[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20426-20428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9394]


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

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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) for the Tehama Air Pollution 
Control District (TCAPCD). The revision concerns TCAPCD Rule 4.14 for 
the control of oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>) emissions from fuel 
burning equipment. The intended effect of proposing approval of this 
rule is to regulate emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> Supplement). The NO<INF>X</INF> 
Supplement should be referred to for further information on the 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NO<INF>X</INF> emissions contribute to the production of ground 
level ozone and smog. TCAPCD Rule 4.14 specifies exhaust emission 
standards for NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
Supplement (57 FR 55620) and various other EPA policy guidance 
documents.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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:
    <bullet> General provisions including applicability, exemptions, 
and definitions.

[[Page 20427]]

    <bullet> Exhaust emissions standards for oxides of nitrogen 
(NO<INF>X</INF>).
    <bullet> Compliance and monitoring requirements including 
compliance schedule, reporting requirements, monitoring and record 
keeping, 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, record keeping, and compliance testing in addition to 
guidance regarding emission limits. The submitted version of Rule 4.14 
strengthens the SIP through the addition of enforceable measures such 
as record keeping, test methods, definitions, and more stringent 
compliance testing. The submitted version of Rule 4.14 relaxes the SIP 
by exempting sources subject to Rules 4.31, 4.34 and 4.37. EPA is 
separately acting on these rules and believes that they generally 
adequately control the sources exempted from Rule 4.14. A more detailed 
discussion of the sources controlled and the controls required can be 
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD), dated January 25, 2000, 
which is available from the U.S. EPA, Region IX office.
    EPA, in light of Rules 4.31, 4.34 and 4.37, has evaluated the 
submitted rule and has determined that it is consistent with the CAA, 
EPA regulations and EPA policy. Therefore, Tehama County Air Pollution 
Control District Rule 4.14 is being proposed for approval under section 
110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a), 
section 182(b)(2), section 182(f) and the NO<INF>x</INF> Supplement to 
the General Preamble.

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 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the 
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 regulation. 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 (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.

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. This rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is 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 rule 
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 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

[[Page 20428]]

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 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.

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. 00-9394 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P