[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 21, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21482-21484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9043]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 284-0443; FRL-7650-1]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope 
Valley 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 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District 
(AVAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions 
from internal combustion engines. We are proposing action on a local 
rule that regulates 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 May 21, 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

[[Page 21483]]

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.
    Antelope Valley AQMD, 43301 Division St., Ste. 206, Lancaster, CA 
93535-4649.
    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?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
    B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. What are the Rule Deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule.
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment.
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                 Rule title             Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVAQMD....................................       1110.2  Emissions From Stationary,        01/21/03     04/01/03
                                                          Non-road & Portable Internal
                                                          Combustion Engines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 13, 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?

    There is no previous version of Rule 1110.2 in the SIP, although 
the AVAQMD adopted an earlier version of this rule on November 15, 
2000, and CARB submitted it 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?

    NOX helps produce 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 1110.2 regulates NOX 
emissions from stationary internal combustion engines over 50 brake 
horsepower (bhp) and portable internal combustion engines over 100 bhp. 
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 of NOX and volatile organic compounds in ozone 
nonattainment areas (see section 182(b)(2) and 182(f)), and must not 
relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The AVAQMD 
regulates a ``severe'' ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR 81), so 
Rule 1110.2 must fulfill RACT.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AVAQMD has jurisdiction over stationary sources in Antelope 
Valley, which is the Los Angeles County portion of the ``Southeast 
Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area,'' which also includes 
portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    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.
    5. ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Questions from Ohio EPA,'' 
EPA memorandum, Tom Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 
Branch, to Air Enforcement Branch, EPA Region V, March 30, 1994.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    AVAQMD Rule 1110.2 improves the SIP by establishing emission limits 
for stationary and portable internal combustion engines and by 
specifying monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping provisions. This 
rule is largely consistent with the relevant policy and guidance 
regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. Rule provisions 
which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and 
discussed further in the TSD.

C. What are the Rule Deficiencies?

    Rule 1110.2 exempts internal combustion engines used in 
agriculture. These engines are typically used for irrigation purposes. 
The AVAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area so Rule 1110.2 must 
fulfill RACT for all engines located at major sources. Therefore this 
agricultural exemption conflicts with section 110 and part D of the Act 
and prevents full approval of the SIP revision. Rule 1110.2 also 
exempts from most regulation those internal combustion engines used for 
snow manufacture and ski lifts during seasonal operations from November 
1 through April 15 each year. It is unclear whether this exemption, as 
stated, is consistent with section 110 and part D of the Act. 
Justification for this exemption must be provided when a revised rule 
is submitted or the exemption should be removed.

[[Page 21484]]

D. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    AVAQMD should correct the reference in subsection (C)(2)(b) to 
subsection (C)(1)(c). The correct reference is to (C)(1)(a)(iii). 
Subsections (E)(3) and (G)(2) should be revised to require record 
retention for five years, rather than two.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rule to improve the SIP. 
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the 
SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval 
is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited 
disapproval of the rule under section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is 
finalized, sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act 
unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule 
deficiency within 18 months. These sanctions would be imposed according 
to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also trigger the federal 
implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). Note that 
the submitted rule has been adopted by the AVAQMD, and EPA's final 
limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from enforcing 
it.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited 
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

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: March 30, 2004.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 04-9043 Filed 4-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P