[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