Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules 20423

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 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it 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. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

final 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 approve

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. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

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 annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves 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.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

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.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

proposed action does not require the

public to perform activities conducive

to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

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

Dated: March 30, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–9392 Filed 4–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 226–0235; FRL–6578–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; Tehama

County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited

approval and a simultaneous limited

disapproval of revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for the Tehama County Air

Pollution Control District (TCAPCD).

The revisions concern Rule 4.31—

Industrial, Institutional, and

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators,

and Process Heaters, Rule 4.34—

Stationary Piston Engines, and Rule

4.37—Determination of Reasonably

Available Control Technology for the

Control of Oxides of Nitrogen from

Stationary Gas Turbines.

The intended effect of proposing

limited approval and a simultaneous

limited disapproval of the rules is to

regulate emissions of NOX in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). EPA’s final action on

the proposed rules will incorporate the

rules into the federally approved SIP.

EPA has evaluated the rules and is

proposing a limited approval and a

simultaneous limited disapproval under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals and general

rulemaking authority because these

revisions do not fully meet the CAA

provisions regarding unapprovable

executive officer discretion.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office,

AIR–4, Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rules and EPA’s

evaluation report of the rules are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102)

401 ‘‘M’’ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘L’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812

Tehama County APCD, P.O. Box 38

(1750 Walnut Street) Red Bluff, CA

96080

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Addison, Rulemaking Office, AIR–4, Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

20424 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

2 ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviation, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Document’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988).

I. Applicability

The rules being proposed for limited

approval and a simultaneous limited

disapproval into the California SIP are

Tehama County Air Pollution Control

District (TCAPCD) Rule 4.31—

Industrial, Institutional, and

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators,

and Process Heaters, Rule 4.34—

Stationary Piston Engines, and Rule

4.37—Determination of Reasonably

Available Control Technology for the

Control of Oxides of Nitrogen from

Stationary Gas Turbines. Rules 4.31,

4.34 and 4.37 were submitted by the

State of California to EPA on May 13,

1999.

II. Background

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Public Law 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

On November 25, 1992, EPA

published a proposed rule entitled,

‘‘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).

The November 25, 1992, action should

be referred to for further information on

the NOX requirements for SIPs.

This document addresses EPA’s

proposed action for Tehama County Air

Pollution Control District (TCAPCD)

Rule 4.31, adopted by the TCAPCD on

March 14, 1995, Rule 4.34 on June 3,

1997, and Rule 4.37 on April 21, 1998.

The State of California submitted Rules

4.31, 4.34 and 4.37 to EPA on May 13,

1999. Rules 4.31, 4.37 and 4.34 were

found to be complete on May 26, 1999,

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V.1

NOX emissions contribute to the

production of ground level ozone and

smog. TCAPCD Rules 4.31, 4.34, and

4.37 specify NOX emission standards

and were originally adopted as part of

TCAPCD’s effort to maintain the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone, and in response to

the CAA requirements cited above. The

following is EPA’s evaluation and

proposed action for the rules.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed

Action

In determining the approvability of a

NOX rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the NOX Supplement (57 FR

55620) and various other EPA policy

guidance documents.2

For the purpose of assisting State and

local agencies in developing NOX RACT

rules, EPA prepared the NOX

Supplement to the General Preamble. In

addition, pursuant to section 183(c),

EPA is issuing alternative control

technique documents (ACTs), that

identify alternative controls for all

categories of stationary sources of NOX.

The ACT documents will provide

information on control technology for

stationary sources that emit or have the

potential to emit 25 tons per year or

more of NOX.

