Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 1819-1822 [E8-171]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 and 31 U.S.C. 321.
Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552 as
amended. Subpart C also issued under 5
U.S.C. 552a.
2. Section 1.36 paragraph (g)(1)(viii) is
amended by adding the following text to
the table in numerical order.
I
§ 1.36 Systems exempt in whole or in part
from provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a and this
part.
*
*
(g) * *
(1) * *
(viii) *
*
*
*
* *
*
*
Number
Name of system
*
*
IRS 42.005 .......
*
*
*
*
Whistleblower Office
Records.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 21, 2007.
Peter B. McCarthy,
Assistant Secretary for Management and
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–130 Filed 1–9–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–1104; FRL–8512–7]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District
and Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District (SJVAPCD) and Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District (SMAQMD) portions of the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) emissions from internal
combustion engines and stationary gas
turbines. We are approving local rules
that regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on March
10, 2008 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
February 11, 2008. If we receive such
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that this direct final
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2007–1104, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
1819
If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
´˜
Francisco Donez, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3956, Donez.Francisco@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. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rules
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules we are
approving with the dates that they were
adopted by the local air agencies and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board.
TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule No.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
SJVAPCD .....................................................
SMAQMD .....................................................
On July 23, 2007 and October 16,
2007, respectively, EPA determined that
these rule submittals met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix V, which must be met before
formal EPA review.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:25 Jan 09, 2008
Jkt 214001
4702
413
Rule title
Internal Combustion Engines—Phase 2 .......................
Stationary Gas Turbines ...............................................
B. Are there other versions of these
rules?
The SJVAPCD first adopted Rule 4702
on August 21, 2003. That version was
submitted to EPA on October 9, 2003,
and approved on May 18, 2004 (69 FR
28061). The SJVAPCD adopted revisions
PO 00000
Adopted
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
01/18/07
03/24/05
Submitted
05/08/07
09/05/07
to the SIP-approved version on June 16,
2005 and April 20, 2006, and CARB
submitted them to us on October 20,
2005 and October 5, 2006. The
SMAQMD first adopted Rule 413 on
May 6, 1995, and EPA approved the rule
into the SIP on March 1, 1996 (61 FR
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
1820
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
7992). The SMAQMD adopted revisions
to Rule 413 on May 1, 1997 and CARB
submitted them to us on May 18, 1998.
We approved those revisions into the
SIP on February 11, 1999 (64 FR 6803).
While we can act on only the most
recently submitted version of each rule,
we have reviewed materials provided
with previous submittals.
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. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires States to submit regulations
that control NOX emissions. SJVAPCD
Rule 4702 limits emissions of NOX,
carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from internal
combustion engines. Changes from the
SIP-approved version include the
following:
• Rule 4702 now applies to
compression-ignited engines,
transportable engines, and engines in
agricultural operations. The compliance
date for agricultural engines is January
1, 2009.
• The amended rule contains new
exemptions for engines used to propel
instruments of husbandry, engines used
exclusively to power mobile agricultural
equipment, engines used to power wind
machines for crop protection, and
certain de-rated engines.
• The amended rule establishes
requirements for District certification of
exhaust control systems. These changes
are meant to reduce the overall number
of source tests required for Rule 4702
compliance, without affecting emission
reductions.
• The amended rule allows the use of
a portable NOX analyzer for agricultural
spark-ignited engines, to show initial
compliance with Rule 4702 emissions
standards until a source test can be
arranged.
• The amended rule allows
representative testing for spark-ignited
engines, and specifies requirements for
that testing.
SMAQMD Rule 413 limits emissions
of NOX from stationary gas turbines.
Amended Rule 413 extends the startup
exemption for turbines with a rated
output greater than or equal to 160 MW,
and which are part of a combined cycle
process, to up to 4 hours following a
shutdown of the associated steam
turbine of 72 hours or more; and up to
3 hours following a shutdown of the
associated steam turbine of between 8
and 72 hours. It also allows a 6-hour
averaging period for compliance with
NOX limits for gas turbines with a rated
output greater than 100 MW, and which
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:25 Jan 09, 2008
Jkt 214001
are part of a combined cycle process,
during a transient increase in emissions.
EPA’s technical support documents
(TSDs) have more information about
these rules.
