[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20423-20426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9395]


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

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 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 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:

[[Page 20424]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> Supplement). The November 25, 
1992, action should be referred to for further information on the 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Rules 4.31, 4.34, and 4.37 specify 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purpose of assisting State and local agencies in developing 
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT rules, EPA prepared the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 NO<INF>X</INF>.
    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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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:
    <bullet> General provisions including applicability, exemptions, 
and definitions.
    <bullet> Exhaust emissions standards for oxides of nitrogen 
(NO<INF>X</INF>).
    <bullet> 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

    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

    <bullet> 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

    <bullet> 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 20426]]

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