[Federal Register: February 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 29)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7098-7103]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12fe04-13]
[[Page 7098]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA269-0438a; FRL-7621-1]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve certain revisions to the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters; stationary internal
combustion engines; and stationary gas turbines. 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 15, 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
steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov
.
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA's
technical support documents (TSDs), 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 Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E.
Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726.
A copy of the rules 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 versions of the rules
that were submitted to EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas C. Canaday, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4121, canaday.tom@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What Rules did the State Submit?
B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?
II. Background
III. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
C. Public Comment and Final Action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What Rules Did the State Submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD.......................... 4351 Boilers, Steam Generators, 08/21/03 09/29/03
and Process Heaters--Phase
1.
SJVUAPCD.......................... 4305 Boilers, Steam Generators, 08/21/03 09/29/03
and Process Heaters--Phase
2.
SJVUAPCD.......................... 4306 Boilers, Steam Generators, 09/18/03 09/29/03
and Process Heaters--Phase
3.
SJVUAPCD.......................... 4701 Internal Combustion Engines- 08/21/03 10/09/03
-Phase 1.
SJVUAPCD.......................... 4702 Internal Combustion Engines- 08/21/03 10/09/03
-Phase 2.
SJVUAPCD.......................... 4703 Stationary Gas Turbines.... 04/25/02 06/18/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 2003, submitted Rules 4351, 4305, 4306, 4701, and
4702 were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. Submitted Rule
4703 was found to meet the completeness criteria on July 23, 2002.
B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
SJVUAPCD adopted an earlier version of Rule 4351 on October 19,
1995, and CARB submitted it to us on March 26, 1996. SJVUAPCD adopted
an earlier version of Rule 4305 on December 19, 1996, and CARB
submitted it to us on March 3, 1997. SJVUAPCD adopted an earlier
version of Rule 4701 on December 19, 1996, and CARB submitted it to us
on March 10, 1998. SJVUAPCD adopted an earlier version of Rule 4703 on
October 16, 1997, and CARB submitted it to us on March 10, 1998. We
proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of these previous
versions of Rules 4351, 4305, 4701, and 4703 on September 14, 1998 (63
FR 49053) and finalized our limited approval and limited disapproval of
these rules into the SIP on February 28, 2002 (67 FR 9209).
Between the time of our proposed rule in 1998 and our final rule in
2002, SJVUAPCD adopted an amended version of Rule 4701 on November 12,
1998, which CARB submitted on February 16, 1999. Subsequent to our
final rule in 2002, SJVUAPCD adopted amended versions of Rule 4701 and
Rule 4305 on December 19, 2002, and CARB submitted these to us on
January 21, 2003. We have not taken action on these interim submittals
of amended Rule 4701 and Rule 4305 and consider the current submitted
versions of Rule 4701 and Rule 4305, identified in Table 1, to
supercede the versions submitted to us previously. While we can act on
only the most recently submitted versions of submitted rules, we have
reviewed materials provided with previous submittals. There are no
previously submitted versions of Rules 4306 and 4702.
C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?
NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment.
Specifically, NOX is a precursor pollutant of the following
``criteria'' pollutants for which national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) have been established: nitrogen dioxide,
[[Page 7099]]
ozone, and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). Section 110(a) of the
CAA requires States to submit regulations that control NOX
emissions.
Rules 4351, 4305, and 4306 limit NOX and carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions from all gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired boilers,
steam generators, and process heaters with a rated heat input greater
than five million Btu per hour. Rules 4701 and 4702 limit
NOX, CO, and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
stationary internal combustion engines with a rated brake horsepower
greater than 50 horsepower. Rule 4701 applies to both spark-ignited and
compression-ignited stationary internal combustion engines while Rule
4702 applies only to spark-ignited stationary internal combustion
engines. Rule 4703 limits NOX emissions from all stationary
gas turbine systems which are subject to district permitting
requirements and with ratings equal to or greater than 0.3 megawatt
(MW) and/or a maximum heat input rating of more that three million Btu
per hour. Stationary gas turbines in the San Joaquin Valley Area are
used mostly as cogeneration units to supply steam and electricity for
oil production and industrial processes.