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
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). The SJVAPCD and the SMAQMD
both regulate serious ozone
nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part
81.305), so Rule 4702 and Rule 413
must implement Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for control
of NOX emissions (see CAA 182(b)(2),
(c) and 182(f)). Both areas also regulate
PM–10 nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR
81.305). The SJVAPCD is a serious PM–
10 nonattainment area, so Rule 4702
must implement Best Available Control
Measures (BACM), including Best
Available Control Technology (BACT),
for control of NOX emissions (see CAA
189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e)). The SMAQMD
is a moderate PM–10 nonattainment
area, so Rule 413 must implement
Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM), including RACT, for control of
NOX emissions (see CAA 189(a)(1)(C)
and 189(e)).
Guidance and policy documents that
we use to help evaluate enforceability,
BACM/BACT and RACM/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 (the Little Bluebook).
4. EPA Memorandum to Regional
Administrators from Steven A. Herman,
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, and Robert
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation: ‘‘State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions during Malfunctions,
Startup, and Shutdown,’’ September 20,
1999.
5. ‘‘Clean Air Act National Testing
Guidance,’’ EPA, September 30, 2005.
6. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques
Document—NOX Emissions from
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Stationary Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines,’’ EPA, EPA–453/
R–93–032, July 1993.
7. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques
Document—NOX Emissions from
Stationary Gas Turbines,’’ EPA, EPA–
453/R–93–007, January 1993.
8. State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992).
9. 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, 59
FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe these rules are consistent
with the CAA, EPA regulations, and
relevant policy and guidance regarding
enforceability, BACM/BACT, RACM/
RACT, and SIP relaxations. The
inclusion of agricultural, transportable,
and compression-ignited engines in
SJVAPCD Rule 4702 clearly strengthens
the rule, and the added exemptions are
supported by District staff analysis. The
representative testing provisions in Rule
4702 are based on EPA’s ‘‘Clean Air Act
National Testing Guidance,’’ and
contain appropriate requirements to
assure the achievement of emissions
limits. The use of portable NOX
analyzers allowed in Rule 4702 is a
reasonable manner of checking
compliance before the required
performance of a full source test. The
Rule 4702 requirements for certification
of exhaust control systems are adequate
to ensure control of emissions while
simplifying rule compliance and
enforcement.
In our prior action to approve Rule
4702 into the SIP, we concluded that
Rule 4702 implemented BACM/BACT
as required for serious PM–10
nonattainment areas under CAA
sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e) for NOX
emissions from non-agricultural
stationary internal combustion engines.
See 69 FR 7098, 7102 (February 12,
2004) (proposed rule); 69 FR 28061
(May 18, 2004) (final rule). Revised Rule
4702 continues to implement BACM/
BACT for these engines. In addition,
these revisions satisfy SJVAPCD’s
commitment to apply BACT-level
controls to agricultural engines,
consistent with its Amended 2003 PM–
10 Plan. (The ‘‘Amended 2003 PM–10
Plan’’ is the San Joaquin Valley Plan to
Attain Federal Standards for Particulate
Matter 10 Microns and Smaller, as
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
revised and supplemented by the plan
amendments SJVAPCD adopted and
submitted to EPA in December 2003.
See 69 FR 30006, May 26, 2004, for the
final rule approving these plan
amendments into the California SIP.)
As to SMAQMD Rule 413, while the
extension of allowable startup periods
and the provision for short-term
excursions appear to relax the rule,
these changes apply to only a small
subset of the permitted plants in the
District that cannot feasibly meet the
current SIP rule’s requirements during
these limited periods. All of these
sources have installed BACT-level NOX
emission controls in accordance with
SMAQMD’s New Source Review (NSR)
requirements. New turbines covered by
the revised exemptions (i.e., combinedcycle turbines with capacities exceeding
100 MW) will also be subject to BACT
for control of NOX emissions. These
revisions to Rule 413 only provide
limited flexibility to address operational
necessities at large turbines during
narrowly defined periods, and do not
alter the control technology
requirements that apply to these
sources.
In our prior actions to approve Rule
413 into the SIP, we concluded that this
rule implemented RACT for NOX
control as required for serious ozone
nonattainment areas under CAA
sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). See 61 FR
7992 (March 1, 1996); 64 FR 6803
(February 11, 1999). Revised Rule 413
continues to implement RACT for
control of NOX emissions, as a precursor
to both ozone and PM–10, from
stationary gas turbines.
