Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA's technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following locations:
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On January 15, 2002, 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.
On January 13, 2000, we published a final limited approval and limited disapproval of a version of this rule that had been submitted to EPA on October 20, 1994.
EDCAPCD Rule 233 establishes NO
1. Emission limits were significantly higher than those established as Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) by CARB.
2. Annual emission testing of all engines was not required.
3. Nonresettable fuel or hour meters were not required. The submitted revisions are designed primarily to correct these deficiencies. The TSD has more information about this rule.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require RACT for major sources in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(b)(2)(a) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). EDCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR 81.305), so Rule 233 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:
In EPA's January 2000 action on a previous version the Rule, we determined that it improved the SIP and fulfilled the relevant evaluation criteria except for three deficiencies. The submitted rule addresses these deficiencies as follows:
1. Emission limits have been significantly reduced in section 233.3(A).
2. Through an administrative error, the revisions to Rule 233 did not clearly require emission testing for all engines. By letter dated January 2, 2002, EDCAPCD has stated its intension to revise the rule appropriately by July 2002.
3. A nonresettable fuel and/or hour meter is required in section 233.5(D).
The submitted revisions are designed primarily to correct these deficiencies. The TSD has more information about this rule.
A January 2, 2002 letter from the EDCAPCD Air Pollution Control Officer stated his intention to submit a commitment through CARB to adopt and submit revisions to Rule 233 by July 2002. As authorized in section 110(k)(4) of the Act and based on the expectation that we will receive this commitment shortly, EPA is proposing a conditional approval of the submitted rule to improve the SIP. If finalized, this action would incorporate into the SIP both the submitted rule and the commitment from CARB to correct the identified deficiency. Pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5), if finalized, this action would also permanently terminate all section 179 sanctions, sanctions clocks and section 110(c) FIP obligations associated with our January 2000 action.
This conditional approval shall be treated as a disapproval if EDCAPCD fails to adopt rule revisions to correct the deficiencies within one year. If this rule is disapproved, the stay of sanctions will be lifted under section 179 of the Act in accordance with 40 CFR 52.31. Please see our Interim Final Determination elsewhere in today's
We will accept comments from the public on the proposed conditional approval for the next 30 days.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulation action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing and Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulations. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This proposed rule will 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, because it merely acts on 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This proposed Federal action acts on pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401