The general purpose of the submitted rules is to reduce emissions
of NOX and other pollutants from three specific source
categories (boilers, steam generators, and process heaters; stationary
internal combustion engines; and stationary gas turbines) in San
Joaquin Valley. More specifically, the particular versions of these
submitted rules were adopted by SJVUAPCD and submitted by CARB to EPA
to address deficiencies identified by EPA in prior versions of the
rules and to address the additional planning requirements imposed under
the Act on PM-10 nonattainment areas, such as San Joaquin Valley, that
are classified as ``serious,'' as discussed further in the following
section.
II. Background
On September 14, 1998, EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking for a limited approval and limited disapproval action
(``1998 Proposed Rule'') on SJVUAPCD Rules 4351, 4305, 4701 and 4703
that were submitted as revisions to the California SIP because,
although we determined that these rules improved the SIP and were
largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements, we also
determined that some provisions in these rules conflicted with section
110 and part D (of title I) of the Act. See 63 FR 49053. EPA extended
the 30-day comment period for the 1998 Proposed Rule for an additional
30 days. See 63 FR 56881 (October 23, 1998). Upon consideration of
comments received on the 1998 Proposed Rule, we determined that certain
proposed deficiencies were not a basis for a limited disapproval but
otherwise finalized the action as proposed. We published notice of our
final rule in the Federal Register on February 28, 2002 (``2002 Final
Rule''). See 67 FR 9209. The provisions deemed deficient can be placed
in two basic categories, the Westside exemption and all other
deficiencies.
Westside exemption: The rules contained an exemption from
regulation, or federal enforceability of the regulation, for facilities
west of Interstate Highway 5 in Fresno, Kern, or Kings County (referred
to herein as the ``Westside exemption''). The rationale for our limited
disapproval with respect to the Westside exemption is set forth in the
1998 Proposed Rule: (1) Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
are required of major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors (including
NOX) under section 189(e) of the Act unless EPA determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels, (2)
EPA has concluded that the PM-10 attainment strategy for San Joaquin
Valley will rely heavily on the control of precursors to PM-10,
including NOX, (3) the Westside exemption constitutes
failure to implement RACM at these facilities as required under section
189(a)(1)(C) of the Act, and (4) section 110(l) of the Act forbids EPA
from approving SIP revisions which would interfere with any applicable
requirement of the Act, including section 189(a)(1)(C). See 63 FR
49053, at 49055 (September 14, 1998).
In response to a comment on our 1998 Proposed Rule, we cited a
document, SJVUAPCD's PM-10 Attainment Demonstration Plan Progress
Report 1997-1999 (``PM-10 Progress Report''), as further support for
our conclusion about NOX as a significant precursor to PM-10
in San Joaquin Valley. We acknowledge that the PM-10 Progress Report
was received by us subsequent to the close of the comment period and
that the public had no opportunity to challenge its contents or our use
of the report prior to our final action. However, our reference to the
PM-10 Progress Report was in response to a comment and was intended
merely to supplement, rather than replace, the original basis for our
conclusion that NOX is a significant precursor for PM-10. In
our 1998 Proposed Rule, we supported this conclusion by reference to a
previous Federal Register notice (i.e., 58 FR 3337), and in that
previous notice, we summarized the findings of SJVUAPCD's 1991 Moderate
PM-10 Plan as follows:
The EPA is reclassifying the San Joaquin nonattainment area due to
the fact that the PM-10 SIP for San Joaquin Valley submitted to EPA
by the State of California on December 24, 1991, suggests that the
area cannot practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994.