The TSDs have more information on
our evaluation of these rules.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rules
EPA has no recommendations to
further improve these rules.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, EPA is fully approving the
submitted rules because we believe they
fulfill all relevant requirements. We do
not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without
proposing it in advance. However, in
the Proposed Rules section of this
Federal Register, we are simultaneously
proposing approval of the same
submitted rules. If we receive adverse
comments by February 11, 2008, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:25 Jan 09, 2008
Jkt 214001
receive timely adverse comments, the
direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on March 10,
2008. This will incorporate these rules
into the federally enforceable SIP.
Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if
that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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 13211,
‘‘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
(Pub. L. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1821
Clean Air Act. 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 approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
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 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 Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by March 10, 2008.
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).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
1822
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: December 5, 2007.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(350)(i)(C) and
(c)(352) to read as follows:
I
§ 52.220
A. Background
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(350) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District.
(1 ) Rule 4702, adopted on August 21,
2003 and amended on January 18, 2007.
*
*
*
*
*
(352) New and amended regulations
were submitted on September 5, 2007,
by the governor’s designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District.
(1 ) Rule 413, adopted on April 6,
1995 and amended on March 24, 2005.
[FR Doc. E8–171 Filed 1–9–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 204, 212, and 252
RIN 0750–AF55
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; DoD
Representations and Certifications in
the Online Representations and
Certifications Application (DFARS
Case 2006–D032)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:25 Jan 09, 2008
Jkt 214001
(DFARS) to address the DFARS
provisions included in the Online
Representations and Certifications
Application (ORCA). Use of ORCA
eliminates the need for offerors to
repetitively submit the same
information in response to Government
solicitations.
DATES: Effective Date: January 10, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Felisha Hitt, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L)
DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301–3062. Telephone 703–602–0310;
facsimile 703–602–7887. Please cite
DFARS Case 2006–D032.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Subpart 4.12 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires
prospective contractors to complete
electronic annual representations and
certifications in ORCA, in conjunction
with required registration in the Central
Contractor Registration database. FAR
4.1202 prescribes use of the solicitation
provision at 52.204–8, Annual
Representations and Certifications;
provides a list of the FAR
representations and certifications in
ORCA; and provides direction to the
contracting officer to exclude those
representations and certifications from
solicitations that contain the clause at
FAR 52.204–7, Central Contractor
Registration.
Similarly, this DFARS rule contains a
list of the DFARS representations and
certifications in ORCA, and provides
direction to the contracting officer to
exclude those representations and
certifications when using the provision
at FAR 52.204–8. In addition, the
DFARS rule contains a substitute
paragraph (c) for use with the provision
at FAR 52.204–8 to permit inclusion of
information relating to both the FAR
and the DFARS. An offeror must
include information in paragraph (c)
only if changes to the offeror’s annual
representations and certifications apply
to a particular solicitation.
DoD published a proposed rule at 72
FR 6515 on February 12, 2007. DoD
received comments from one
respondent. A discussion of the
comments is provided below.
1. Comment: The respondent
suggested administrative changes to the
organization of the contents of ORCA to
enhance the certification process.
DoD Response: The comment is
outside the scope of this DFARS case.
However, the comment has been
forwarded to the Government officials
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
responsible for managing the ORCA
system.
2. Comment: The respondent
recommended revision of the
introductory statement at 204.1202(2),
from ‘‘Do not include the following
representations and certifications’’ to
‘‘Do not include the following
representations and certifications in
solicitations and contracts.’’
DoD Response: DoD believes that the
direction in the introductory statement
is clear as written, and that the
additional phrase is unnecessary.
3. Comment: The respondent
recommended amendment of the second
sentence in the introductory text at
212.301(f) pertaining to commercial
item solicitations, to change ‘‘may’’ to
‘‘shall’’ with regard to direction to the
contracting officer to consider the
information in ORCA.
DoD Response: DoD has retained
‘‘may’’ in this sentence to provide
flexibility to the contracting officer in
the review of representations and
certifications.
