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

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