[Federal Register: December 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 243)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 75916-75918]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19de06-25]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0013, FRL-8257-7]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern
County Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Kern County Air
Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The KCAPCD revisions concern permitting
requirements. We are proposing to approve local rules that administer
regulations 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 January 18, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2005-CA-0013, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions.
E-mail: R9airpermits@epa.gov.
Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
http://www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Manny Aquitania, Permits Office (AIR-
3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3977,
aquitania.manny@epa.gov.
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 rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. What is the deficiency in Rule 203?
D. EPA recommendation to further improve a rule
E. Public comment and final action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules we are proposing to approve and Table 2
lists the rule we are proposing to disapprove with the date that they
were amended by the local air agency and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1.--Submitted Rules Proposed for Full Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD...................................... 201 Permits Required.............. 05/02/96 07/23/96
KCAPCD...................................... 202.1 Experimental Research 05/02/96 07/23/96
Operations.
KCAPCD...................................... 209.1 Permit Conditions............. 05/02/96 07/23/96
KCAPCD...................................... 210.2 Standards for Permits to 05/02/96 07/23/96
Operate.
KCAPCD...................................... 210.5 Visibility Protection......... 05/02/96 07/23/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75917]]
Table 2.--Submitted Rule Proposed for Full Disapproval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule
Local agency No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD...................................... 203 Transfer....................... 05/02/96 07/23/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 30, 1996, the submittal of Rules 201, 202.1, 203, 209.1,
210.2, and 210.5 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 these rules?
We approved Rules 201 and 202.1 into the SIP on July 6, 1982 (47 FR
29233). We approved Rule 203 into the SIP on September 22, 1972 (37 FR
19812). We approved Rule 210.2 into the SIP on August 21, 1981 (46 FR
42460). There are no versions of Rules 209.1 and 210.5 in the SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local
agency's program to control these pollutants.
The purposes of the new rules are as follows:
Rule 209.1 adds a prohibition to operate equipment
contrary to conditions in the Permit to Operate (PTO) issued in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 209 in order to comply with the
standards of Rules 208 and 208.1.
Rule 210.5 adds a requirement that the Air Pollution
Control Officer (APCO) not issue an Authority to Construct (ATC) unless
the analysis required by this rule demonstrates that an adverse impact
on visibility in Federal Class I Areas will not occur for any new major
stationary source or major modification which would have the potential
to emit nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide or particulate matter in
significant amounts and is required to utilize BACT/LAER for such
pollutants. The purposes of revisions relative to the SIP rules are as
follows:
Rule 201 adds a provision that the ATC will serve as the
temporary PTO after notifying the APCO of the intent to start-up new or
modified equipment and adds a provision that the application for a PTO
will serve as the temporary PTO for existing equipment.
Rule 202.1 is reformatted for clarity.
Rule 203 replaces the prohibition from transferring a
permit with the allowance to transfer a permit from one person to
another or from one location to another, providing a new application is
filed and approved by the APCO.
Rule 210.2 deletes the severability provision.
The TSD has more information about these rules.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193).
The following guidance documents were used for reference:
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations, EPA (May 25, 1988). (The Blue Book)
Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies, EPA Region IX (August 21, 2001). (The Little Bluebook)
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe Rules 201, 202.1, 209.1, 210.2, and 210.5 are consistent
with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP
relaxations.
A provision in Rule 203 which does not meet the evaluation criteria
is summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.
C. What is the deficiency in Rule 203?
This provision conflicts with section 110 and part D of the CAA and
prevents full approval of the SIP revision:
The revision to Rule 203 to allow transfer of a permit
from one location to another is prohibited, because permitting
requirements may be different at different locations. A New Source
Review must be performed upon changing location. See 40 CFR part 51,
sections 165-166.
D. EPA Recommendation to further improve a rule
The TSD describes an additional revision to Rule 201 that does not
affect EPA's current action but is recommended for the next time the
local agency modifies the rule.
E. Public comment and final action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, we are proposing
full approval of the submitted KCAPCD Rules 201, 202.1, 209.1, 210.2,
and 210.5.
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the CAA, we are proposing a
full disapproval of the submitted KCAPCD Rule 203. If finalized, this
action would retain the present SIP-approved rule in the SIP. Sanctions
would not be imposed as described in CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.30-
52.32, because the present SIP-approved rule fulfills CAA requirements.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.)
C. 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 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 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
[[Page 75918]]
relationship, under the Clean Air Act preparation of flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness. 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. 10(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 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
the 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 proposed 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 proposes to
approve 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. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13132, because it
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. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
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.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. 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. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: November 28, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E6-21497 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P