20066 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

and Bartlett Cove. The regatta consists

of three races of two, nine-men racing

shells. The event is expected to draw up

to 100 spectator craft. The Coast Guard

expects no significant difference in the

race from years past. This proposal

would give the race sponsors greater

flexibility in scheduling race times

around the prevailing tidal conditions.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments

The Coast Guard proposes to

permanently amend the Special Local

Regulation found in 33 CFR § 100.101

governing the Harvard-Yale Regatta. The

existing regulation provides for an

effective period of 10 a.m. until 1:30

p.m. for the regulated area. Because a

race of this nature is dependent upon

certain tidal conditions which differ in

time from year to year, the Coast Guard

proposes to delete the specific time

period from the regulation. A provision

allowing for annual notice of the race

time would be made a part of the

permanent regulation. This notice of

specific race times for any given year

would be published in a Local Notice to

Mariners and the Federal Register prior

to the event.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866, and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget under that order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact to be so

minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT, is unnecessary. This conclusion is

based on the limited duration of the

race, the extensive advisories that have

been and will be made to the affected

maritime community, and the fact that

the event is taking place in an area

where the only commercial interests

affected are a few marinas. This

regulation also will allow vessels to

transit to and from these affected

marinas under Coast Guard escort or as

otherwise directed by the Patrol

Commander.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include

independently owned and operated

small businesses that are not dominant

in their fields and that otherwise qualify

as ‘‘small business concerns’’ under

section 3 of the Small Business Act (15

U.S.C. 632).

For reasons set forth in the above

Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard

certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this

proposal, if adopted, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612 and has

determined that this proposal does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard is considering the

environmental impact of this proposal,

and it is expected that preparation of an

environmental impact statement will

not be necessary. An Environmental

Assessment and a Finding of No

Significant Impact will be made

available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

Marine safety, Navigation (water),

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Waterways.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33

CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 100

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 USC 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and

33 CFR 100.35.

2. In section 100.101 paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 100.101 Harvard-Yale Regatta, Thames

River, New London, CT.

* * * * *

(b) Effective period. This regulation

will be effective annually on the first or

second Saturday in June at times to be

determined and as published in the

Coast Guard Local Notice to Mariners

and a Federal Register Notice. In case

of postponement, this regulation will be

in effect the following day.

* * * * *

Dated: March 10, 1995.

J.L. Linnon,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–10068 Filed 4–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 78–1–6814; FRL–5195–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; Placer

County Air Pollution Control District

and Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone

which concern the control of oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) from gas turbines and

internal combustion engines. The

intended effect of proposing approval of

these rules is to regulate emissions of

NOX in accordance with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EPA’s final action on this notice of

proposed rulemaking will incorporate

these rules into the federally approved

SIP. EPA has evaluated these rules and

is proposing to approve them under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

actions on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards, and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing on or

before May 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section

(A–5–3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Please refer

to document number CA 78–1–6814 in

all correspondence.

Copies of the rules and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20067

1The Sacramento Metro and Ventura County

areas retained their designations of nonattainment

and were classified by operation of law pursuant to

sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the date of

enactment of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November

6, 1991).

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).

3Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

Post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988).

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

Placer County Air Pollution Control

District, 11464 B Avenue, Auburn, CA

95603.

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District, 669 County Square Drive,

Ventura, CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Duane F. James, Rulemaking Section

(A–5–3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, Telephone:

(415) 744–1191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules being proposed for approval

into the California SIP include: Placer

County Air Pollution Control District’s

(PCAPCD) Rule 250, ‘‘Stationary Gas

Turbines,’’ and Ventura County Air

Pollution Control District’s (VCAPCD)

Rule 74.9, ‘‘Stationary Internal

Combustion Engines.’’ These rules were

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (ARB) to EPA on

March 29, 1994 (Rule 74.9) and October

19, 1994 (Rule 250).

Background

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) were

enacted. Public Law 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

The air quality planning requirements

for the reduction of NOX emissions

through reasonably available control

technology (RACT) are set out in section

182(f) of the CAA. On November 25,

1992, EPA published a NPRM entitled,

‘‘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)

which describes the requirements of

section 182(f). The NOX Supplement

should be referred to for further

information on the NOX requirements

and is incorporated into this document

by reference.