Moreover, the area has not projected attainment before the December
31, 2001 serious area attainment date. Violations of the PM-10 NAAQS
in the San Joaquin Valley are dominated by two source categories:
(1) Primary PM-10 sources, including reentrained road dust,
construction activities, and farming operations; and (2)
secondarily-formed PM-10, including ammonium nitrate and ammonium
sulfate. On days when primary PM-10 emissions dominate, fugitive
dust emissions account for nearly 80 percent of the PM-10 mass. On
days when secondary PM-10 dominates, nitrates and sulfates account
for 63 percent of the PM-10 mass. The attainment strategy for the
San Joaquin Valley will rely heavily on the control of widespread
fugitive dust sources and the control of precursors of PM-10,
including nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic
compounds.
See 58 FR 3334, at 3337 (January 8, 1993).
Another comment was submitted on the 1998 Proposed Rule stating
that the SJVUAPCD had shown, through modeling, that the reduction of
NOX emissions from Westside sources would not contribute to
the attainment of the ozone NAAQS and that the Westside exemption was
therefore consistent with CAA requirements for ozone. We responded to
this comment by noting that, during the interval following our 1998
Proposed Rule, San Joaquin Valley had in fact failed to attain the
ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and that this failure to
attain, in and of itself, proved the inadequacy of the previous ozone
modeling that supported the Westside exemption. This response was not
necessary, and we further note that the failure to attain the ozone
NAAQS occurred subsequent to the close of the comment period and that
the public had no opportunity prior to our final action to challenge
our statement regarding its relevance in connection with the underlying
ozone modeling results supporting the Westside exemption. As stated in
our 1998 Proposed Rule, we did not intend to make any determination in
that rulemaking regarding the Westside exemption's consistency with
section 182(f), which provides the statutory criteria for approving
area-wide or subarea-specific exemptions for controls of NOX
sources in connection with the ozone NAAQS attainment strategy.
Instead, we intended to base our
[[Page 7100]]
determination of the deficiency of the Westside exemption solely on PM-
10 planning requirements. We hereby re-affirm that our basis in the
1998 Proposed Rule and the 2002 Final Rule for finding the Westside
exemption to be a deficiency derived from PM-10 planning requirements,
not ozone planning requirements. In any event, the past issue of
whether the Westside exemption was inconsistent with both ozone and PM-
10 planning requirements or simply PM-10 (and not ozone) planning
requirements has become moot in light of the need for additional
NOX emissions reductions throughout San Joaquin Valley for
both PM-10 and ozone planning purposes.
All Other Deficiencies: The rules contained numerous other
deficient provisions that varied from rule to rule but which generally
covered such issues as source applicability and exemptions; stringency
of emissions standards; excess emissions during start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction conditions; and monitoring and record keeping.
In our 2002 Final Rule, we concluded that certain types of
deficiencies, such as the emission limits and applicability thresholds,
were inconsistent with the requirement to implement Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) for control of NOX
emissions (as a precursor to ozone) at existing sources, as required
under CAA section 182(b)(2) and 182(f) for moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas, and were inconsistent with the requirement to
implement RACM/RACT under the statutory provisions for PM-10
nonattainment plans cited above in connection with the Westside
exemption. We concluded that other types of deficiencies, such as those
related to monitoring and reporting, were inconsistent with the
enforceability requirement for SIP rules under section 110(a)(2)(A) of
the Act. These deficiencies are described in detail in the 1998
Proposed Rule (63 FR 49053, September 14, 1998), the TSDs prepared in
connection with that proposal, and the 2002 Final Rule (67 FR 9209,
February 28, 2002).
In 1998, when we proposed action on the previous versions of these
rules, San Joaquin Valley was classified as a ``serious'' (i.e., one
classification higher than ``moderate'') nonattainment area for the
ozone NAAQS and as a ``serious'' nonattainment area for the PM-10
NAAQS. By the time we took final action in 2002, the nonattainment
classification for the valley with respect to the ozone NAAQS had been
bumped-up to ``severe.'' See 50 CFR 81.305.
