[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8724-8727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-4398]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 256-0319a; FRL-7139-1]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern 
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the 
Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the 
emission of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from internal combustion 
engines. We are approving a local rule that regulates this emission 
source under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 29, 2002, without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 28, 2002. If we 
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

[[Page 8725]]


ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal 
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule revisions 
and TSD at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 2700 ``M'' Street, Suite 
302, Bakersfield, CA 93301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.

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. Public comment and final action
III. Background Information
    Why was this rule submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the date that it was 
adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Local agency                   Rule #               Rule title               Adopted   Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD......................................      427  Stationary Piston Engines (Oxides     11/01/01   12/14/01
                                                        of Nitrogen).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 22, 2002, this 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 into the SIP on July 21, 2000 (65 FR 45297) a version 
of Rule 427, adopted on July 2, 1998. We received but did not act on 
submittals of Rule 427, adopted on July 1, 1999 and May 4, 2000. While 
we can act on only the most recent submittal, we considered the 
information previously submitted.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revision?

    The purpose of the submitted revised Rule 427 is to remedy the 
deficiencies cited in the limited approval and limited disapproval 
action on Rule 427 on July 21, 2000 (65 FR 45297).

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 
CAA), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
major sources of NOX in ozone nonattainment areas (see 
sections 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(f) and must not relax existing 
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The KCAPCD regulates a 
serious ozone nonattainment area. See 66 FR 56476 (November 8, 2001). 
Such areas must fulfill RACT for all major sources of NOX 
pursuant to sections 107(d) and 182(f) of the CAA.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:
     Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 51.
     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 published 
in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
     State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to 
the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990 (the ``NOX Supplement to the General 
Preamble''), U.S. EPA, 57 FR 55620 (November 25, 1992).
     Cost-Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT), U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards (March 16, 1994).
     State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess 
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown, U.S. EPA, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (September 20, 1999).

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe the rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. All of 
the deficiencies identified in our previous limited approval and 
limited disapproval action on Rule 427 have been adequately addressed 
as follows:
     Section VIII.C.1.a: [The frequency of source testing to 
demonstrate compliance should be reduced from every two years to once 
every 8,760 hours or two years, whichever time period is shorter.] The 
District has revised section VIII.C.1 to correct the deficiency.
     Sections VIII.C.2.c and VIII.C.2.d: [The alternative of 
group-testing a representative sample of \1/3\ of the engines each year 
to show compliance should be done with a 10% lower emissions limit than 
for each individual engine. The engines tested should be rotated in 
such a way that all engines are tested once every three years.] The 
District has revised section VIII.C.2 to correct the deficiency. The 
TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all 
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this, so 
we are finalizing the approval without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we 
receive adverse comments by March 28, 2002, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct 
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in 
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive 
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective 
without further notice on April 29, 2002. This will incorporate this 
rule into the federally-enforceable SIP.

[[Page 8726]]

III. Background Information

Why Was This Rule Submitted?

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone and smog, which 
harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 
requires states to submit rules that control NOX emissions. 
Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal 
of these local agency rules.

                Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date                                Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978................  EPA promulgated a list of ozone
                                nonattainment areas under the Clean Air
                                Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40
                                CFR 81.305.
May 26, 1988.................  EPA notified Governors that parts of
                                their SIPs were inadequate to attain and
                                maintain the ozone standard and
                                requested that they correct the
                                deficiencies (EPA's SIP-Call). See
                                section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended
                                Clean Air Act.
November 15, 1990............  Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were
                                enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat.
                                2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
May 15, 1991.................  Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that ozone
                                nonattainment areas correct deficient
                                RACT rules by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by April 29, 2002. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 28, 2002.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

    2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(290) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (290) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were 
submitted

[[Page 8727]]

on December 14, 2001, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 427, adopted on November 1, 2001.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-4398 Filed 2-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P