[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34405-34408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11823]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 260-0339a; FRL-7174-5]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Tehama 
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 
Tehama County Air Pollution Control District (TCAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) emissions from industrial, 
institutional, and commercial boilers, steam generators, process 
heaters, and stationary gas turbines. We are approving local rules that 
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 
1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 15, 2002, without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 13, 2002. If we receive 
adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register to notify the public that this rule will not take effect.

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 revisions and EPA's 
technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during 
normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP 
revisions at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Tehama County Air pollution Control District, P.O. Box 38 (1750 Walnut 
St.), Red Bluff, CA 96008-0038.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charnjit Bhullar, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3960.

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.
    D. Public comment and final action.
III. Background information
    A. Why were these rules submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they 
were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                    Rule #              Rule Title             Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCAPCD....................................         4:31  Industrial, Institutional,        01/29/02     02/08/02
                                                          and Commercial Boilers,
                                                          Steam Generators, and
                                                          Process Heaters.

[[Page 34406]]

 
TCAPCD....................................         4:37  Stationary Gas Turbines......     01/29/02     02/08/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 8, 2002, these rule submittals were 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 These Rules?

    On September 19, 2000 (65 FR 56486), EPA finalized limited approval 
and limited disapproval of a previous version of these rules. TCAPCD 
adopted the revisions of these rules on January 29, 2002, and CARB 
submitted them to us on February 8, 2002. We are acting on the revised 
version of these rules.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rules?

    Rule 4:31 establishes nitrogen oxide (NOX) and carbon 
monoxide (CO) emission limits for industrial, institutional, and 
commercial boilers, steam generators, and process heaters. Rule 4:37 
establishes nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission limits for the 
operation of gas and liquid fueled turbines of greater than 0.3 
megawatt (MW) output.
    On September 19, 2000, the EPA published a limited approval and 
limited disapproval of a previous version of rules 4:31 and 4:37, 
because the rules improved the State Implementation Plan (SIP) overall 
but some rules provisions conflicted with section 110 and part D of the 
Clean Air Act. Those provisions included the following:
    Rule 4:31 and 4:37 contained unapprovable Air Pollution Control 
Officer (APCO) discretion which allowed exemption of units from 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) due to lack of technical 
or economic feasibility.
    Rule 4:31 contained unapprovable APCO discretion to demonstrate 
compliance with RACT.
    The January 29, 2002 revision to rules 4:31 and 4:37 correct the 
above deficiencies. The TSDs have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating These Rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
major sources in nonattainment areas (See Sections 182(a)(2)(A) and 
182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (See Sections 110(l) 
and 193). The TCAPCD is an ozone attainment area, so RACT requirements 
do not apply to these rules.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate the 
rules include the following:
    1. Issue Relating to VOC Regulation, Cut points, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations (the ``Blue Book''), U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988.
    2. State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendment of 1990 (the ``NOX Supplement to the General 
Preamble''), U.S. EPA, 57 FR 55620, Nov. 25, 1992.
    3. State Implementation Plans for National Primary and Secondary 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
and Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas, Title I, Part D of the 
CAA.
    4. Requirement for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
    5. 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, California Air Resources Board/CAPCOA, 
July 18, 1991.
    6. Cost-Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT), U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, March 16, 1994.
    7. Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) for the Repowering of Utility Boilers, U.S. EPA 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, March 9, 1994.
    8. State Implementation Plan: Policy Regarding Excess Emission 
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, September 20, 1999.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have 
more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules.

    None.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all 
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this 
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we 
receive adverse comments by June 13, 2002, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct 
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in 
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive 
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective 
without further notice on July 15, 2002. This will incorporate these 
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    On September 19, 2000, EPA also finalized a limited approval and 
limited disapproval of TCAPCD rule 4:34, Stationary piston Engines, for 
reasons similar to our action on rules 4:31 and 4:37. TCAPCD adopted 
revisions to rule 4:34 on January 29, 2002. Unfortunately, these 
revisions relaxed, rather than improved on the previous version of the 
rule. On March 27, 2002, the state withdrew revisions to TCAPCD rule 
4:34. However, because Tehama is in attainment with the ozone NAAQS, 
sanctions under CAA section 179 and federal implementation plan (FIP) 
requirements do not apply. We are clarifying, therefore, that the 
version of rule 4:34 approved into the SIP on September 19, 2000 
remains federally enforceable, and there are no sanction or FIP 
implications if this is not revised.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of the rules and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the ruled, EPA may adopt as final those 
provisions of the rules that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

[[Page 34407]]

III. Background Information

A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and 
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. 
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that 
control NOX emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national 
milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency 
NOX rules.

                Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date                                 Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978.....................  EPA promulgated a list of ozone
                                     nonattainment areas under the Clean
                                     Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR
                                     8964; 40 CFR 81.305.
May 26, 1988......................  EPA notified Governors that parts of
                                     their SIPs were inadequate to
                                     attain and maintain the ozone
                                     standard and requested that they
                                     correct the deficiencies (EPA's SIP-
                                     Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of
                                     the pre-amended Act.
November 15, 1990.................  Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
                                     were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104
                                     Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C.
                                     7401-7671q.
May 15, 1991......................  Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that
                                     ozone nonattainment areas correct
                                     deficient RACT rules by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that these rules will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
these rules approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, these rules do not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    These rules also do not have tribal implications because they will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does 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). This action 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. These rules also are not subject to Executive Order 13045, 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because they are not 
economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. These rules do not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 these rules 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 these rules in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    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 July 15, 2002. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of these final rules 
do not affect the finality of these rules 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 
rules 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 5, 2002.
Keith Takata,
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)(295) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 34408]]

    (295) New and amended regulations for the following APCD were 
submitted on February 8, 2002, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Tehama County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rules 4:31 and 4:37 adopted on January 29, 2002.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-11823 Filed 5-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P