Section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act

requires States to apply the same

requirements to major stationary sources

of NOX (‘‘major’’ as defined in section

302 and section 182(c), (d), and (e)) as

are applied to major stationary sources

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs),

in moderate or above ozone

nonattainment areas. The Placer County

part of the Sacramento Metro Area is

classified as serious, and the Ventura

County area is classified as severe; 1

therefore these areas were subject to the

RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2),

cited below, and the November 15, 1992

deadline.

Section 182(b)(2) requires submittal of

RACT rules for major stationary sources

of VOC emissions (not covered by a preenactment control technologies

guidelines (CTG) document or a postenactment CTG document) by

November 15, 1992. There were no NOX

CTGs issued before enactment and EPA

has not issued a CTG document for any

NOX sources since enactment of the

CAA. The RACT rules covering NOX

sources and submitted as SIP revisions

are expected to require final installation

of the actual NOX controls by May 31,

1995, for those sources where

installation by that date is practicable.

This document addresses EPA’s

proposed action for PCAPCD’s Rule 250,

‘‘Stationary Gas Turbines,’’ and

VCAPCD’s Rule 74.9, ‘‘Stationary

Internal Combustion Engines.’’ Rule 250

was adopted by the PCAPCD on October

17, 1994, and Rule 74.9 was adopted by

the VCAPCD on December 21, 1993.

These submitted rules were found to be

complete on June 3, 1994 (Rule 74.9)

and October 21, 1994 (Rule 250)

pursuant of EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V 2 and are being proposed for

approval into the SIP.

NOX emissions contribute to the

production of ground level ozone and

smog. Rule 250 controls NOX emission

from gas turbines, and Rule 74.9

controls NOX, carbon monoxide (CO),

and VOC emissions from internal

combustion engines. The rules were

adopted as part of PCAPCD’s and

VCAPCD’s efforts to achieve the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for ozone and in response to

the CAA requirements cited above. The

following is EPA’s evaluation and

proposed action for these rules.

EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In determining the approvability of a

NOX 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). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for this action,

appears in various EPA policy guidance

documents.3 Among these provisions is

the requirement that a NOX rule must,

at a minimum, provide for the

implementation of RACT for stationary

sources of NOX emissions.

For the purposes of assisting state and

local agencies in developing NOX RACT

rules, EPA prepared the NOX

supplement to the General Preamble,

cited above (57 FR 55620). In the NOX

supplement, EPA provides guidance on

how RACT will be determined for

stationary sources of NOX emissions.

While most of the guidance issued by

EPA on what constitutes RACT for

stationary sources has been directed

towards application for VOC sources,

much of the guidance is also applicable

to RACT for stationary sources of NOX

(see section 4.5 of the NOX

Supplement). In addition, pursuant to

section 183(c), EPA is issuing

alternative control technique documents

(ACTs), that identify alternative controls

for all categories of stationary sources of

NOX. The ACT documents will provide

information on control technology for

stationary sources that emit or have the

potential to emit 25 tons per year or

more of NOX. However, the ACTs will

not establish a presumptive norm for

what is considered RACT for stationary

sources of NOX. In general, the guidance

documents cited above, as well as other

relevant and applicable guidance

documents, have been set forth to

ensure that submitted NOX RACT rules

are fully enforceable and strengthen or

maintain the SIP.

The California ARB has published a

RACT/BARCT guidance document for

gas turbines entitled, ‘‘Determination of

Reasonably Available Control

Technology and Best Available Retrofit

Control Technology for the Control of

Oxides of Nitrogen from Stationary Gas

Turbines’’ (May 18, 1992). The guidance

document defines RACT as an emission

limit of 42 parts per million volume

(ppmv) for gas-fired units and an

emission limit of 65 ppmv for oil-fired

units. BARCT for gas-fired units is

defined as an emission limit of 42 ppmv

for 0.3 to 2.9 Megawatt (MW) units, 25

ppmv for 2.9 to 10 MW units, 9 ppmv

for units greater than 10 MW using

selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and
20068 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

4 VCAPCD’s Rule 74.9 references California ARB

Method 100, which has been cited for certain

deficiencies by the Emissions Measurement Branch.

