Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0237-0008
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2008-07-31T04:00Z

[Federal Register: May 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 91)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 26355-26357]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09my08-23]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0237; FRL-8564-2]

 
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Ventura County 
Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) emissions from stationary internal combustion engines. 
We are approving a local rule that regulates 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.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by June 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0237, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents 
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). 
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment 
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco D[oacute][ntilde]ez, EPA 
Region IX, (415) 972-3956, Donez.Francisco@epa.gov.

[[Page 26356]]

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule
    D. 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 shows the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                Rule No.           Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VCAPCD.................................       74.9  Stationary Internal                 11/08/05        03/10/06
                                                     Combustion Engines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 30, 2006, 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 74.9 into the SIP on October 25, 2002 
(67 FR 65501).

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

    NOX helps produce ground-level 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 74.9 regulates NOX 
and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from stationary internal combustion 
engines rated at 50 or more horsepower. The submitted rule contains 
three major revisions, originally suggested by EPA in the technical 
support document (TSD) for the SIP-approved version.
     The submitted rule requires biennial source tests and 
quarterly NOX screening tests with hand-held instrument, 
rather than relying exclusively on annual source testing.
     The submitted rule requires the installation of non-
resettable elapsed operating time meters in order to qualify for rule 
exemptions involving engine operating hours.
     The requirement for biennial source testing to verify 
compliance with all emission limits has been clarified in the submitted 
rule.
    In addition, the revised rule includes a new limitation on CO 
emissions for new engines. CO emissions are limited to 2000 ppmv for 
all stationary engines installed after adoption of the amended rule. 
EPA's 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 
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines 
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see 
sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing 
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The VCAPCD regulates an 
ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 74.9 must 
fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use 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 Spark-Ignited 
Internal Combustion Engines,'' 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. We note 
in the TSD that the revised rule (subsection D.5) exempts engines used 
in agricultural operations. Such an exemption is generally 
impermissible under the RACT requirements of CAA Sections 182(a)(2) and 
(f). However, the District submitted a convincing demonstration that 
there are no agricultural sources within the VCAPCD that meet the major 
source threshold for NOX emissions, and that therefore the 
agricultural exemption does not violate RACT requirements. The TSD has 
more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local 
agency modifies the rule.

D. 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.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office

[[Page 26357]]

of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 22, 2008.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8-10405 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P