Skip to Content


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern County Air Pollution Control District, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution District, Modoc County Air Pollution Control District

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


Direct final rule.


EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD), Modoc County Air Pollution Control District (MCAPCD), and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution District (MBUAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern visible emissions (VE) from many different sources of air pollution. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).


This rule is effective on September 17, 2001 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 16, 2001. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take effect.


Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington D.C. 20460;

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Start Printed Page 37152Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814;

Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 2700 M Street, Suite 302, Bakersfield, CA 93301;

Modoc County Air Pollution Control, 202 West 4th Street, Alturas, CA 96101; and,

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution District, 24580 Silver Cloud Court, Monterey, CA 93940-6536.

Start Further Info


Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1226.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information


Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.

D. Public comment and final action.

III. Background Information

Why were these rules submitted?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

 Table 1.—Submitted Rules

Local agencyRule No.Rule titleAdoptedSubmitted
KCAPCD401Visible Emissions11/29/933/29/94
MCAPCD4.1Visible Emissions1/15/8912/31/90
MBUAPCD400Visible Emissions3/22/005/26/00

On the following dates, these rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V: June 3, 1994, KCAPCD Rule 401; October 6, 2000, MBUAPCD Rule 400; and, February 28, 1991, MCAPCD Rule 4.1. These criteria must be met before formal EPA review may begin.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

There are versions of all of these rule within the SIP. In all cases, the submitted rule consolidates several SIP rules into a single rule format. The TSD for each rule provides a detailed discussion of each consolidation. Only MBUAPCD adopted and submitted prior versions of Rule 400. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version of Rule 400, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

Each of these rules limit the emissions of visible air contaminants of any type; usually, but not always particulate matter from combustion sources and industrial sites. Specifically, these rules prohibit emissions beyond a defined opacity standard. The TSD has more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must meet Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) requirements for nonattainment areas (see section 189), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The KCAPCD regulates an PM nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 401 must fulfill RACM. MBUAPCD and MCAPCD meet the PM standard and are not required to meet RACM requirements.

We used the following guidance and policy documents to define our specific enforceability and RACT requirements:

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.

2. “Issues Relating to Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register document,” (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, and SIP relaxations. KCAPCD and MBUAPCD rules contain agricultural exemptions that are narrowly construed by each district. Consequently, these exempted sources are a neglible source of emissions in each district. The TSDs have more information on our respective evaluations.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules. In particular, MCAPCD has retained a 40% opacity standard. While MCAPCD need not meet the RACM 20% opacity standard given its PM attainment status, almost all air districts in California have adopted 20% opacity standard. This suggests that the standard is readily achievable and should be considered by MCAPCD.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by August 16, 2001, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on September 17, 2001. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Background Information

Why Were These Rules Submitted?

Visible emission rules with their opacity standards are basic components of an air quality regulation program and a general RACM requirement for PM-10 regulations. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VE emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency VE rules.Start Printed Page 37153

Table 2.—PM-10 Nonattainment Milestones

November 15, 1990Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
December 10, 1993Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that PM-10 nonattainment areas implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM) by this date.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This 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 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 approves 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 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), nor will it 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), because it merely approves 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 rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This 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.).

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. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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 September 17, 2001. 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).)

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

  • Environmental protection
  • Air pollution control
  • Hydrocarbons
  • Incorporation by reference
  • Intergovernmental relations
  • Ozone
  • Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
  • Volatile organic compounds
End List of Subjects Start Signature

Dated: June 8, 2001.

Keith Takata,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

End Signature Start Amendment Part

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

End Amendment Part Start Part


End Part Start Amendment Part

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

End Amendment Part Start Authority

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

End Authority

Subpart F—California

Start Amendment Part

2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(182)(i)(F)( 4), (196)(i)(F)(4), and (279)(i)(B)(3), to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Identification of plan.
* * * * *

(c) * * *

(182) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) * * *

(4) Rule 4.1, adopted on January 15, 1989.

* * * * *

(196) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) * * *

(4) Rule 401, adopted on April 18, 1972 and amended on November 29, 1993.

* * * * *

(279) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(3) Rule 400, adopted July 1, 1969 and amended on March 22, 2000.

End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 01-17702 Filed 7-16-01; 8:45 am]