ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0461; FRL-]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer 

County Air Pollution Control District and Feather River Air 

Quality Management District

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing 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) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed 

in the Federal Register on May 19, 2011 and concern New Source 

Review (NSR) permit programs for new and modified major 

stationary sources of air pollution. We are approving local 

rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on [Insert date 30 days 

from the date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-

0461 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for 

this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov
2

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, 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. Proposed Action

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

III. EPA Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 28944), EPA proposed a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of the following rules that 

were submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.
3

Local 

Agency Rule # Rule Title Amended Submitted

PCAPCD 502 New Source Review 2/11/101 7/20/10

FRAQMD 10.1 New Source Review 10/5/09 7/20/10

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 definitions for the terms “begin 

actual construction,” “commence” and “necessary 

preconstruction approvals or permits.”

Both rules are missing provisions meeting the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii). 

Placer Rule 502 is missing a definition for the term 

“federally enforceable.” 

Our proposed rule and related Technical Support Document (TSD) 

contain more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on 

our evaluation of the submittal.

 

1 The proposed notice incorrectly stated that the amended date was October 28, 2010. 
4

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-day public comment 

period. During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted that change our basis for 

proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the 

submitted rules. Therefore, under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 

301(a) and for the reasons set forth in our May 19, 2011 

proposed rule, we are finalizing a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule 10.1. We are 

finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rules because we 

continue to believe that the rules improve the SIP and are

largely consistent with applicable CAA requirements. This 

action incorporates the submitted rules into the District 

portion of the California SIP, including those provisions 

identified as deficient. As authorized under sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited 

disapproval of PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule 10.1. As a 

result, sanctions will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent 

SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 

months of the effective date of this action. These sanctions 

will be imposed under section 179 of the Act according to 40 CFR 
5

52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve 

subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies 

within 24 months. Note that the submitted rules have been 

adopted by the PCAPCD and the FRAQMD, and EPA’s final limited 

disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing it. 

The limited disapproval also does not prevent any portion of the 

rule from being incorporated by reference into the federally 

enforceable SIP, as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found 

at: www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/pdf/memo-s.pdf.

IV. 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 action does not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 
6

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 and 

limited approvals/limited disapprovals 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 this limited approval/ 

limited disapproval action 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 

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 Reform Act
7

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 limited approval/limited 

disapproval action promulgated 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 

approves 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
8

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.
9

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 final 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.
10

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, because it approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

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 
11

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 the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States.

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., 

as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 
12

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 rule 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. section 804(2). This rule will be 

effective on [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 30 days from 

date of publication of this document in the Federal Register].

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 [FEDERAL 

REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication of 

this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule 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 rule or action. This action may not be 
13

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see 

section 307(b)(2)).

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.

_____June 30, 2011 _____//signed//_________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region IX.
14

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)(381) 

(i)(E) and (F) to read as follows:

§52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(381) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Placer County Air Pollution Control District

(1) Rule 502, “New Source Review,” as adopted on February 11, 

2010.

(F) Feather River Air Quality Management District

(1) Rule 10.1, “New Source Review,” as adopted on October 5, 

2009.

* * * * *