[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54181-54182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-23593]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 259-0414; FRL-7558-7]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South 
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) emissions at truck stops. We are proposing to approve 
a local rule to regulate this emission source 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 October 16, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 or e-mail to 
[email protected].
    You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revision and EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal 
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions 
at the following locations:

    California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
    South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley 
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
    A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this 
is not an EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the 
rule that was submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4117, [email protected].

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?
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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists 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 (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Rule                  Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD..................................        1634   Pilot Credit Generation Program    11/09/01     01/22/02
                                                        for Truck Stops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 27, 2002, 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?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 1634 in the SIP and the 
SCAQMD has not adopted any earlier versions of this rule.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?

    The submitted rule will allow mobile source emission reduction 
credits (MSERCs) to be generated from the use of electric power in lieu 
of diesel-powered engines for trailer refrigeration units operating in 
standby mode, for on-board electrical systems, or for heating, 
ventilating, and air conditioning of truck cabs at truck stops. The 
MSERCs can be used by stationary sources in the SCAQMD's Regional Clean 
Air Incentive Market (RECLAIM) program to meet declining emission 
limits. The 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) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 
193).
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
evaluation criteria 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. ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,'' 
January 2001, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA-452/R-01-001. This 
guidance document applies to discretionary economic incentive programs 
(EIPs) and represents the agency's interpretation of what EIPs should 
contain in order to meet the requirements of the CAA. Because this 
guidance is non-binding and does not represent final agency action, EPA 
is using the guidance as an initial screen to determine whether 
approvability issues arise.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations and EIPs.
    The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

[[Page 54182]]

C. 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 Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed 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 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed 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 proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This 
proposed 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. 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 proposed 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 3, 2003.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 03-23593 Filed 9-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P