Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
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 from mobile sources, specifically marine vessels. 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.
Any comments must arrive by August 22, 2003.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 revision 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 website and may not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yvonne Fong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4117.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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 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
A. Why was this rule submitted?
IV. 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).
|Local agency||Rule No.||Rule title||Adopted||Submitted|
|SCAQMD||1631||Pilot Credit Generation Program for Marine Vessels||10/04/02||12/12/02|
On February 7, 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 1631 into the SIP on February 7, 2002. The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on October 4, 2002 and CARB submitted them to us on December 12, 2002.
C. What Is the Purpose of the Rule Revision?
The rule revision will allow mobile source emission reduction credits (MSERCs) to be generated from marine vessel engine remanufacture, in addition to engine replacement, and will allow participating marine vessels to travel beyond district waters twice per year for maintenance or repair. 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 Start Printed Page 43482action, 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.
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. Background Information
A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?
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. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency NOX rules.
|March 3, 1978||EPA 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, 1988||EPA 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 Act.|
|November 15, 1990||Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.|
|May 15, 1991||Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that ozone nonattainment areas correct deficient RACT rules by this date.|
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 (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.).Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Intergovernmental relations
- Nitrogen dioxide
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: July 9, 2003.
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 03-18739 Filed 7-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P