San Joaquin Valley continues to be classified as a ``serious'' PM-
10 nonattainment area, and while our previous rulemaking process, which
culminated in the 2002 Final Rule, evaluated the rules with respect to
the ozone RACT requirement and the PM-10 RACM/RACT requirement, San
Joaquin Valley, as a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, is also subject
to the requirement under sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e) of the Act to
implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM), which includes Best
Available Control Technology (BACT), for the control of PM-10 precursor
emissions, including NOX.
The TSDs have more information about these rules.
III. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
We are evaluating the six submitted rules to determine whether they
correct the deficiencies in the previous versions of the rules as set
forth in our 2002 Final Rule, and thereby implement RACT under CAA
sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) and RACM/RACT under CAA sections
189(a)(1)(C) and 189(e), and whether they provide for implementation of
BACM/BACT under CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e) for the relevant
source categories. General regulatory and non-regulatory references
that we used to help evaluate enforceability, RACT/RACM, and BACM/BACT
requirements consistently include the following:
1. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, U.S.
EPA, 57 FR 13489, April 16, 1992.
2. State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, U.S. EPA, 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.
3. State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, U.S. EPA, 59 FR 41998,
August 16, 1994.
4. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation, Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations (the Blue Book), U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988.
5. ``Guidance Document for Correcting VOC Rule Deficiencies'', U.S.
EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the little bluebook).
6. ``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions
during Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,'' EPA policy memorandum
from Steven A. Herman to Regional Administrators, September 20, 1999,
and re-issuance of this memo dated December 5, 2001 (``Excess Emissions
Policy'').
7. Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, U.S. EPA
Office of Air and Radiation, EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001 (``EIP
Guidance'').
8. Cost Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT), U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, March 16, 1994.
9. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and
Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial,
Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters, State of California Air Resources Board, July 18, 1991 (``CARB
1991 RACT/BARCT Determination'').
10. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and
Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for the Control of Oxides of
Nitrogen From Stationary Gas Turbines, State of California Air
Resources Board, May 18, 1992 (``CARB 1992 RACT/BARCT Determination'').
11. CAPCOA/ARB Proposed Determination of Reasonably Available
Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, Draft, State of California Air
Resources Board, December, 1997 (``CARB Draft 1997 RACT/BARCT
Determination'').
12. 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 (``CARB 2001 RACT/BARCT Determination'').
B. Do These Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
Correction of Previously-Identified Deficiencies. The deficiencies
identified in the previous versions of the rules are described in full
in our previous rulemaking documents, including the 1998 Proposed Rule
(63 FR 49053, September 14, 1998), the related TSDs (dated July 31,
1998), and the 2002 Final Rule (67 FR 9209, February 28, 2002). In the
following paragraphs, we discuss how the new or amended rules correct
the deficiencies by providing a discussion of each of 18 specific
deficiencies set forth in our 2002 Final Rule (67 FR 9209, at 9210).
The TSDs provide more detail on our evaluation.
[[Page 7101]]
1. SJVUAPCD removed the Westside exemption from Rules 4305, 4701,
and 4703. The Westside exemption was not removed from Rule 4351 but all
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters covered by that rule are
now covered by Rule 4305 in which the exemption has been removed. Also,
the exemption was not included in new Rules 4306 and 4702.
2. SJVUAPCD added provisions in Rule 4305 to address start-up and
shutdown conditions, and the added provisions are consistent with EPA's
Excess Emissions Policy. New Rule 4306 also includes satisfactory
provisions to address start-up and shutdown conditions.
3. By adopting new Rules 4306 and 4702, SJVUAPCD has limited or
eliminated several types of exemptions contained in Rules 4305 and 4701
that we found to be deficiencies. We note, however, that the exemption
from RACT-level of control for low-use (i.e., under 1,000 hours
annually) internal combustion engines under amended Rule 4701 now
applies to low-use engines at major NOX sources on the
Westside. For low-use spark-ignited engines, this exemption is
superceded by new Rule 4702, but low-use compression-ignited (i.e.
diesel) engines at major NOX sources on the Westside would
continue to be exempt from RACT-level of control. As discussed further
in our TSD on submitted Rules 4701 and 4702, we conclude that this
issue does not prevent our full approval of amended Rule 4701 given
that the reduction in NOX by application of RACT to low-use
engines at major NOX sources on the Westside would amount
only to 0.1 ton per day. We have, however, included this issue as one
for the District to address in the next revision to the rule.
