Skip to Content

Rule

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

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

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.

Start Printed 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.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

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 agencyRule #Rule titleAdoptedSubmitted
KCAPCD427Stationary Piston Engines (Oxides of Nitrogen)11/01/0112/14/01

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.Start Printed 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

DateEvent
March 3, 1978EPA 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, 1988EPA 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, 1990Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 q.
May 15, 1991Section 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).)

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

End List of Subjects Start Signature

Dated: January 28, 2002.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

End Signature Start Amendment Part

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

End Amendment Part Start Part

PART 52—[AMENDED]

End Part Start Amendment Part

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

End Amendment Part Start Authority

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

End Authority

Subpart F—California

Start Amendment Part

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

End Amendment Part
Identification of plan.
* * * * *

(c) * * *

(290) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted Start Printed Page 8727on 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.

* * * * *
End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 02-4398 Filed 2-25-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P