Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, 26355-26357 [E8-10405]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 91 / Friday, May 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules must be submitted loose and must not be stapled together or attached to any paper or other medium. However, selfadhesive labels printed without a backing may be submitted on a plain sheet of paper. * * * * * rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS 9.3.3 Unused, Dated PC Postage Indicia Unused, dated PC Postage indicia are considered for refund only if complete, legible, and valid. The refund request must be submitted as follows: [Revise 9.3.3 a, b, and c only as follows:] a. Only authorized PC Postage users may request the refund. Users must submit the request to their system provider. The request is processed by the provider, not the USPS. b. Requests for refund of PC Postage indicia that contain a valid Postal Identification Code (PIC) must be submitted by authorized users to their provider electronically in accordance with procedures available from their provider. Valid PICs include any form of Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Express Mail, or Confirm Code service. Authorized users must initiate requests for electronic refunds within ten (10) days of printing the indicia. Refunds for postage associated with a PIC may only be submitted electronically. Physical submissions are not permitted. c. Requests for refund of PC Postage indicia which do not have an associated PIC must be physically submitted by authorized users to their provider, along with the items bearing the unused postage, in accordance with procedures available from their provider. Authorized users must submit the refund request within sixty (60) days of the date(s) shown in the indicia. The refund request must be submitted as required in 9.3.2d. through 9.3.2g. * * * * * [Revise title and items a and c only of 9.3.4 as follows:] 9.3.4 Unused, Undated Metered Postage Unused, undated postage evidencing system indicia are considered for refund only if complete, legible, and valid. The refund request must be submitted as follows: a. Only the authorized user or the commercial entity that prepared the mailing for the authorized user may request the refund. The request must include a letter signed by the authorized user or the commercial entity that prepared the mailing explaining why the mailpieces were not mailed. * * * * * VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 May 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 c. The authorized user, or the commercial entity that prepared the mailing for the authorized user, must submit the request, along with the items bearing the unused postage and the required documentation, to the manager, business mail entry at the district post office overseeing the mailer’s local post office, or to a designee authorized in writing. The manager or designee approves or denies the refund request. * * * * * [Renumber current 9.3.5 through 9.3.7 as new 9.3.6 through 9.3.8 and add new 9.3.5 as follows:] 9.3.5 Unused, Undated PC Postage Indicia Refunds will not normally be provided for valid, undated, serialized PC Postage indicia containing commonly used postage values. If the authorized user believes there are extraordinary circumstances, requests for such refunds must be made by the authorized user in accordance with the procedures outlined in 9.3.3.c along with a detailed description of the extraordinary circumstances. Requests will be considered by the provider on a case by case basis. 9.3.6 Ineligible Metered Postage Items The following metered postage items are ineligible for refunds: * * * * * [Revise item d of renumbered 9.3.6 to change ‘‘licensing post office’’ to ‘‘local post office’’ as follows:] d. Indicia lacking identification of the local post office or other required information. * * * * * Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. [FR Doc. E8–10358 Filed 5–8–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–12–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0237; FRL–8564–2] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 26355 revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from stationary internal combustion engines. We are approving a local rule that regulates 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. Any comments must arrive by June 9, 2008. DATES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2008–0237, 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. 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. ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ´˜ Francisco Donez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3956, Donez.Francisco@epa.gov. E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM 09MYP1 26356 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 91 / Friday, May 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State’s Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this rule? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State’s Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? Table 1 shows 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. TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULE Local agency VCAPCD .................... Rule No. 74.9 Rule title Stationary Internal Combustion Engines ..................................................... On March 30, 2006, 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 74.9 into the SIP on October 25, 2002 (67 FR 65501). rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS 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. Rule 74.9 regulates NOX and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from stationary internal combustion engines rated at 50 or more horsepower. The submitted rule contains three major revisions, originally suggested by EPA in the technical support document (TSD) for the SIP-approved version. • The submitted rule requires biennial source tests and quarterly NOX screening tests with hand-held instrument, rather than relying exclusively on annual source testing. • The submitted rule requires the installation of non-resettable elapsed operating time meters in order to qualify for rule exemptions involving engine operating hours. • The requirement for biennial source testing to verify compliance with all emission limits has been clarified in the submitted rule. In addition, the revised rule includes a new limitation on CO emissions for new engines. CO emissions are limited to 2000 ppmv for all stationary engines installed after adoption of the amended rule. EPA’s TSD has more information about this rule. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 May 08, 2008 Adopted Jkt 214001 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), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The VCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 74.9 must fulfill RACT. Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate enforceability and 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. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines,’’ California Air Resources Board, November 2001. B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. We note in the TSD that the revised rule (subsection D.5) exempts engines used in agricultural operations. Such an exemption is generally PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 11/08/05 Submitted 03/10/06 impermissible under the RACT requirements of CAA Sections 182(a)(2) and (f). However, the District submitted a convincing demonstration that there are no agricultural sources within the VCAPCD that meet the major source threshold for NOX emissions, and that therefore the agricultural exemption does not violate RACT requirements. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA’s current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rule. D. 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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM 09MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 91 / Friday, May 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • 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); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 May 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 26357 In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: April 22, 2008. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E8–10405 Filed 5–8–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM 09MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 91 (Friday, May 9, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26355-26357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10405]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0237; FRL-8564-2]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Ventura County 
Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) emissions from stationary internal combustion engines. 
We are approving a local rule that regulates 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 June 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0237, 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.
    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.

[[Page 26356]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 shows 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.

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                Rule No.           Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VCAPCD.................................       74.9  Stationary Internal                 11/08/05        03/10/06
                                                     Combustion Engines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 30, 2006, 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 74.9 into the SIP on October 25, 2002 
(67 FR 65501).

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. Rule 74.9 regulates NOX 
and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from stationary internal combustion 
engines rated at 50 or more horsepower. The submitted rule contains 
three major revisions, originally suggested by EPA in the technical 
support document (TSD) for the SIP-approved version.
     The submitted rule requires biennial source tests and 
quarterly NOX screening tests with hand-held instrument, 
rather than relying exclusively on annual source testing.
     The submitted rule requires the installation of non-
resettable elapsed operating time meters in order to qualify for rule 
exemptions involving engine operating hours.
     The requirement for biennial source testing to verify 
compliance with all emission limits has been clarified in the submitted 
rule.
    In addition, the revised rule includes a new limitation on CO 
emissions for new engines. CO emissions are limited to 2000 ppmv for 
all stationary engines installed after adoption of the amended rule. 
EPA's 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), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines 
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see 
sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing 
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The VCAPCD regulates an 
ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 74.9 must 
fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate 
enforceability and 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. ``Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and 
Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignited 
Internal Combustion Engines,'' California Air Resources Board, November 
2001.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. We note 
in the TSD that the revised rule (subsection D.5) exempts engines used 
in agricultural operations. Such an exemption is generally 
impermissible under the RACT requirements of CAA Sections 182(a)(2) and 
(f). However, the District submitted a convincing demonstration that 
there are no agricultural sources within the VCAPCD that meet the major 
source threshold for NOX emissions, and that therefore the 
agricultural exemption does not violate RACT requirements. The TSD has 
more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local 
agency modifies the rule.

D. 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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office

[[Page 26357]]

of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: April 22, 2008.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8-10405 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.