61794 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

identifiable event, whether or not that 

decision coincides with an actual 

discharge; (2) placing a 36-month time 

limit on a creditor’s defined policy for 

discharging a debt under § 1.6050P– 

1(b)(2)(i)(G); (3) prohibiting creditors 

from issuing Forms 1099–C while 

collection activities are ongoing or 

while the creditor is considering selling 

the debt; and (4) requiring creditors to 

issue corrected Forms 1099–C if they 

engage in subsequent collection 

activities or receive a payment on the 

debt. 

Because the revisions suggested by 

this commenter would not require 

information reporting only upon an 

actual discharge of indebtedness, the 

revisions would not eliminate the 

problems associated with issuance of 

Forms 1099–C under the 36-month rule. 

Adopting these changes could increase, 

not decrease, confusion, because they 

would modify another identifiable 

event, § 1.6050P–1(b)(2)(i)(G), to require 

that a debtor’s policy for discharging 

debt incorporate a 36-month discharge 

rule. Additionally, as explained in this 

preamble, requiring creditors to issue 

corrected Forms 1099–C would neither 

improve tax compliance nor reduce 

debtors’ confusion. Eliminating the 36- 

month rule for information reporting 

purposes, moreover, is likely to lead 

courts to cease using it as an identifiable 

event for purposes of determining when 

an actual discharge occurs, thereby 

eliminating the issue of the IRS being 

precluded from assessing tax on 

discharge of indebtedness before the 

information return has been issued. 

Effective Date 

Sections 1.6050P–1(b)(2)(i)(H), 

1.6050P–1(b)(2)(iv), and 1.6050P– 

1(b)(2)(v) would be removed on the date 

these regulations are published as final 

regulations in the Federal Register. 

Conforming amendments to § 1.6050P– 

1(h)(1) necessary as a result of the 

removal of the above-referenced 

sections would be effective on the same 

date. 

Special Analyses 

It has been determined that this notice 

of proposed rulemaking is not a 

significant regulatory action as defined 

in Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563. Therefore, a regulatory 

assessment is not required. It also has 

been determined that section 553(b) of 

the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these 

regulations. Because the regulations do 

not impose a collection of information 

on small entities, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does 

not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of 

the Code, this notice of proposed 

rulemaking has been submitted to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration for comment 

on its impact on small business. 

Comments and Requests for a Public 

Hearing 

Before these proposed regulations are 

adopted as final regulations, 

consideration will be given to any 

comments that are submitted timely to 

the IRS as prescribed in this preamble 

under the ADDRESSES heading. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

request comments on all aspects of the 

proposed rules. All comments will be 

available at www.regulations.gov or 

upon request. 

A public hearing will be scheduled if 

requested by any person who timely 

submits comments. If a public hearing is 

scheduled, notice of the date, time, and 

place for the hearing will be published 

in the Federal Register. 

Drafting Information 

The principal author of these 

proposed regulations is Hollie Marx of 

the Office of Associate Chief Counsel 

(Procedure and Administration). 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 1.6050P–1 is amended 

by: 

■ a. Removing paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(H), 

(b)(2)(iv), and (b)(2)(v). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (h). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 1.6050P–1 Information reporting for 

discharge of indebtedness by certain 

entities. 

* * * * * 

(h) Effective/applicability date. The 

rules in this section apply to discharges 

of indebtedness after December 21, 

1996, except paragraphs (e)(1) and (3) of 

this section, which apply to discharges 

of indebtedness after December 31, 

1994, and except paragraph (e)(5) of this 

section, which applies to discharges of 

indebtedness occurring after December 

31, 2004. 

John Dalrymple, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24392 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0746; FRL–9917–79– 

Region–9] 

Approval, Disapproval, and Limited 

Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

California; Monterey Bay Unified Air 

Pollution Control District; Stationary 

Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on 

seven permitting rules submitted as a 

revision to the Monterey Bay Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 

