[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8613-8615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4128]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA295-0439; FRL-7626-6]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Diego County 
Air Pollution Control District portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) emissions from stationary reciprocating internal 
combustion engines. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate 
these emission sources 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 March 26, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send 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], or submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA's 
technical support document (TSD), and public comments at our Region IX 
office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see 
copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following 
locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Dr., 
San Diego, CA 92123-1096.

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: Thomas C. Canaday, EPA Region IX, 
(415) 947-4121, [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 revisions?
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 date 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Rule
                 Local agency                    No.              Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDCAPCD......................................    69.4  Stationary Reciprocating            07/30/03     11/04/03
                                                        Internal Combustion Engines--
                                                        Reasonably Available Control
                                                        Technology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 8614]]

    On December 23, 2003, 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?

    We approved a version of Rule 69.4 into the SIP on January 22, 
1997. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District adopted 
revisions to the SIP-approved version on November 15, 2000 and CARB 
submitted them to us on March 14, 2001. While we can act on only the 
most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided 
with previous submittals.

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

    NOX contributes to the production of ground-level ozone, 
smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the 
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit 
regulations that control NOX emissions. Rule 69.4 regulates 
NOX emissions from stationary reciprocating internal 
combustion engines at facilities emitting 50 tons or more per year of 
NOX. The proposed revisions require all engines subject to 
the emission limits of the rule to record specified operating 
parameters, to have a non-resettable totalizing fuel or hour meter, and 
to be tested at least once every 24 months. Any existing gaseous-fueled 
engine rated at 1,000 brake horsepower or greater and operated more 
than 2,000 hours per year must be tested annually. In addition, an 
owner or operator of such engines newly installed after the date of 
this rule revision will be required to continuously monitor operating 
parameters to ensure compliance with the emission standards of the 
rule. Operators of large new engines (5,000 brake horsepower or 
larger), operating 6,000 hours or more per year, will be required to 
continuously monitor emissions. The revisions also specify the 
averaging period for determining compliance and provide minor 
clarifications and updates. 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), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A) and 
182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) 
and 193). The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District regulates 
an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 69.4 must 
fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate 
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently 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. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and 
Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignited 
Internal Combustion Engines, State of California Air Resources Board, 
November, 2001.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

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

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.

IV. 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 (Public Law 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.).

[[Page 8615]]

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: February 9, 2004.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 04-4128 Filed 2-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P