[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30145-30148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14082]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 242-0281; FRL-6990-8]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

[[Page 30146]]

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
a revision to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District 
(ICAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
This revision concerns the control of emissions from sulfur compounds. 
We are proposing action on a local rule that regulates these emissions 
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are 
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final 
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revision and EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal 
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revision 
at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 150 South 9th Street, 
El Centro, CA 92243-2801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-
1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Background information.
    A. Why was this rule submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPCD..............................             405  Sulfur Compounds Emission          09/14/99        05/26/00
                                                      Standards, Limitations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 6, 2000, this rule submittal was found to meet the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met 
before formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

    EPA approved a version of Rule 405 into the SIP on August 11, 1978.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revision?

    ICAPCD Rule 405 includes the following significant changes from the 
current SIP:
     The effluent process gas from sulfur recovery units, 
sulfuric acid units, and fuel burning equipment shall not exceed 500 
ppm by volume of sulfur compounds calculated as sulfur dioxide; or 200 
lbs. per hour of sulfur compounds calculated as sulfur dioxide. 
Additionally, sulfur recovery units shall not discharge more than 10 
ppm by volume of hydrogen sulfide.
     A person shall not burn any gaseous fuel containing sulfur 
compounds in excess of 50 grains per 100 cubic feet of gaseous fuel, 
calculated as hydrogen sulfide at standard conditions; or a sulfur 
content in excess of 0.5 percent by weight.
     The use of non-complying fuel may be allowed with approval 
where process conditions or control equipment will reduce emissions at 
a level equal to or less than emissions associated with the use of 
complying fuel.
     Several test methods are included to determine compliance. 
The TSD has more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

    Generally, SIP rules for SO2 must be enforceable (see 
section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements 
(see sections 110(l) and 193). ICAPCD is listed as being attainment for 
the national ambient air quality standards (see 40 CFR 81) for sulfur 
dioxide (SO2). Therefore, for purposes of controlling 
SO2, Rule 405 needs only to comply with the general 
provisions of Section 110 of the Act.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability requirements include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal 
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the 
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``SO2 Guideline Document,'' EPA-452/R-94-008.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    This rule improves the SIP by establishing requirements for sulfur 
emissions and listing the appropriate test methods. This rule is 
largely consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding 
enforceability. One deficiency that does not meet the evaluation 
criteria summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What Is the Rule Deficiency?

    This rule lacks recordkeeping requirements for sources subject to 
the rule and prevents full approval of the SIP revision.

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rule to improve the SIP. 
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the 
SIP, including the identified deficiency. This approval is limited 
because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the 
rule under section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is finalized, 
sanctions will be not be imposed under section 179 because this an 
attainment area and not a required submittal. Note that the submitted 
rule has been adopted by the ICAPCD, and EPA's final limited 
disapproval would not prevent the local agency from enforcing it.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited 
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

[[Page 30147]]

III. Background Information

A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?

    Sulfur dioxide is formed by the combustion of fuels containing 
sulfur compounds and causes harm to human health and the environment. 
This rule is designed to reduce SO2 emissions.

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, 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 Equal Opportunity 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 Equal Opportunity 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. 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. Equal Opportunity 
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 Equal 
Opportunity 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, 
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 
proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit 
of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

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 proposed 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 proposed 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).

D. 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

[[Page 30148]]

may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the proposed action 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 proposed 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.

E. 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 proposed action 
because it 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 8, 2001.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-14082 Filed 6-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U