(MBUAPCD or District) portion of the 

applicable state implementation plan 

(SIP) for the State of California. We are 

proposing to disapprove one rule, we 

are proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of one rule, we are 

proposing to repeal one rule, and we are 

proposing to approve the remaining four 

permitting rules. The submitted 

revisions include new and amended 

rules governing the issuance of permits 

for stationary sources, including review 

and permitting of minor sources, and 

major sources and major modifications 

under part C of title I of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). The intended effect of these 

proposed actions is to update the 

applicable SIP with current MBUAPCD 

permitting rules and to set the stage for 

remedying certain deficiencies in these 

rules. If finalized as proposed, the 

limited disapproval actions would 

trigger an obligation for EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan unless California submits and we 

approve SIP revisions that correct the 

deficiencies within two years of the 

final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 14, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2014–0746, by one of the 

following methods: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61795 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios 

(AIR–3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at 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 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

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 email 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: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at 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 at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), 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, by phone: (415) 972– 

3534 or by email at yannayon.laura@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. Which rules did the State submit? 

B. What are the existing MBUAPCD rules 

governing stationary source permits in 

the California SIP? 

C. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

1. Minor Source Permits 

2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

3. Nonattainment New Source Review 

4. Section 110(l) of the Act 

5. Conclusion 

III. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. Which rules did the State submit? 

On December 13, 2000, March 21, 

2001, October 16, 2002, and April 20, 

2011, the MBUAPCD submitted 

amended regulations to EPA for 

approval as revisions to the MBUAPCD 

portion of the California SIP under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

Collectively, the submitted regulations 

comprise the District’s current program 

for preconstruction review and 

permitting of new or modified 

stationary sources. These SIP revision 

submittals, referred to herein as the ‘‘SIP 

submittal’’ or ‘‘submitted rules,’’ 

represent a minor update to the 

District’s preconstruction review and 

permitting program and are intended to 

satisfy the requirements under part C 

(prevention of significant deterioration) 

(PSD) of title I of the Act as well as the 

general preconstruction review 

requirements for minor sources under 

section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act (minor 

NSR). 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that they 

were adopted by the District and 

submitted to EPA by the California Air 

Resources Board, which is the 

governor’s designee for California SIP 

submittals. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED NSR RULES

Rule No. Rule title Adopted or 

amended Submitted 

200 .............. Permits Required ........................................................................................................................... 12/13/00 5/8/01 

203 .............. Application ...................................................................................................................................... 10/16/02 12/12/02 

204 .............. Cancellation of Applications ........................................................................................................... 3/21/01 5/31/01 

206 .............. Standards for Granting Applications .............................................................................................. 3/21/01 5/31/01 

207 .............. Review of New or Modified Sources ............................................................................................. 4/20/11 5/12/11 

208 .............. Standards for Granting Permits to Operate (Request to Repeal) ................................................. 12/13/00 5/8/01 

212 .............. Public Availability of Emission Data ............................................................................................... 10/16/02 12/12/02 

Each of these submittals was deemed 

by operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, six months after the date of 

submittal. These criteria must be met 

before formal EPA review. Each of these 

submittals includes evidence of public 

notice and adoption of the regulation. 

While we can act only on the most 

recently submitted version of each 

regulation (which supersedes earlier 

submitted versions), we have reviewed 

materials provided with previous 

submittals. Our technical support 

document (TSD) provides additional 

background information on each of the 

submitted rules. 

B. What are the existing MBUAPCD 

rules governing stationary source 

permits in the California SIP? 

Table 2 lists the rules that make up 

the existing SIP-approved rules for new 

or modified stationary sources in 

MBUAPCD. All of these rules, except for 

Rule 200, would be replaced or 

otherwise deleted from the SIP by the 

submitted set of rules listed in table 1 

if EPA were to take final action as 

proposed herein. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61796 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be 

subject to reasonable notice and public hearing 

prior to adoption and submittal by States to EPA 

and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

TABLE 2—EXISTING SIP RULES

Rule No. Rule title SIP approval 

date 

FEDERAL

REGISTER

Citation 

200 .............. Permits Required ........................................................................................................................... 7/1/99 64 FR 35577 

204 .............. Cancellation of Applications ........................................................................................................... 7/1/99 64 FR 35577 

206 .............. Standards for Granting Applications .............................................................................................. 7/13/87 52 FR 26148 

207 .............. Review of New or Modified Sources ............................................................................................. 2/4/00 65 FR 5433 

208 .............. Standards for Granting Permits to Operate (Request to Repeal) ................................................. 7/13/87 52 FR 26148 

