[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44211-44213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22200]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 102-0093 ; FRL -6144-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision; El Dorado County Air Pollution
Control District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.
These revisions concern the control of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) from stationary internal combustion (IC) engines. The
intended effect of proposing limited approval and limited disapproval
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 these proposed rules will incorporate
these rules into the Federally approved SIP. EPA has evaluated these
rules and is proposing a simultaneous limited approval and limited
disapproval under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA actions on SIP
submittals and general rulemaking authority. These revisions, while
strengthening the SIP, do not fully meet the CAA provisions regarding
plan submissions and requirements for nonattainment areas.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing on
or before September 17, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report of the rules are
available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal
business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are also available for
inspection at the following locations:
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.
El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, 2850 Fairlane
Court, Building C, Placerville, CA 95667.
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, 1947 Galileo Court,
Suite 103, Davis, CA 95616.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas C. Canaday, Rulemaking Office
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1202.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Applicability
The rules being proposed for limited approval and limited
disapproval into the SIP are El Dorado County Air Pollution Control
District (EDCAPCD) Rule 233-Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) Rule 2.32-
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines. Rule 233 was submitted by the
EDCAPCD to EPA on October 20, 1994. Rule 2.32 was submitted by the
YSAQMD to EPA on September 28, 1994.
II. Background
On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA)
were enacted. Pub. L. 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 proposed rule 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 and
provides preliminary guidance on the requirements of section 182(f).
The November 25, 1992, action 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 sections 182(c), (d), and (e))
as are applied to major stationary sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), in moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas. Both
EDCAPCD and YSAQMD are classified as serious; 1 therefore
these areas were subject to the RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2)
and the November 15, 1992 deadline cited below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EDCAPCD and YSAQMD retained their designation 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 55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 182(b)(2) requires submittal of RACT rules for major
stationary sources of VOC (and NOX) emissions (not covered
by a pre-enactment control technologies guidelines (CTG) document or a
post-enactment 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 as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than May 31, 1995.
This document addresses EPA's proposed action for El Dorado County
Air Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD) Rule 233-Stationary Internal
Combustion Engines, and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
(YSAQMD) Rule 2.32-Stationary Internal Combustion Engines. EDCAPCD
adopted Rule 233 on October 18, 1994. YSAQMD adopted Rule 2.32 on
August 10, 1994. The State of California submitted Rule 233 on October
20, 1994, and Rule 2.32 on September 28,
[[Page 44212]]
1994. Both rules was found to be complete on October 21, 1994, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX emissions contribute to the production of ground
level ozone and smog. EDCAPCD Rule 233 and YSAQMD Rule 2.32 specify
exhaust emission standards for NOX and carbon monoxide (CO).
The rules were adopted as part of EDCAPCD's and YSAQMD'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.
III. 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). EPA's interpretation of these requirements,
which forms the basis for this action, appears in the NOX
Supplement (57 FR 55620) and various other 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Among 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of assisting State and local agencies in
developing NOX RACT rules, EPA prepared the NOX
Supplement to the General Preamble. In the NOX Supplement,
EPA provides preliminary 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 meet Federal
RACT requirements and are fully enforceable and strengthen or maintain
the SIP.
There is currently no version of either El Dorado County Air
Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD) Rule 233-Stationary Internal
Combustion Engines, or Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
(YSAQMD) Rule 2.32-Stationary Internal Combustion Engines in the SIP.
The submitted rules include the following provisions:
General provisions including applicability, exemptions,
and definitions.
Exhaust emissions standards for oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO).
Administrative and monitoring requirements including
compliance schedule, reporting requirements, monitoring and
recordkeeping, and test methods.
In evaluating the rules, EPA must also determine whether the
section 182(b) requirement for RACT implementation by May 31, 1995 is
met. In a Proposed Determination of Reasonably Available Control
Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines dated December, 1997, the State
of California Air Resources Board (CARB) determined RACT limits for IC
engines rated at 50 brake horsepower or more to be 50 parts per million
volume (ppmv) for rich-burn spark-ignited engines, 125 ppmv for lean-
burn spark-ignited engines, and 350 ppmv for diesel engines. These
limits were determined based on previously implemented regulatory
control in Ventura County and San Diego 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. Both EDCAPCD Rule 233 and YSAQMD
Rule 2.32 provide three options for demonstrating compliance. In each
rule the first option, which applies to existing IC engines that meet
the limits by May 31, 1995, sets emission limits of 640 ppmv, 740 ppmv
and 700 ppmv for rich-burn spark-ignited engines, lean-burn spark-
ignited engines, and diesel engines respectively. The EPA has
determined that these limits do not meet RACT for IC engines.
Although the monitoring and recordkeeping provisions of EDCAPCD
Rule 233 and YSAQMD Rule 2.32 will strengthen the SIP, these rules
contain deficiencies related to the emissions limits for oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), as well as other deficiencies. A more
detailed discussion of the sources controlled, the controls required,
explanation of why these controls fail to represent RACT, and other
rule deficiencies can be found in the Technical Support Documents
(TSD's) prepared by EPA for each rule. Both of these TSD's are dated
July 21, 1998.
Because of the above deficiencies, EPA cannot grant full approval
of these rules under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the
submitted rules are not composed of separable parts which meet all the
applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval
of the rules under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited
approval of the submitted rules under section 110(k)(3) in light of
EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations
necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval
is limited because EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited
disapproval. In order to strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited
approval of EDCAPCD's submitted Rule 233 and YSAQMD's submitted Rule
2.32 under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA as meeting the
requirements of section 110(a) and part D. At the same time, EPA is
also proposing a limited disapproval of these rules because they
contain deficiencies which must be corrected in order to fully meet the
requirements of sections 182(a)(2), 182(b)(2), 182(f), and part D of
the CAA. Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a
submission under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment,
based on the submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements
required by the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions
set forth in section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected
within 18 months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two
sanctions available to the Administrator: highway funding and offsets.
The 18 month period referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the
effective date of EPA's final limited disapproval. Moreover, the final
disapproval triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under section 110(c). It should be noted that the rules covered by this
document have been adopted and are currently in effect in their
respective districts. EPA's
[[Page 44213]]
final limited disapproval action will not prevent the EDCAPCD, the
YSAQMD, or EPA from enforcing these rules.
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.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
The proposed rules are not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks,'' because they are not ``economically significant'' actions
under E.O. 12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301, 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 any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its action concerning SIPS on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. 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
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 approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
record keeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: July 31, 1998.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 98-22200 Filed 8-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
