[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56486-56489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23653]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 226-0251; FRL-6868-9]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Tehama 
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the Tehama County Air Pollution Control District (TCAPCD) 
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The actions 
were proposed in the Federal Register on April 17, 2000, and concern 
control of emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from 
industrial, institutional, and commercial boilers, steam generators, 
and process heaters, stationary piston engines, and stationary gas 
turbines. Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA 
or the Act), this action simultaneously approves local rules that 
regulate these emission sources and directs California to correct rule 
deficiencies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on October 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this 
action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You can 
inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following 
locations:


[[Page 56487]]


Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.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: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

    On April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20423), EPA proposed a limited approval 
and limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for 
incorporation into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Air pollution agency             Rule #               Rule title              Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehama County Air Pollution Control            4.31  Industrial, Institutional,         03/14/95         5/13/99
 District.                                            and Commercial Boilers,
                                                      Steam Generators, and
                                                      Process Heaters.
Tehama County Air Pollution Control            4.34  Stationary Piston Engines..        06/03/97         5/13/99
 District.
Tehama County Air Pollution Control            4.37  Determination of Reasonably        04/21/98         5/13/99
 District.                                            Available Control
                                                      Technology for the Control
                                                      of Oxides of Nitrogen from
                                                      Stationary Gas Turbines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these 
rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA 
requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because 
some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. 
These provisions include the following:
    Rule 4.31 and Rule 4.37 allow APCO discretion as to approval of 
units that are exempt from RACT emission requirements due to lack of 
technical or economic feasibility. Rule 4.31 allows unapprovable APCO 
discretion as to schedule of periodic compliance determinations. Rule 
4.34 allows APCO discretion in approving the use of alternate portable 
analyzers.
    Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this 
rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittals.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. No 
comments were submitted regarding our proposed action.

III. EPA Action

    Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the 
Act, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rules. This 
action incorporates the submitted rules into the California SIP, 
including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under 
section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited 
disapproval of the rules. As a result, sanctions will be imposed unless 
EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rules 
deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of this action. 
These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act according 
to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a federal 
implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve 
subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 24 
months. Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the Tehama 
County Air Pollution Control District, and EPA's final limited 
disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing them.

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 13045

    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 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.

C. 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 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 OMB, 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, E.O. 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. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. E.O. 13132 requires 
EPA to develop an accountable process to

[[Page 56488]]

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 
E.O. 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 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 E.O. 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 
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 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.
    EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing 
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal 
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state 
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, 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 
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 costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This 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.

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.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's action because it 
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use 
of VCS.

H. 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. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

I. 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 November 20, 2000. 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, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.


[[Page 56489]]


    Dated: August 3, 2000.
John Wise,
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 paragraph (c) (263) (i)(D) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (263) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Tehama County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 4:31 adopted on March 14, 1995, Rule 4:34 adopted on June 
3, 1997, and Rule 4:37 adopted on April 21, 1998. (EAD)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-23653 Filed 9-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P