212 .............. Public Availability of Emission Data ............................................................................................... 7/13/87 52 FR 26148 

C. What is the purpose of this proposed 

rule? 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to present our evaluation under the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations of the 

submitted rules adopted by the District 

as identified in table 1. We provide our 

reasoning in general terms below but 

provide more detailed analysis in our 

TSD, which is available in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

EPA has reviewed the rules submitted 

by MBUAPCD governing PSD and minor 

NSR for stationary sources for 

compliance with the CAA’s general 

requirements for SIPs in CAA section 

110(a)(2), EPA’s regulations for 

stationary source permitting programs 

in 40 CFR part 51, sections 51.160 

through 51.164 and 51.166, and the 

CAA requirements for SIP revisions in 

CAA section 110(l).1 As described 

below, EPA is proposing a combination 

of actions consisting of disapproval of 

Rule 200 (Permits), limited approval 

and limited disapproval of Rule 207 

(Review of New or Modified Sources), 

repeal of Rule 208 (Standards for 

Granting Permits to Operate) and 

approval of Rules 203, 204, 206 and 212. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

With respect to procedures, CAA 

sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that 

revisions to a SIP be adopted by the 

State after reasonable notice and public 

hearing. EPA has promulgated specific 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 

These requirements include publication 

of notices, by prominent advertisement 

in the relevant geographic area, of a 

public hearing on the proposed 

revisions, a public comment period of at 

least 30 days, and an opportunity for a 

public hearing. 

Based on our review of the public 

process documentation included in the 

various submittals, we find that 

MBUAPCD has provided sufficient 

evidence of public notice and 

opportunity for comment and public 

hearings prior to adoption and submittal 

of these rules to EPA. 

With respect to substantive 

requirements, we have evaluated each 

submitted rule in accordance with the 

CAA and regulatory requirements that 

apply to: (1) General preconstruction 

review programs for minor sources 

under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act 

and 40 CFR 51.160–164, and (2) PSD 

permit programs under part C of title I 

of the Act and 40 CFR 51.166. For the 

most part, the submitted rules satisfy 

the applicable requirements for these 

permit programs and would strengthen 

the applicable SIP by updating the 

regulations and adding requirements to 

address new or revised PSD permitting 

requirements promulgated by EPA in 

the last several years, but the submitted 

rules also contain specific deficiencies 

which prevent full approval. Below, we 

discuss generally our evaluation of 

MBUAPCD’s submitted rules and the 

deficiencies that are the basis for our 

proposed action on these rules. Our TSD 

contains a more detailed evaluation and 

recommendations for program 

improvements. 

1. Minor Source Permits 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act 

requires that each SIP include a program 

to provide for ‘‘regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a 

permit program as required in parts C 

and D’’ of title I of the Act. Thus, in 

addition to the permit programs 

required in parts C and D of title I of the 

Act, which apply to new or modified 

‘‘major’’ stationary sources of pollutants, 

each SIP must include a program to 

provide for the regulation of the 

construction and modification of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that the NAAQS are achieved. 

These general pre-construction 

requirements are commonly referred to 

as ‘‘minor NSR’’ and are subject to 

EPA’s implementing regulations in 40 

CFR 51.160–51.164. 

Rules 200—Permits Required, 203— 

Application, 204—Cancellation of 

Applications, 206—Standards for 

Granting Applications, 207—Review of 

New or Modified Sources, and 212— 

Public Availability of Emission Data, 

contain the requirements for review and 

permitting of individual minor 

stationary sources in MBUAPCD. Except 

for Rule 200, these regulations satisfy 

the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for minor NSR programs. 

The changes the District made to the 

rules listed above were largely 

administrative in nature and provide 

additional clarity to the rules. However, 

language added to Rule 200 in Part 4 

conflicts with the provisions of 40 CFR 

52.23 which provides that all permit 

conditions issued under an EPAapproved permit program which are 

incorporated into the SIP, are federally 

enforceable conditions subject to 

enforcement under section 113 of the 

CAA. Thus, the default enforcement 

status of permit conditions issued as 

part of a federally approved permit 

program is that they are federally 

enforceable, regardless of the origin of 

the authority for the conditions. Because 

the new language in Rule 200, Part 4, 

explicitly contravenes the provisions 

contained in 40 CFR 52.23, the revisions 

to Rule 200 cannot be approved into the 

SIP. Therefore EPA is proposing to 

disapprove submitted Rule 200— 

Permits Required. If we finalize our 

action as proposed, the current SIP 

approved version of Rule 200—Permits 

Required will remain in effect. (64 FR 

35577 July 1, 1999). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61797 

2. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration 

Part C of title I of the Act contains the 

provisions for the prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) of air 

quality in areas designated ‘‘attainment’’ 

or ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for the NAAQS, 

including preconstruction permit 

requirements for new major sources or 

major modifications proposing to 

construct in such areas. EPA’s 

regulations for PSD permit programs are 

found in 40 CFR 51.166. MBUAPCD is 

currently designated as ‘‘attainment’’ or 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for all 

NAAQS pollutants. 

Rule 207 contains the requirements 

for review and permitting of minor and 

PSD sources in MBUAPCD. This Rule 

satisfies most of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for PSD permit 

programs, but Rule 207 also contains 

several deficiencies that form the basis 

for our proposed limited disapproval, as 

discussed below. 

First, 40 CFR 51.161(a) requires the 

District to provide an opportunity for 

public comment on proposed permit 

actions. In addition, 40 CFR 51.161(d) 

specifies that a public notice must be 

provided for all lead point sources, as 

defined in 40 CFR 51.100(k). The 

provisions of Sections 6.9 and 4.2 

provide specific public notice emission 

rate thresholds to determine when 

public notice is required. The rule 

provides thresholds for all NAAQS 

pollutants except PM2.5 and lead. To 

correct this deficiency, the District 

should add public notice emission 

thresholds for both pollutants. 

Second, the definitions of ‘‘Major 

Stationary Source’’ and ‘‘Major 

Modification to an Existing Source’’ do 

not include the specific applicability 

thresholds provided in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(1) and (2), respectively, for 

these terms. Instead both definitions 

provide a general reference to the ‘‘. . . 

threshold levels provided by the federal 

Clean Air Act . . .’’ to be used to 

determine the emission thresholds that 

constitute a Major Stationary Source 

and Major Modification to an Existing 

Source. This general reference is not 

sufficient to satisfy the requirement to 

provide definitions for these terms 

which are ‘‘more stringent, or at least as 

stringent, in all respects as the 

corresponding definitions. . . .’’ To 

correct the deficiency, the District 

should add the threshold levels 

provided in the 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1) and 

(2) to its definitions. 

Third, the definition in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(2) provides that a 

modification is ‘‘major’’ if it would 

result in a ‘‘significant emissions 

increase’’ and a ‘‘significant net 

emissions increase’’ of a pollutant, 

whereas the definition in Rule 207 

provides that a modification is ‘‘major’’ 

if it may result in a ‘‘potential to emit’’ 

greater than the threshold levels 

provided by the federal CAA for the area 

designation and pollutant. This rule 

language means that only increases 

above the existing potential to emit 

levels are considered emission increases 

when determining if a project will result 

in a major modification. This 

calculation methodology is inconsistent 

with federal requirements in 40 CFR 

51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c) and (d), which 

specify that emission increases from a 

modification must be based on the 

difference between post-project 

projected actual or potential emissions 

and pre-project actual emissions. Using 

the Rule 207 definition, a project that 

would be considered a major 

modification under federal regulations, 

may not be considered a major 

modification at an existing source under 

Rule 207. The District should correct 

this deficiency by including an 

applicability test equivalent to the test 

provided in 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7) to its 

rule. 

Fourth, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23) for the 

term ‘‘significant’’ contains three 

separate paragraphs ((i), (ii) and (iii)). 

While Rule 207 does not provide a 

specific definition for this term, we have 

determined that the emission thresholds 

provided in Table 4.1.1 of the rule 

provide an alternative definition that is 

at least as stringent as the provisions in 

paragraph (i). Paragraph (ii) specifies the 

definition of significant for any 

regulated NSR pollutant not listed in 

paragraph (i). We could not find any 

Rule 207 provisions that would satisfy 

the paragraph (ii) definition of 

significant. Paragraph (iii) defines ‘‘any 

emissions rate or any net emissions 

increase [NEI] associated with a major 

stationary source or major modification, 

which would construct within 10 

kilometers [6 miles] of a Class I area, 

and have an impact on such area equal 

to or greater than 1 mg/m3 (24-hour 

average)’’ as significant. While the 

provisions of Section 4.5, Protection of 

Class I Areas appear to satisfy the 

requirements for this definition by 

providing a range of 15 miles, impact 

levels of 1 mg/m3 (24-hour average) or 

less for various pollutants, and a net 

emission increase threshold of zero, it 

provides for the calculation of a ‘‘net 

emission increase’’ in a manner entirely 

inconsistent with the 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(3) definition of this term. 

