58460 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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 action 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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: June 26, 2013. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 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)(361)(i)(A)(3), 

(c)(363)(i)(E), (c)(366)(i)(B)(4), 

(c)(404)(i)(C)(2) and (c)(423)(i)(D)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(361) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(3) Rule 339, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and 

Mobile Equipment Coating Operations,’’ 

revised on June 19, 2008. 

* * * * * 

(363) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 74.18, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and 

Mobile Equipment Coating Operations,’’ 

revised on November 11, 2008. 

* * * * * 

(366) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(4) Rule 1151, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and 

Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line 

Coating Operations,’’ amended on 

December 2, 2005. 

* * * * * 

(404) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(2) Rule 74.19, ‘‘Graphic Arts,’’ 

revised on June 14, 2011. 

* * * * * 

(423) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) * * * 

(2) Rule 1151, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and 

Mobile Equipment Coating Operations,’’ 

amended on June 19, 2012. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–23062 Filed 9–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0094; FRL–9833–1] 

Revision of Air Quality Implementation 

Plan; California; Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District and Feather 

River Air Quality Management District; 

Stationary Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule and technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of two 

permitting rules submitted by California 

as a revision to the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and 

Feather River Air Quality Management 

District (FRAQMD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions were proposed in 

the Federal Register on February 22, 

2013 and concern construction and 

modification of stationary sources of air 

pollution within each District. We are 

approving local rules that regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA). Final 

approval of these rules makes the rules 

federally enforceable and corrects 

program deficiencies identified in a 

previous EPA rulemaking (76 FR 44809, 

July 27, 2011). EPA is also making a 

technical amendment to the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect this 

previous rulemaking, which removed an 

obsolete provision from the California 

SIP. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

24, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0094 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents are 

listed at www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 58461 

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: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12267), 

EPA proposed a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the following 

rules that were submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Amended Submitted 

PCAPCD ......................................................... 502 New Source Review ....................................... 10/13/11 11/18/11. 

FRAQMD ......................................................... 10.1 New Source Review ....................................... 2/7/12 9/21/12. 

We proposed a limited approval 

because we determined that these rules 

improve the SIP and are largely 

consistent with the applicable CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously 

proposed a limited disapproval because 

some rule provisions do not satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the Act. Specifically: 

• Both rules are missing a component 

of the definition for the term ‘‘Regulated 

NSR Pollutant,’’ as it relates to PM2.5

condensable emissions. 

• Placer County Rule 502 is not 

supported by a justification for the 

stated PM2.5 interpollutant offset ratios. 

• Feather River Rule 10.1 contains 

certain language in new Sections B.4 

and B.5 that entirely exempts from 

regulation pollutants when EPA 

redesignates the area from 

nonattainment to attainment. As 

worded, the provision is too broad, in 

that it exempts such pollutants from all 

the requirements of Section E of the 

rule, rather than just those provisions 

which apply to major sources of 

nonattainment pollutants. 

Our proposed rule and related 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

contain more information on the basis 

for this rulemaking and on our 

evaluation of the submitted rules. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received one comment from 

Harold Peterson of Huntsville, Alabama. 

We summarize the comment and 

provide our response below. 

Comment: The commenter opposed 

what he described as EPA’s ‘‘proposal to 

terminate sanction clocks with respect 

to the July 27, 2011 ruling,’’ and 

explained that although ‘‘it makes sense 

to stay the sanctions and pause the 

clock while the amended Rules 502 and 

10.1 are being reviewed, . . . to remove 

all sanctions based on a limited 

approval/disapproval of the new rules 

[would be] inconsistent with the July 27 

ruling to impose sanctions based on 

another limited approval/disapproval.’’ 

The commenter stated that ‘‘[a] more 

logical approach would be to start a new 

18 month clock based on the February 

22, 2013 [rulemaking].’’ The commenter 

also stated that ‘‘a new clock may 

already have been put in place in 

another docket’’ and that, if so, he 

would find EPA’s proposed action 

acceptable ‘‘pending the inclusion of a 

reference to the other docket.’’ 

EPA Response: To the extent the 

commenter intended to state that EPA 

does not have a basis for terminating all 

sanctions clocks associated with 

PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule 

10.1 and that EPA’s current action 

should, instead, start a new 18-month 

sanctions clock based on the new rule 

deficiencies identified in our February 

22, 2013 proposal, we agree. As 

explained in our February 22, 2013 

proposed rule and in our simultaneous 

interim final determination to stay and 

defer sanctions based on that proposal, 

the amended versions of PCAPCD Rule 

502 and FRAQMD Rule 10.1 that 

California submitted in 2011 and 2012, 

respectively, corrected the deficiencies 

identified in our July 27, 2011 

disapproval action but contained new 

deficiencies that were the basis for a 

new limited disapproval and associated 

sanctions clock. See 78 FR 12267, 12269 

second column (‘‘If EPA finalizes the 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval action, as proposed, then a 

sanctions clock, and EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate a Federal implementation 

plan, would be triggered. . . .’’); see 

also 78 FR 12243 (stating that EPA was 

proposing a limited approval/limited 

disapproval because the amended rules 

‘‘correct the deficiencies identified in 

our July 27, 2011 disapproval action, 

but other revisions have created new 

deficiencies.’’). EPA also stated that the 

interim final determination to stay and 

defer ‘‘sanctions associated with 

PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule 

10.1 (as adopted 2010 and 2009 

respectively) [was] based on our 

concurrent proposal to approve the 

State’s SIP revision as correcting the 

deficiencies that initiated sanctions’’ 

