Federal disapproval of the State SIP submittal will not affect State-

enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal would not

impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this

action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

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, 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 proposed disapproval action 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. The proposed disapproval will

not change existing requirements and imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector, result from this proposed

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

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 24, 1999.

Laura Yoshii,

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 99-32076 Filed 12-9-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P