[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35005-35007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16374]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 210-0103; FRL-6365-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Modoc County Air Pollution Control 
District, Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District, Tehama County 
Air Pollution Control District, and Tuolumne County Air Pollution 
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action is an 
administrative change which revises the definitions in Modoc County Air 
Pollution Control District (MCAPCD), Siskiyou County Air Pollution 
Control District (SCAPCD), Tehama County Air Pollution Control District 
(TCAPCD), and Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control District (TUCAPCD). 
The intended effect of approving this action is to incorporate changes 
to the definitions for clarity and consistency and to update the Exempt 
Compound list in TCAPCD definition's rule to be consistent with the 
revised federal and state VOC definitions.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 30, 1999 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 30, 1999. If EPA 
receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the Region 
IX office listed below. Copies of these rules, along with EPA's 
evaluation report for each rule, are available for public inspection at 
EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the 
submitted requests for rule revisions are also available for inspection 
at the following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
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
Modoc County Air Pollution Control District, 202 West 4th Street, 
Alturas, CA 96101-3915
Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District, 1855 Placer Street, 
Ste. 101, Redding, CA 96001-1759
Tehama County Air Pollution Control District, P.O. Box 38 (1750 Walnut 
St.), Red Bluff, CA 96080-0038
Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control District, 22365 Airport, 
Columbia, CA 95310

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, Rulemaking Office, 
AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rules with definition revisions being approved into the 
California SIP include the following: MCAPCD Rule 1.2, Definitions and 
7.1, Definitions (Agricultural Burning); SCAPCD Rule 7.1, Agricultural 
Burning Definitions; TCAPCD Rule 1:2, Definitions; and TUCAPCD Rules 
101, Title; 102, Definitions; and Regulation III, Open Burning, Rule 
300, General Definitions. These rules were submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board to EPA on March 26, 1990 (Tuolumne), December 31, 
1990 (Modoc and Siskiyou), and May 13, 1991 (Tehama).

II. Background

    On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment 
areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 
(1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included MCAPCD, SCAPCD, TCAPCD, 
and TUCAPCD. 43 FR 8964, 49 CFR 81.305. In response to section 110(a) 
of the Act and other requirements, the MCAPCD, SCAPCD, TCAPCD, and 
TUCAPCD submitted many rules which EPA approved into the SIP.
    This document addresses EPA's direct-final action for MCAPCD Rules 
1.2, Definitions and 7.1, Definitions (Agricultural Burning); SCAPCD 
Rule 7.1, Agricultural Burning Definitions; TCAPCD Rule 1.2, 
Definitions; and TUCAPCD Rules 101, Title; 102, Definitions; and 
Regulation III, Open Burning, Rule 300, General Definitions. These 
rules were adopted by TUCAPCD on November 22, 1988; by MCAPCD on May 1, 
1989; by SCAPCD on July 11, 1989; and by TCAPCD on April 25, 1989. 
These rules were submitted by the California Air Resources Board to EPA 
on March 26, 1990 (Tuolumne); December 31, 1990 (Modoc and Siskiyou); 
and May 13, 1991 (Tehama). These submitted rules were found to be 
complete on February 28, 1991 (Modoc and Siskiyou), July 10, 1991 
(Tehama), and June 20, 1990 (Tuolumne), pursuant to EPA's completeness 
criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V 1 
and are being finalized for approval into the SIP. The following are 
EPA's summary and final action for these rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(l)(A) of the CAA, 
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

    In determining the approvability of a 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 
appears in various EPA policy guidance documents. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of 
those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``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), and the existing control 
technique guidelines (CTGs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MCAPCD Rule 1.2, Definitions, is amended by changing the format of 
the existing rule, and adding and/or revising several definitions. The 
following new definitions are: A3, Approved Combustibles; B1, Baseline 
Air Quality; Date; B3, Bulk Plant; C1, Class I Area; C4, Complete 
Application; C5, Condensed Fumes; D2, Dusts; F1, Fugitive Emissions; 
I1, Implement of Husbandry; M1, Multi-Component System; N1, Net 
Emissions Increases; P2, Permit; P4, PM-10; P5, Portable Source; P6, 
Process; P9, PSD Permit; R1, Regulation; S3, Significance Level; S4, 
Source Operation; T1, Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS); and T2, Trade 
Secrets. Rule 7.1, Definitions (Agricultural Burning), is amended by 
adding the following new definitions: Permit, Agricultural Burning 
Guidelines, Wildland Vegetation Management Burning, Prescribed Burning, 
Sensitive Receptor Area, and Burning Permit. Rule 5.3, Definitions, 
submitted on July 25, 1973 is being superseded by Rule 7.1.
    SCAPCD Rule 7.1, Definitions, is amended to include ``alumigel'' to 
the list of approved ignition devices.

[[Page 35006]]

    TCAPCD Rule 1.2, Definitions, is amended by adding the following 
new definitions: Designated Agency, Garbage, and Volatile Organic 
Compounds (VOC).
    TUCAPCD Rule 101, Title, is being amended for clarity and 
consistency with the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR part 51. Rule 102, 
Definitions, is amended by adding the following new definitions: 
Allowable Emissions, Attainment Pollutant, Baseline Concentration, Best 
Available Control Technology, Breakdown Condition, Criteria Pollutant, 
Facility, Federal Land Manager, Fugitive Dust, Lowest Achievable 
Emission Rate, Major Facility, Major Modification, Modification, 
Nonattainment Pollutant, Potential to Emit, Precursor, Resource 
Recovery Facility, Secondary Emissions, Source, and Temporary Source. 
Regulation III, Open Burning, Rule 300, General Definitions, is a new 
rule and contains general definitions for terms used or referenced in 
the district rules. This new rule defines the following terms: (A) 
Agricultural Operation, (B) Agricultural Wastes, (C) APCD, (D) APCO, 
(E) Approved Ignition Devices, (F) ARB, (G) Brush Treated, (H) 
Designated Agency, (I) No-Burn Day, (J) Open Out-Door, (K) Permissive 
Burn Day, (L) Person, (M) Prescribed Burning, (N) Section, (O) 
Silviculture, and (P) Timber Operations.
    EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they 
are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. 
Therefore, MCAPCD Rule 1.2, Definitions and 7.1, Definitions 
(Agricultural Burning); SCAPCD Rule 7.1, Agricultural Burning 
Definitions; TCAPCD Rule 1:2, Definitions; and TUCAPCD Rules 101, 
Title; 102, Definitions; and Regulation III, Open Burning, Rule 300, 
General Definitions are being approved under section 110(k)(3) of the 
CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 30, 1999 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
July 30, 1999.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this 
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this 
rule will be effective on August 30, 1999 and no further action will be 
taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, 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. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must 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 written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 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 rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
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 E.O. 
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 E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects 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. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must 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 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. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 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

[[Page 35007]]

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 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. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 30, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: June 8, 1999.
Nora L. McGee,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

    2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(179)(i)(G), 
(182)(i)(F)(3) and (G)(2), and (184)(i)(F) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (179) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (G) Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rules 101, 102, and Rule 300, adopted November 22, 1988.
* * * * *
    (182) * * * 
    (i) * * *
    (F) * * *
    (3) Rule 1.2 and Rule 7.1, adopted May 1, 1989.
    (G) * * *
    (2) Rule 7.1, adopted July 11, 1989.
* * * * *
    (184) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) Tehama County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 1.2, adopted April 25, 1989.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-16374 Filed 6-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P