(emphasis added). 78 FR 12243, 12244. 

Consistent with our proposal, we are 

clarifying in this final rule that the effect 

of this action is to terminate only those 

sanctions clocks that were triggered by 

our July 27, 2011 final limited approval 

and limited disapproval of PCAPCD 

Rule 502, as adopted in 2010, and 

FRAQMD Rule 10.1, as adopted in 2009 

(76 FR 44809, docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0461), and to start a new 

sanctions clock based on the new rule 

deficiencies identified in our February 

22, 2013 proposal on the amended rules, 

as adopted in 2011 and 2012 (78 FR 

12267, docket number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2013–0094). This is because, although 

EPA has determined that the amended 

rules submitted by the State in 2011 and 

2012 correct the deficiencies forming 

the basis of EPA’s July 27, 2011 limited 

disapproval, EPA has identified new, 

unrelated rule deficiencies in the 

amended rules that form the basis of a 

new limited disapproval that we are 

finalizing today. See 40 CFR 52.31(d) 

(sanction application sequencing). The 

commenter correctly notes that these 

two rulemakings have separate public 

dockets, as discussed above. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that submitted 

PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule 

10.1 satisfy the applicable CAA 

requirements in part. Therefore, under 

CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) and 

for the reasons set forth in our February 

22, 2013 proposed rule, we are 

finalizing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of PCAPCD Rule 

502 (as amended October 31, 2011) and 

FRAQMD Rule 10.1 (as amended 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
58462 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1EPA’s Technical Support Document for this 

proposal stated incorrectly that Rule 508 had 

previously been approved into the SIP on May 18, 

1981 at 46 FR 27115. See U.S. EPA, Region IX, 

Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking for the California SIP, Placer 

County Air Pollution Control District, Rule 502 

(New Source Review), May 6, 2011, at 1. The 

correct cite and date for this previous SIP action is 

47 FR 29536 (July 7, 1982). 

February 7, 2012). This action 

incorporates the submitted rules into 

the PCAPCD and FRAQMD portions of 

the California SIP and makes them 

federally enforceable. 

We are also making a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR 52.220 to remove 

a previous SIP rule, PCAPCD Rule 508, 

from the PCAPCD portion of the 

California SIP, consistent with EPA’s 

final rule at 76 FR 44809 (July 27, 2011). 

As explained in the proposal for this 

2011 rulemaking, both EPA and the 

District had intended for Rule 502 to 

replace the preexisting NSR program in 

Rule 508, which EPA had approved into 

the SIP in 1982. See 76 FR 28945 (May 

19, 2011).1 In the regulatory text 

codifying this final action, however, 

EPA incorporated Rule 502 into the SIP 

but neglected to remove Rule 508. See 

76 FR at 44811. We are making a 

technical amendment to 40 CFR 52.220 

to correct this error by removing Rule 

508 from the PCAPCD portion of the 

California SIP. This technical 

amendment makes no change to the 

substance of our July 27, 2011 final 

action or to today’s final limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

amended PCAPCD Rule 502 and 

FRAQMD Rule 10.1. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements, in part, and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this final action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this final rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: June 28, 2013. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 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)(52)(xiii)(G), 

(c)(80)(i)(G), (c)(416)(i)(C) and 

(c)(423)(i)(F) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(52) * * * 

(xiii) * * * 

(G) Previously approved on July 7, 

1982 in paragraph (c)(52)(xiii)(C) of this 

section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 508. 

* * * * * 

(80) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(G) Previously approved on June 23, 

1982 in paragraph (c)(80)(i)(E) of this 

section and now deleted without 

replacement: Rule 508. 

* * * * * 

(416) New and amended regulations 

were submitted on November 18, 2011, 

by the Governor’s Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by Reference. 

(C) Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 502, ‘‘New Source Review,’’ 

as amended on October 13, 2011. 

* * * * * 

(423) New and amended regulations 

were submitted on September 21, 2012, 

by the Governor’s Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by Reference. 

(F) Feather River Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 10.1, ‘‘New Source Review,’’ 

as amended on February 6, 2012. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–23096 Filed 9–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0451; FRL–9901– 

22Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Whenever new or revised 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES