Federal Register: PROPOSED RULES Air programs; approval and promulgation; State plans for designated facilities and pollutants: [40 CFR Part 52]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Environmental Protection Agency

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 52

CA ID: [CA295-0439; FRL-7626-6]

NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES

ACTION: Air programs; approval and promulgation; State plans for designated facilities and pollutants:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

DATES: Any comments must arrive by March 26, 2004.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources 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.

SUMMARY: California,

SUPPLEMENTAL 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 is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

C. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1.Submitted Rule Rule
Local agency No. Rule title Adopted Submitted SDCAPCD...................................... 69.4 Stationary Reciprocating 07/30/03 11/04/03 Internal Combustion Engines Reasonably Available Control Technology. [[Page 8614]]

On December 23, 2003, this rule submittal was found to meet 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 a version of Rule 69.4 into the SIP on January 22, 1997. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District adopted revisions to the SIPapproved version on November 15, 2000 and CARB submitted them to us on March 14, 2001. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

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

NOX contributes to the production of groundlevel ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control NOX emissions. Rule 69.4 regulates NOX emissions from stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines at facilities emitting 50 tons or more per year of NOX. The proposed revisions require all engines subject to the emission limits of the rule to record specified operating parameters, to have a nonresettable totalizing fuel or hour meter, and to be tested at least once every 24 months. Any existing gaseousfueled engine rated at 1,000 brake horsepower or greater and operated more than 2,000 hours per year must be tested annually. In addition, an owner or operator of such engines newly installed after the date of this rule revision will be required to continuously monitor operating parameters to ensure compliance with the emission standards of the rule. Operators of large new engines (5,000 brake horsepower or larger), operating 6,000 hours or more per year, will be required to continuously monitor emissions. The revisions also specify the averaging period for determining compliance and provide minor clarifications and updates. The TSD has more information about this rule.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 69.4 must fulfill RACT.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:

1. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.

2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).

3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

4. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary SparkIgnited Internal Combustion Engines, State of California Air Resources Board, November, 2001.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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 action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve 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 1044).

This proposed 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.).
[[Page 8615]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: February 9, 2004.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 044128 Filed 22404; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Thomas C. Canaday, EPA Region IX, (415) 9474121, canaday.tom@epa.gov.