California Air Resources Board

(CARB), developed a guidance

document entitled Determination of

Reasonably Available Control

Technology and Best Available Retrofit

Control Technology for Institutional,

Industrial and Commercial Boilers,

Steam Generators and Process Heaters,

July 18, 1991. EPA has used CARB’s

guidance document in evaluating Rule

4.31. In addition, the CARB has

developed a guidance document

entitled, ‘‘Proposed Determination of

Reasonably Available Control

Technology and Best Available Retrofit

Control Technology for Stationary

Internal Combustion Engines,’’ Dec. 3,

1997. EPA has used CARB’s proposed

Determination, dated Dec. 3, 1997, in

evaluating Rule 4.34. CARB has

developed a guidance document

entitled Determination of Reasonably

Available Control Technology and Best

Available Retrofit Control Technology

(BARCT) for Control of Oxides of

Nitrogen from Stationary Gas Turbines,

dated May 18, 1992. EPA has used

CARB’s guidance document in

evaluating Rule 4.37. In general, the

guidance documents cited above, as

well as other relevant and applicable

guidance documents, have been set

forth to ensure that submitted NOX rules

meet Federal requirements and are fully

enforceable and strengthen or maintain

the SIP.

There are currently no versions of

Rules 4.31, 4.34, and 4.37 in the SIP.

Submitted Rules 4.31, 4.34, and 4.37

include the following provisions:

• General provisions including

applicability, exemptions, and

definitions.

• Exhaust emissions standards for

oxides of nitrogen (NOX).

• Compliance and monitoring

requirements including compliance

schedule, reporting requirements,

monitoring and recordkeeping, and test

methods.

Rules submitted to EPA for approval

as revisions to the SIP must be fully

enforceable, must maintain or

strengthen the SIP and must conform

with EPA policy in order to be approved

by EPA. When reviewing rules for SIP

approvability, EPA evaluates

enforceability elements such as test

methods, recordkeeping, and

compliance testing in addition to

guidance regarding emission limits.

EPA has evaluated Tehama County

Air Pollution Control District Rules

4.31, 4.34, and 4.37 for consistency with

the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA

policy and has found that submitted

Rules 4.31, 4.34, and 4.37 supercede

TCAPCD Rule 4.14, and contain the

following significant modifications from

Rule 4.14, which are deficiencies, which

must be corrected pursuant to the

section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement of part

D of the CAA.

Rule 4.31

• Section C.4.: Exemptions: contains

unapprovable APCO discretion for units

that are exempt from emission

requirements due to lack of technical or

economic feasibility. Paragraph C. 4.

should be deleted.

• Section F.1.: Compliance schedule:

Allows unapprovable APCO discretion

as to schedule of periodic compliance

determinations. The words ‘‘as specified

by the APCO’’ should be removed and

replaced with ‘‘once every 2 years, or

after 8760 hours of operation, which

ever is more frequent.’’

Rule 4.34

• Section G.2: Allows APCO

discretion in approving the use of

alternate portable analyzers.(Also, the

note on bottom of page IV–6 of the Rule

requires an asterisk.)

Rule 4.37

• Section D.1.c.: Allows APCO

discretion as to approval of units that

are exempt from RACT emission

requirements due to lack of technical or

economic feasibility. This section ‘‘c.’’

should be removed.

A detailed discussion of these

deficiencies can be found in the

Technical Support Documents for Rules

4.31, 4.34, and 4.37, dated January 25,

2000, which are available from the U.S.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules 20425

EPA, Region IX office. Because of these

deficiencies, EPA cannot grant approval

of the rules under section 110(k)(3) and

part D. In order to strengthen the SIP,

EPA is proposing a limited approval and

a simultaneous limited disapproval of

TCAPCD’s submitted Rules 4.31, 4.34,

and 4.37 under sections 110(k)(3) and

301(a) of the CAA because they contain

deficiencies which must be corrected in

order to fully meet the requirements of

sections 182(a)(2), 182(b)(2), 182(f), of

part D of the CAA. Under section

179(a)(2), if the Administrator

disapproves a submission under section

110(k) for an area designated

nonattainment, based on the

submission’s failure to meet one or more

of the elements required by the Act, the

Administrator must apply one of the

sanctions set forth in section 179(b)

unless the deficiency has been corrected

within 18 months of such disapproval.

Section 179(b) provides two sanctions

available to the Administrator: Highway

funding and offsets. The 18 month

period referred to in section 179(a) will

begin on the effective date of EPA’s final

disapproval. Moreover, the final

disapproval triggers the Federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c). It should be noted

that the rules covered by this document

have been adopted by the Tehama

County Air Pollution Control District

and are currently in effect in the

Tehama County Air Pollution Control

District. EPA’s final disapproval action

will not prevent the Tehama County Air

Pollution Control District or EPA from

enforcing the rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a

regulation that is not required by statute

and that creates a mandate upon a State,

local or tribal government, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s rules do not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments.

The rules do not impose any enforceable

duties on these entities. Accordingly,

the requirements of section 1(a) of

Executive Order 12875 does not apply

to the rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

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. The rule is

not subject to Executive Order 13045

because it does not involve decisions

intended to mitigate environmental

health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rules does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

the rules.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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. The

proposed rules 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 approve 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. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

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 annual 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

20426 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216). 2 ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviation, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

document’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988).

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rules.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

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

Dated: April 3, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–9395 Filed 4–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 226–0233; FRL–6578–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; Tehama

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a revision to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.

The revision concerns the control of

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for the Tehama

Air Pollution Control District

(TCAPCD). The revision concerns

TCAPCD Rule 4.14 for the control of

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from

fuel burning equipment. The intended

effect of proposing approval of this rule

is to regulate emissions of NOX in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). EPA’s final action on

this proposed rule will incorporate this

rule into the Federally approved SIP.

EPA has evaluated this rule and is

proposing to approve it under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

actions on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards (NAAQS), and

plan requirements for nonattainment

areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office,

AIR–4, Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule and EPA’s

evaluation report of the rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102) 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Tehama County APCD, P.O. Box 38

(1750 Walnut Street) Red Bluff, CA

96080.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Addison, Rulemaking Office, AIR–4, Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rule being proposed for approval

into the California SIP is Tehama Air

Pollution Control District Rule 4.14,

Fuel Burning Equipment. Rule 4.14 was

submitted by the State of California to

EPA on May 13, 1999.

II. Background

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Public Law 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

On November 25, 1992, EPA

published a proposed rule entitled,

‘‘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).

The NOX Supplement should be

referred to for further information on the

NOX requirements.

This document addresses EPA’s

proposed action for Tehama Air

Pollution Control District Rule 4.14,

Fuel Burning Equipment, adopted by

the TCAPCD on November 3, 1998. The

State of California submitted Rule 4.14

to EPA May 13, 1999. Rule 4.14 was

found to be complete on May 26, 1999,

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V.1

NOX emissions contribute to the

production of ground level ozone and

smog. TCAPCD Rule 4.14 specifies

exhaust emission standards for NOX,

and was originally adopted as part of

TCAPCD’s effort to maintain the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone, and in response to

the CAA requirements cited above. The

following is EPA’s evaluation and

proposed action for the rule.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed

Action

In determining the approvability of a

NOX rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the NOX Supplement (57 FR

55620) and various other EPA policy

guidance documents.2

The California Air Resources Board

(CARB) has developed a guidance

document entitled, ‘‘California Clean

Air Act Guidance, Determination of

Reasonably Available Control

Technology and Best Available Retrofit

Control Technology for Institutional,

Industrial and Commercial Boilers,

Steam Generators and Process Heaters,’’

July 18, 1991. EPA has used CARB’s

Determination, dated July 18, 1991, in

evaluating Rule 4.14 for consistency

with the CAA’s requirements. In

general, EPA uses the guidance

documents cited above, as well as other

relevant and applicable guidance

documents, to ensure that submitted

NOX rules meet Federal RACT

requirements and are fully enforceable

and strengthen or maintain the SIP.

There is currently a July 12, 1990,

EPA approved (55 FR 28624) version of

Tehama County Air Pollution Control

District Rule 4.14, Fuel Burning

Equipment, in the SIP. Submitted Rule

4.14 includes the following provisions:

• General provisions including

applicability, exemptions, and

definitions.