4. SJVUAPCD has revised Rules 4305 and 4701 to specify appropriate
averaging times for emissions concentration limits. New Rules 4306 and
4702 also specify appropriate averaging times.
5. SJVUAPCD has revised Rules 4351 and 4305 to include interim
parametric monitoring in instances of deferred source testing. These
requirements have also been extended to new Rule 4306.
6. SJVUAPCD has revised the representative testing requirements in
Rules 4351 and 4305 to make them consistent with EPA policy and has
extended these requirements to new Rule 4306. SJVUAPCD has deleted the
option of representative testing from Rule 4701 and has not included
the option of representative testing in new Rule 4702.
7. SJVUAPCD has deleted the alternative emission control plan
(AECP) provisions from Rules 4305 and 4701 but has added AECP
provisions to new Rules 4306 and 4702. The AECP provisions in new Rules
4306 and 4702 include a 10% environmental benefit relative to the
underlying emissions limits that would otherwise apply to each
individual unit.
8. SJVUAPCD has revised Rule 4351 to be consistent with Rules 4305
and 4306 and to require physical modification of an exempted unit to
assure its operation at or below the rule application capacity
threshold when the unit's nameplate capacity exceeds this threshold.
9. In our 2002 Final Rule, we withdrew our previous deficiency
finding related to the failure in Rule 4351 to require source tests to
be performed on units using each fuel which is allowed to be burned in
that unit. See 67 FR 9209, at 9211 (February 28, 2002).
10. In our 2002 Final Rule, we withdrew our previous deficiency
finding related to the lack in Rule 4351 of source test requirements
for certain units. See 67 FR 9209, at 9211 (February 28, 2002).
11. SJVUAPCD has revised Rule 4701 to specify what information is
required to be recorded and maintained as part of record keeping
requirements. New Rule 4702 also has adequate record keeping
requirements.
12. SJVUAPCD has revised Rule 4701 to provide for increased
frequency of required compliance testing, and has included similar
provisions in new Rule 4702.
13. SJVUAPCD has revised Rule 4701 to identify more precisely what
operating records and support documentation are to be maintained by
owners claiming exemption to the requirements of the rule, and has
included similar provisions in new Rule 4702.
14. In our 2002 Final Rule, we withdrew our previous deficiency
finding related to the RACT compliance deadline of May 31, 2001 for
certain internal combustion engines under Rule 4701. See 67 FR 9209, at
9212 (February 28, 2002).
15. SJVUAPCD has removed the AECP provisions in Rules 4305 and 4701
but has included such provisions in new Rules 4306 and 4702. In each of
the new rules, the AECP uses a 7-day averaging to determine compliance,
which is more protective than the 14-day averaging period that had been
included in Rules 4305 and 4701, and which is consistent with our
policies, including the EIP Guidance, given the stringency of the
underlying emissions limits that otherwise apply, the practical
considerations involved in equipment repair, and the incorporation of
the 10% environmental benefit into the AECP formulation of the new
rules.
16. SJVUAPCD has removed the AECP provisions from Rule 4701 and has
eliminated the deficiency related to excessive director's discretion in
specifying what method is to be used to determine the applicable
conversion factor from fuel use to engine emissions in the AECP
provisions of new Rule 4702 by requiring approval of equivalent methods
by EPA, CARB, and the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO).
17. SJVUAPCD has removed the AECP provisions from Rule 4701 and has
not included the calculation factor that we found to be a deficiency in
Rule 4701 related to electric motors in the AECP provisions of new Rule
4702.
18. SJVUAPCD has revised Rule 4703 to refer to the appropriate
continuous emission monitoring system requirements and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR part 60.
Based on our review of the six new or amended rules, we conclude
that SJVUAPCD has adequately corrected all of the deficiencies we
identified through our 2002 Final Rule. Nonetheless, we have identified
several areas or items for improvement in the rules themselves or in
the documentation for the rules. These areas or items for rule
improvement relate to such issues as the low-use exemption from RACT
for diesel engines located at major NOX sources on the
Westside, the unnecessary uncertainty caused by the ``and/or''
formulation in the applicability subsection of amended Rule 4703, and
the need to be more specific with respect to the contents of Emission
Control Plans under new Rule 4306. These items or areas for improvement
do not affect our ability to approve the submitted rules but constitute
recommendations that we believe SJVUAPCD should address the next time
the District revises these rules. See the TSDs for more information on
our suggested rule improvements.
BACM/BACT Evaluation. As noted above, San Joaquin Valley is
classified as a ``serious'' PM-10 nonattainment area, and such areas
are subject to the BACM/BACT requirement under CAA sections
189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e). EPA provided its interpretation of the BACM/
BACT requirement in Addendum to the General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (59
FR 41998, August 16, 1994). As set forth therein, the general process
for
[[Page 7102]]
identifying BACM/BACT in any given serious PM-10 nonattainment area
involves developing an inventory of sources of PM-10 and PM-10
precursors, evaluating the impact of the various source categories (to
distinguish significant source categories for which BACM/BACT is
required from de minimis categories for which BACM/BACT is not
required), evaluating alternative control techniques and costs of
control, and then selecting BACM for area sources and BACT for point
sources.
SJVUAPCD has provided for the first two steps listed above through
development and adoption of the San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain
Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 10 microns and Smaller (``2003
PM-10 Plan''). The 2003 PM-10 Plan was adopted locally on June 19,
2003, and submitted by CARB to EPA by letter dated August 19, 2003.
SJVUAPCD amended portions of the 2003 PM-10 Plan and adopted the
amendments on December 18, 2003. CARB submitted the plan amendments to
EPA by letter dated December 30, 2003. The 2003 PM-10 Plan, as revised
and supplemented by the plan amendments adopted in December 2003, is
referred to herein as the ``Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan''.
The Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan identifies significant source
categories for which BACM or BACT must be demonstrated. Among the
categories identified as significant in the plan are natural gas
boilers and natural gas oilfield steam generators, stationary internal
combustion engines, and stationary gas turbines. (Together, these
source categories are estimated to have emitted 67.3 tons per day of
NOX in 1999. See Table 4-8 of the Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan.)
Thus, the submitted rules, which apply to these significant source
categories, must provide for BACT-level of control.
SJVUAPCD has provided documentation for the other steps in the
process for determining BACM/BACT for individual source categories in
the staff reports submitted with the new or amended rules. Additional
documentation is provided in the CARB 1991 RACT/BARCT Determination for
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters, the 1992 CARB RACT/
BARCT Determination for stationary gas turbines, the 1997 Draft CARB
RACT/BARCT Determination for stationary internal combustion engines,
and the 2001 CARB RACT/BARCT Determination for spark-ignited stationary
internal combustion engines.
With the exception of stationary internal combustion engines used
for agricultural purposes (discussed below) and ``small'' boilers,
steam generators, and process heaters (also discussed below), the new
or amended rules provide a level of control that is at least as, if not
more, stringent than State-level Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology (BARCT), which is equivalent to that level of control
required to meet the Federal BACT requirement. Two de minimis
exceptions to this finding include low-use compression-ignited (diesel)
engines at major NOX sources on the Westside and high-use
diesel engines at public water districts. SJVUAPCD has indicated its
intention to address issues related to non-agricultural diesel engines
as part of the larger rulemaking discussed below in connection with
agricultural internal combustion engines. See letter dated January 26,
2003, from Scott Nestor, SJVUAPCD Planning Manager to Andrew Steckel,
U.S. EPA--Region IX. The TSD on Rules 4701 and 4702 provides more
information on these de minimis exceptions.
Both amended Rule 4701 and new Rule 4702 exempt internal combustion
engines used in agriculture. These engines are typically used for
irrigation purposes. Most such engines are compression-ignited (i.e.,
diesel) but roughly 10% are spark-ignited. The Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan
identifies agricultural irrigation internal combustion engines as a
significant source category, and thus, SJVUAPCD must provide for BACT-
level of control for this currently uncontrolled component of the
source category of stationary internal combustion engines. SJVUAPCD has
met this requirement through adoption of a control measure in the
Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan that commits the District to implement BACT for
agricultural internal combustion engines by removing the general
agricultural exemption from Rule 4702 and by establishing BACT-level
NOX emission limits in Rule 4702 for compression-ignited and
spark-ignited agricultural internal combustion engines. We expect to
approve this control measure into the SIP in a separate rulemaking
action on the Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan.
Rules 4351, 4305, and 4306 apply to boilers, steam generators, and
process heaters with heat input ratings greater than five million Btu
per hour. However, the Amended PM-10 Plan concludes that small boilers,
steam generators, and process heaters (i.e., with heat input ratings
between two and five million Btu per hour) are also a significant
source of PM-10 precursor emissions, and thus, SJVUAPCD must provide
BACT-level of control for them as well. SJVUAPCD has met this
requirement by adopting a control measure that commits the District to
implement BACT for control of NOX from these sources. We
expect to approve this control measure into the SIP in a separate
rulemaking action on the Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan.
Conclusion. Therefore, we propose to find that the provisions of
new or amended SJVUAPCD Rules 4351, 4305, 4306, 4701, 4702, and 4703
adequately correct the previously-identified deficiencies and are
consistent with the relevant requirements under section 110(a) and part
D of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Specifically, we propose to
find that the new or amended rules implement RACT as required for
moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas under CAA sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f), RACT/RACM as required for moderate and above PM-
10 nonattainment areas under CAA sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(e), and
BACM/BACT as required for serious PM-10 nonattainment areas under CAA
sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e) for NOX emissions from the
following existing sources or source categories: boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters (with heat input ratings greater than
five million Btu per hour), non-agricultural stationary internal
combustion engines, and stationary gas turbines. Also, we propose to
find that the new or amended rules meet the enforceability requirements
of Section 110(a).
As noted above, SJVUAPCD has provided for BACM/BACT level of
control of NOX from the overall source categories by
adoption of control measures related to small boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters as well as agricultural stationary
internal combustion engines. We expect to approve these control
measures in a separate rulemaking on the Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan.
Also, because the submitted rules are consistent with the
assumptions and commitments for these source categories in the Amended
2003 PM-10 Plan and the Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan for
San Joaquin Valley Ozone, as submitted by CARB to EPA on April 10,
2003, we conclude that our approval of them as a SIP revision is
allowed under section 110(l) of the Act. The TSDs have more information
on our evaluation of all of the rules addressed in today's action.
C. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted SJVUAPCD Rules 4351, 4305, 4306,
4701, 4702, and 4703 fulfill all relevant requirements, we are
proposing to fully
[[Page 7103]]
approve them 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
these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
If we finalize this action as proposed, then SJVUAPCD Rules 4351,
4305, and 4306, submitted by CARB on September 29, 2003; SJVUAPCD Rules
4701 and 4702, submitted by CARB on October 9, 2003; and SJVUAPCD Rule
4703, submitted by CARB on June 18, 2002, will supercede SJVUAPCD Rules
4351, 4305, 4701 and 4703, approved by EPA on February 28, 2002 into
the SJVUAPCD portion of the California SIP. This final action would
terminate all sanction and Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
implications of our February 28, 2002 final action with respect to
these rules.
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.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 3, 2004.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 04-3078 Filed 2-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P