This rule was not subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under
Executive Order 12866, dated
September 30, 1993.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DoD has prepared a final regulatory
flexibility analysis consistent with 5
U.S.C. 604. A copy of the analysis may
be obtained from the point of contact
specified herein. The analysis is
summarized as follows:
The objective of the rule is to
maintain a centralized location for the
representation and certification
information required by the DFARS,
thereby eliminating the need for offerors
to submit the same information to
various DoD offices in response to
individual solicitations. The rule will
apply to prospective DoD contractors
registered in the Central Contractor
Registration database. FAR 4.1102
requires that prospective contractors be
registered in the database before the
award of a contract or agreement, with
certain exceptions. Administrative
personnel that have general knowledge
of the contractor’s business should be
able to enter the applicable
representation and certification
information into ORCA. The rule is
expected to have a positive impact on
small business concerns by reducing
administrative burdens.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements of the representations and
certifications addressed in this rule that
require offerors to provide specific fillin information have been approved by
E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM
10JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1819-1822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-171]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1104; FRL-8512-7]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from
internal combustion engines and stationary gas turbines. We are
approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on March 10, 2008 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 11, 2008. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-1104, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco D[oacute][ntilde]ez, EPA
Region IX, (415) 972-3956, Donez.Francisco@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. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board.
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVAPCD.............................. 4702 Internal Combustion Engines--Phase 01/18/07 05/08/07
2.
SMAQMD............................... 413 Stationary Gas Turbines........... 03/24/05 09/05/07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 23, 2007 and October 16, 2007, respectively, EPA determined
that these rule submittals met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
The SJVAPCD first adopted Rule 4702 on August 21, 2003. That
version was submitted to EPA on October 9, 2003, and approved on May
18, 2004 (69 FR 28061). The SJVAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on June 16, 2005 and April 20, 2006, and CARB
submitted them to us on October 20, 2005 and October 5, 2006. The
SMAQMD first adopted Rule 413 on May 6, 1995, and EPA approved the rule
into the SIP on March 1, 1996 (61 FR
[[Page 1820]]
7992). The SMAQMD adopted revisions to Rule 413 on May 1, 1997 and CARB
submitted them to us on May 18, 1998. We approved those revisions into
the SIP on February 11, 1999 (64 FR 6803). While we can act on only the
most recently submitted version of each rule, we have reviewed
materials provided with previous submittals.
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.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that
control NOX emissions. SJVAPCD Rule 4702 limits emissions of
NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds
(VOC) from internal combustion engines. Changes from the SIP-approved
version include the following:
Rule 4702 now applies to compression-ignited engines,
transportable engines, and engines in agricultural operations. The
compliance date for agricultural engines is January 1, 2009.
The amended rule contains new exemptions for engines used
to propel instruments of husbandry, engines used exclusively to power
mobile agricultural equipment, engines used to power wind machines for
crop protection, and certain de-rated engines.
The amended rule establishes requirements for District
certification of exhaust control systems. These changes are meant to
reduce the overall number of source tests required for Rule 4702
compliance, without affecting emission reductions.
The amended rule allows the use of a portable
NOX analyzer for agricultural spark-ignited engines, to show
initial compliance with Rule 4702 emissions standards until a source
test can be arranged.
The amended rule allows representative testing for spark-
ignited engines, and specifies requirements for that testing.
SMAQMD Rule 413 limits emissions of NOX from stationary
gas turbines. Amended Rule 413 extends the startup exemption for
turbines with a rated output greater than or equal to 160 MW, and which
are part of a combined cycle process, to up to 4 hours following a
shutdown of the associated steam turbine of 72 hours or more; and up to
3 hours following a shutdown of the associated steam turbine of between
8 and 72 hours. It also allows a 6-hour averaging period for compliance
with NOX limits for gas turbines with a rated output greater
than 100 MW, and which are part of a combined cycle process, during a
transient increase in emissions. EPA's technical support documents
(TSDs) have more information about these rules.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
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). The SJVAPCD and the SMAQMD both regulate serious ozone
nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 81.305), so Rule 4702 and Rule 413
must implement Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
control of NOX emissions (see CAA 182(b)(2), (c) and
182(f)). Both areas also regulate PM-10 nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR
81.305). The SJVAPCD is a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, so Rule
4702 must implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM), including
Best Available Control Technology (BACT), for control of NOX
emissions (see CAA 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e)). The SMAQMD is a moderate
PM-10 nonattainment area, so Rule 413 must implement Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM), including RACT, for control of
NOX emissions (see CAA 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(e)).
Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate
enforceability, BACM/BACT and RACM/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 (the Little Bluebook).
4. EPA Memorandum to Regional Administrators from Steven A. Herman,
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation:
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions during
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,'' September 20, 1999.
5. ``Clean Air Act National Testing Guidance,'' EPA, September 30,
2005.
6. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,''
EPA, EPA-453/R-93-032, July 1993.
7. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines,'' EPA, EPA-453/R-93-007,
January 1993.
8. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
9. 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, 59 FR 41998 (August
16, 1994).
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe these rules are consistent with the CAA, EPA
regulations, and relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability,
BACM/BACT, RACM/RACT, and SIP relaxations. The inclusion of
agricultural, transportable, and compression-ignited engines in SJVAPCD
Rule 4702 clearly strengthens the rule, and the added exemptions are
supported by District staff analysis. The representative testing
provisions in Rule 4702 are based on EPA's ``Clean Air Act National
Testing Guidance,'' and contain appropriate requirements to assure the
achievement of emissions limits. The use of portable NOX
analyzers allowed in Rule 4702 is a reasonable manner of checking
compliance before the required performance of a full source test. The
Rule 4702 requirements for certification of exhaust control systems are
adequate to ensure control of emissions while simplifying rule
compliance and enforcement.
In our prior action to approve Rule 4702 into the SIP, we concluded
that Rule 4702 implemented BACM/BACT as required for serious PM-10
nonattainment areas under CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e) for
NOX emissions from non-agricultural stationary internal
combustion engines. See 69 FR 7098, 7102 (February 12, 2004) (proposed
rule); 69 FR 28061 (May 18, 2004) (final rule). Revised Rule 4702
continues to implement BACM/BACT for these engines. In addition, these
revisions satisfy SJVAPCD's commitment to apply BACT-level controls to
agricultural engines, consistent with its Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan. (The
``Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan'' is the San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain
Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and Smaller, as
[[Page 1821]]
revised and supplemented by the plan amendments SJVAPCD adopted and
submitted to EPA in December 2003. See 69 FR 30006, May 26, 2004, for
the final rule approving these plan amendments into the California
SIP.)
As to SMAQMD Rule 413, while the extension of allowable startup
periods and the provision for short-term excursions appear to relax the
rule, these changes apply to only a small subset of the permitted
plants in the District that cannot feasibly meet the current SIP rule's
requirements during these limited periods. All of these sources have
installed BACT-level NOX emission controls in accordance
with SMAQMD's New Source Review (NSR) requirements. New turbines
covered by the revised exemptions (i.e., combined-cycle turbines with
capacities exceeding 100 MW) will also be subject to BACT for control
of NOX emissions. These revisions to Rule 413 only provide
limited flexibility to address operational necessities at large
turbines during narrowly defined periods, and do not alter the control
technology requirements that apply to these sources.
In our prior actions to approve Rule 413 into the SIP, we concluded
that this rule implemented RACT for NOX control as required
for serious ozone nonattainment areas under CAA sections 182(b)(2) and
182(f). See 61 FR 7992 (March 1, 1996); 64 FR 6803 (February 11, 1999).
Revised Rule 413 continues to implement RACT for control of
NOX emissions, as a precursor to both ozone and PM-10, from
stationary gas turbines.
The TSDs have more information on our evaluation of these rules.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
EPA has no recommendations to further improve these rules.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by February 11, 2008, 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 March 10, 2008. This will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 13211,
``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 (Pub. L. 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 Clean
Air Act. 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 approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
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 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 10, 2008. 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).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
[[Page 1822]]
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 5, 2007.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(350)(i)(C) and
(c)(352) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(350) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(1 ) Rule 4702, adopted on August 21, 2003 and amended on January
18, 2007.
* * * * *
(352) New and amended regulations were submitted on September 5,
2007, by the governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
(1 ) Rule 413, adopted on April 6, 1995 and amended on March 24,
2005.
[FR Doc. E8-171 Filed 1-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P