The California ARB has committed to correcting

these deficiencies, and final approval of Rule 74.9

is contingent on these corrections.

15 ppmv for units greater than 10 MW

not using SCR. The corresponding

emission limits for oil-fired units are 65

ppmv, 65 ppmv, 25 ppmv, and 42

ppmv, respectively. PCAPCD’s Rule 250

incorporates the BARCT limits for gas

turbines and is consistent with all of the

guidance’s other requirements. The rule

contains adequate recordkeeping

requirements, and the appropriate test

methods for compliance determinations

are referenced. The exemptions

provided in the rule are consistent with

EPA guidelines. The rule requires final

compliance by May 31, 1995. A more

detailed discussion of the sources

controlled, the controls required, and

the justification for why these controls

represent RACT can be found in the

Technical Support Document (TSD) for

Rule 250, dated November 28, 1994.

The NOX limits suggested by the

California Air Resources Board (ARB) as

RACT for IC engines rated at 50 brake

horsepower or more are 50 ppmv (90%

reduction) for rich-burn engines, 125

ppmv (80% reduction) for lean-burn

engines, and 610 ppmv for diesel

engines. These limits were

recommended using information

regarding average, actual, uncontrolled

levels and previous regulatory control in

Ventura County, the South Coast Basin,

and Santa Barbara County. EPA agrees

that these limits are consistent with the

Agency’s guidance and policy for

making RACT determinations in terms

of general cost-effectiveness, emission

reductions, and environmental impacts.

VCAPCD’s Rule 74.9 has already been

incorporated into the SIP and its RACT

limits are consistent with those

recommended by the California ARB.

However, this most recent submittal

includes the following significant

changes from the current SIP:

1. The provisions of the rule now

apply to IC engines rated at 50 hp and

above, operating on any gaseous fuel,

including liquid petroleum gas (LPG) or

diesel fuel.

2. The NOX emission standards for

rich-burn engines and lean-burn engines

have been reduced to 25 ppmv and 45

ppmv, respectively. Rich-burn engines

and lean-burn engines that operate on

waste gas are no longer exempt from the

rule and must comply with the rule’s

old emission limits of 50 ppmv and 125

ppmv, respectively. An 80 ppmv

standard for diesel engines and

emission limits for CO and VOCs have

also been added to the rule.

3. The rule prohibits the discharge of

ammonia in excess of 20 ppmv from any

emission control device.

4. The provisions allowing groups of

operators to combine their engines and

resources and be considered a single

operator have been deleted.

5. The provisions allowing the results

from NOX control demonstration

projects on lean-burn engines in other

counties, to be used by sources in the

VCAPCD to satisfy the requirements of

the rule, have been deleted.

6. The Cost-Effectiveness Certification

provision has been deleted since it is no

longer necessary.

7. The rule now requires annual

reports of fuel usage, source test results,

and other operational data about each

engine before permit renewal.

8. The Special Circumstances

provisions that allow variances from the

rule have been deleted. EPA Method 20

with the District’s modifications is no

longer used for compliance

determinations.

9. The rule’s definitions and

exemptions have been updated.

The California ARB is in the process

of adopting the more stringent emission

standards of Rule 74.9 as BARCT for IC

engines. A more detailed discussion of

the sources controlled, the controls

required, and the justification for why

these controls represent RACT can be

found in the Technical Support

Document (TSD) for Rule 74.9, dated

December 5, 1994.

EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations and EPA policy. Therefore,

PCAPCD’s Rule 250, ‘‘Stationary Gas

Turbines,’’ and VCAPCD Rule 74.9,

‘‘Stationary Internal Combustion

Engines,’’ are being proposed for

approval under section 110(k)(3) of the

CAA as meeting the requirements of

section 110(a), section 182(b)(2), section

182(f) and the NOX Supplement to the

General Preamble.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

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.4

Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on affected small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

The OMB has exempted this

regulatory action from review under

Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–10059 Filed 4–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

43 CFR Parts 426 and 427

[IN: 1006–AA32]

Acreage Limitation and Water

Conservation Rules and Regulations

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public hearings on the

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In response to a September

1993 contract for settlement of a lawsuit

filed by the Natural Resources Defense

Council, National Wildlife Federation,

California Natural Resources Federation,