28942 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 12, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12357 Filed 5–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0460; FRL–9309–5] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing both an 

approval and a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of permitting rules 

submitted for the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD or District) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). The District is required 

under Parts C and D of title I of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) to adopt and 

implement SIP-approved New Source 

Review (NSR) and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

programs. These rules update and revise 

the District’s NSR and PSD permitting 

programs for new and modified major 

sources of air pollution. If EPA finalizes 

the limited approval and limited 

disapproval action, as proposed, then a 

sanctions clock would be triggered. We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

June 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0460, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

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 email 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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under EPA–R09–OAR– 

2011–0460. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents are listed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), 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: 

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. 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. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal, including the dates they 

were adopted by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28943 

1While the District uses the term BACT as the 

level of control required, a review of the definition 

has shown that it is equivalent to the requirements 

for federal LAER. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule 

No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SMAQMD ....................................... 214 Federal New Source Review ................................................................ 10/28/10 12/07/10 

SMAQMD ....................................... 203 Prevention of Significant Deterioration .................................................. 1/27/11 1/28/11 

On January 13, 2011 and May 12, 

2011, EPA determined that the 

submittals for SMAQMD Rules 214 and 

203, respectively, met 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? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rules 203 or 214 in the SIP, but SIP 

approved Rule 202 (New Source 

Review), which these rules will replace 

in the SIP, was approved on June 19, 

1985 (50 FR 25417). 

The SMAQMD originally adopted 

new Rule 203 on February 26, 1991, and 

CARB submitted the rule to EPA on 

October 30, 2001, however EPA has not 

taken action on this submittal. While we 

can act on only the most recently 

submitted version, we have reviewed 

materials provided with the previous 

submittal. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that include 

a pre-construction permit program for 

certain new or modified stationary 

sources of pollutants, including a permit 

program as required by Parts C and D of 

Title I of the CAA. 

The purpose of District Rule 214 

(Federal New Source Review) and Rule 

203 (Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration) is to implement a federal 

preconstruction permit program for new 

and modified sources. These two new 

rules will replace in its entirety, the 

existing SIP approved NSR/PSD 

programs contained in Rule 202. The 

basic NSR program requirements from 

Rule 202 have been included in Rule 

214, with revisions made to clarify that 

the rule only applies to major sources 

and all modifications at such sources, 

major agricultural sources and only 

applies to pollutants for which the 

District is designated as nonattainment. 

In accordance with the District’s May 5, 

2010 (75 FR 24409) reclassification as a 

severe ozone nonattainment area, the 

rule lowers the BACT1 and offset 

applicability thresholds to 25 tpy or 

less, and increases the required offset 

ratio to 1.3 to 1. Pursuant to the 2002 

NSR Reforms adopted by EPA (67 FR 

80186), the rule adds provisions for 

calculating emission increases from 

proposed modifications by adding a 

definition for ‘‘Federal Major 

Modifications’’ which incorporates the 

necessary provisions to perform this 

calculation. The rule does not contain a 

provision for the implementation of 

Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) 

as required by 40 CFR 51.165(f). 

The basic PSD program requirements 

from Rule 202 have been included in 

Rule 203. This rule mainly incorporates 

by reference the federal PSD program as 

codified in 40 CFR 52.21 which only 

applies to new major sources and major 

modifications at existing major sources. 

The rule also revises several terms used 

within 40 CFR 52.21 to replace NSR 

Reform provisions with pre-reform 

language and requirements. (67 FR 

80186) 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

The relevant statutory provisions for 

our review of the submitted rules 

include Parts C and D of Title I of the 

CAA, section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(l) 

and section 182(d). Section 110(a) 

requires a pre-construction permit 

programs for certain new or modified 

stationary sources of pollutants, 

including a permit program as required 

by Parts C and D of Title I, while section 

110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP 

revisions that would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. Section 182(d) 

(together with section 182(f) for NOX), 

requires NSR SIPs in ‘‘severe’’ 

nonattainment areas to define ‘‘major 

sources’’ and ‘‘major modifications’’ to be 

sources that emit 25 tpy or more of VOC 

or NOX, and have an offset ratio of at 

least 1.3 to 1. In addition, we have 

reviewed the submitted rules for 

compliance with EPA implementing 

regulations for NSR, including 40 CFR 

51.160 through 40 CFR 51.166. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

EPA has reviewed the submitted rules 

in accordance with the Rule Evaluation 

criteria described above. The TSD for 

this action contains a complete 

discussion of our evaluation. EPA is 

proposing to find that these rules meet 

the statutory requirements for SIPs as 

specified in sections 110(a), 110(l), 

182(d) and 193 of the CAA. In addition, 

except for the deficiencies noted in the 

TSD and summarized in the Proposed 

Action section of this notice, we are 

proposing to find that the rules meet the 

regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 

51.160 through 40 CFR 51.166. EPA is 

proposing to find that it is acceptable for 

SMAQMD to not incorporate the NSR 

Reform provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 and 

51.166 into their SIP approved NSR 

programs because the same level of 

control will be required for modified 

sources, with or without inclusion of 

these provisions in the SIP, and 

SMAQMD’s program will not be any 

less stringent than the federal program. 

The TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

For the reasons given above, under 

CAA section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), we 

are proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Rule 214 

because, although it would strengthen 

the SIP and meets the applicable 

requirements for SIPs in general, it 

contains certain deficiencies related to 

NSR SIPs in particular that prevent our 

full approval. The primary deficiencies 

pertain to missing definitions, the 

removal of public notice requirements 

for the minor source program from the 

SIP, and missing provisions pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii) and 40 CFR 

51.307(b)(2). Please refer to the TSD for 

this action for additional information. 

The deficiencies in Rule 214 can be 

remedied by the District by revising 

Rule 214 to provide the missing 

definitions, and necessary provisions 

pursuant to the 40 CFR part 51 sections 

cited above. The minor source public 

notice program deficiency can be 

remedied by either adding such 

provisions to Rule 201 or 214, 

submitting an analysis showing why a 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

28944 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

minor NSR program for minor sources is 

not needed, submitting an approvable 

justification for why a chosen level of 

public notice is appropriate, or 

submitting local District Rule 202 (State 

New Source Review) to EPA for SIP 

approval. 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 because the 

revisions to the District rule for which 

a limited approval and limited 

disapproval is proposed is required 

under the 8-hour ozone standard. 

Because EPA has determined that 

Rule 203 fulfills all relevant 

requirements, we are proposing to fully 

approve it as described in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we 

receive convincing new information 

during the comment period, we intend 

to publish a final action that will 

incorporate these rules into the federally 

enforceable SIP. 

III. 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 and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this 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 (Public Law 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 13, 2011. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12443 Filed 5–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0461; FRL–9309–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District and 

Feather River Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

permitting rules submitted for the Placer 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(PCAPCD) and Feather River Air Quality 

Management District (FRAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). The districts are required 

under Part D of title I of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) to adopt and implement a 

SIP-approved New Source Review 

(NSR) permit program. These rules 

update and revise the District’s NSR 

permitting program for new and 

modified sources of air pollution. If EPA 

finalizes the limited approval and 

limited disapproval action, as proposed, 

then a sanctions clock would be 

triggered. We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

June 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0461, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under EPA–R09–OAR– 

2011–0461. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents are listed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS