[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6049-6051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2436]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA37-10-6602; FRL-5148-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision; Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. 
The revision concerns the control of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from 
internal combustion (I/C) engines. The intended effect of proposing 
limited approval and limited disapproval of this rule 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 this rule into the 
federally approved SIP. EPA has evaluated this rule 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 because these revisions, while strengthening the 
SIP, also 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 March 3, 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 IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Copies of the rule revision and EPA's evaluation report of each 
rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office 
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions 
are also available for inspection at the following locations:

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, Rule Development 
Section, 26 Castilian Drive B-23, Goleta, CA 93117.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Colombo, Rulemaking Section 
[[Page 6050]] (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 and provides preliminary guidance on the 
requirements of section 182(f). The November 25, 1992, notice 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. Santa Barbara 
County is classified as moderate;1 therefore this area was subject 
to the RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2) and the November 15, 1992 
deadline, cited below.

    \1\The Santa Barbara County Area retained its designation of 
nonattainment and was 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 Santa Barbara 
County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), Rule 333, Control of 
Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. SBCAPCD 
adopted Rule 333 on December 10, 1991. The State of California 
submitted the rule being acted on in this document on June 19, 1992. 
Rule 333 was found to be complete on August 27, 1992 pursuant to EPA's 
completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix 
V2 and is being proposed for approval into the SIP.

    \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. Rule 333 controls emissions of NOX, carbon 
monoxide (CO), and reactive organic compounds (ROC) from internal 
combustion engines in Santa Barbara County used in a wide variety of 
applications, but primarily at oil and gas production and processing 
facilities. The engines are used to power various types of industrial 
equipment such as oil well rod pumps, rock crushing equipment, conveyor 
belts, gas compressors, waste water treatment pumps, etc. Rule 333 was 
adopted as part of SBCAPCD'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). 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 major 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 has issued alternative control technique documents (ACTs) that 
identify alternative controls for all categories of stationary sources 
of NOX. The ACT documents 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.
    Rule 333 applies to existing and new I/C engines with rated brake 
horsepower of greater than or equal to 50 which are fueled by natural 
gas, field gas, liquified petroleum gas, diesel, gasoline, or any other 
liquid fuel. The rule limits NOX emissions from noncyclic rich-
burn engines to 50 parts per million (ppm) and from noncyclic lean-burn 
engines to 125 ppm. For cyclic engines, the NOX limit is also 50 
ppm, while the limit for diesel engines is 8.4 grams per brake 
horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr). Final compliance with these limits is 
required by the date of adoption for new engines and March 3, 1994 for 
existing cyclic and noncyclic engines.
    The NOX limits suggested by the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB) as reasonably available control technology (RACT) for I/C 
engines are 50 ppm (90% reduction) for rich-burn engines, 125 ppm (80% 
reduction) for lean-burn engines, and 8.4 g/bhp-hr for diesel engines. 
These limits were recommended using information regarding average, 
actual, uncontrolled levels and previous regulatory control levels in 
Ventura County, the South Coast Basin, and Santa Barbara County. EPA 
agrees that these limits, which are incorporated in Rule 333, are 
consistent with the Agency's guidance and policy for making RACT 
determinations in terms of general cost-effectiveness, emission 
reductions, and environmental impacts, and represent RACT for these 
sources in Santa Barbara County. [[Page 6051]] 
    In evaluating the rule, EPA must also determine whether the section 
182(b) requirement for RACT implementation by May 31, 1995 is met. The 
rule is written such that final compliance is required 2.5 years after 
the date of adoption. Since the rule was adopted in December 1991, 
final compliance is required by March 1994, thereby meeting the section 
182(b) requirement of the CAA.
    Although Rule 333, Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal 
Combustion Engines, will strengthen the SIP, the rule contains 
deficiencies related primarily to the lack of Federal enforceability. 
These deficiencies include inconsistent applicability cutoffs and 
exemptions, unenforceable provisions in definitions, inconsistent 
emission limit requirements, unenforceable alternative emission control 
plan provisions, and alternative compliance schedule provisions. A more 
detailed discussion of the sources controlled, the controls required, 
justification for why these controls represent RACT, and rule 
deficiencies can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for 
Rule 333, dated November 1994.
    Because of the above deficiencies, EPA cannot grant full approval 
of this rule under section 110(k)(3) and Part D. Also, because the 
submitted rule is not composed of separable parts which meet all the 
applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval 
of the rule under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited 
approval of the submitted rule 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 SBCAPCD's submitted Rule 333 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 
this rule because it contains deficiencies which must be corrected in 
order to fully meet the requirements of section 182(a)(2), section 
182(b)(2), section 182(f), and Part D of the Act. 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 rule covered by this NPRM has been adopted by 
the SBCAPCD and is currently in effect in Santa Barbara county. EPA's 
final limited disapproval action will not prevent SBCAPCD or EPA from 
enforcing this rule.
    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.

Regulatory Process

    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-for-profit 
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
of less than 50,000.
    Limited approvals under section 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, 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. section 
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, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: January 23, 1995.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-2436 Filed 1-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W