EPA’s definition only allows 

contemporaneous emission increases 

and decreases (typically occurring 

within the last 5 years) to be used in 

determining the NEI from a project, 

whereas the definition of NEI in Section 

2.36 requires the use of all emission 

increases and decreases since the 

specified baseline date for each 

pollutant. Except for PM2.5, these dates 

are between 20 and 30 years old. The 

District should correct this deficiency 

by including all of the provisions found 

in 40 CFR 51.166(23)(iii) in Rule 207. 

Fifth, Rule 207 does not contain a 

provision to satisfy the requirement of 

40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iii) which requires 

the District to provide the opportunity 

for a public hearing to consider a 

proposed permit action. The District 

should correct this deficiency by 

including the opportunity for a public 

hearing for proposed permit actions in 

Rule 207. 

Finally, Rule 207 does not contain 

any provisions to satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and 

(2) which require permit programs to 

include specific language providing that 

(1) ‘‘. . . approval to construct shall not 

relieve any owner or operator of the 

responsibility to comply fully with 

applicable provisions of the plan and 

any other requirements under local, 

State or Federal law’’ and (2) that if 

‘‘. . . a particular source or 

modification becomes a major stationary 

source or major modification solely by 

virtue of a relaxation in any enforceable 

limitation which was established after 

August 7, 1980, on the capacity of the 

source or modification otherwise to emit 

a pollutant, such as a restriction on 

hours of operation, then the 

requirements . . .’’ of the PSD program 

shall apply to the source or modification 

as though construction had not yet 

commenced on the source or 

modification. This deficiency should be 

corrected by adding the language found 

in 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2). 

Compared to the existing SIP 

approved PSD program in Rule 207 

(approved February 4, 2000), however, 

submitted Rule 207 represents an 

overall strengthening of the District’s 

PSD program, in large part because the 

rule includes updated PSD provisions to 

regulate new or modified major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 emissions, 

which is unregulated under the existing 

SIP PSD program. Because submitted 

Rule 207 strengthens the SIP, we are 

proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval based on the 

deficiencies listed above. 

3. Nonattainment New Source Review 

The CAA defines ‘‘nonattainment 

areas’’ as air quality planning areas that 

exceed the primary or secondary 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61798 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2Final approval of the rules in table 1, except 

Rule 200, would supersede all of the rules in the 

existing California SIP as listed in table 2. 

NAAQS for the given criteria pollutant. 

The MBUAPCD is not designated 

nonattainment for any NAAQS, 

although the District was classified as 

nonattainment in the past. Because the 

MBUAPCD is not currently classified 

nonattainment for any NAAQS, we are 

not evaluating the submitted rules for 

approval under 40 CFR 51.165, which 

contains the requirements for 

nonattainment NSR programs. To the 

extent some rules contain provisions 

typically associated with nonattainment 

NSR programs (e.g. offset provisions), 

we are approving those provisions only 

for purposes of the District’s minor NSR 

program. 

4. Section 110(l) of the Act 

Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from 

approving a revision of a plan if the 

revision would ‘‘interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress . . . or any other applicable 

requirement of [the Act].’’ 

MBUAPCD is currently designated 

attainment or unclassifiable/attainment 

for all NAAQS pollutants. We are 

unaware of any reliance by the District 

on the continuation of any aspect of the 

permit-related rules in the MBUAPCD 

portion of the California SIP for the 

purpose of continued attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Our 

approval of the MBUAPCD SIP 

submittal (and supersession of the 

existing SIP rules) would strengthen the 

applicable SIP in some specific respects 

and would relax the SIP in other 

specific respects. Taken in its entirety, 

we find that the SIP revision represents 

a strengthening of MBUAPCD’s minor 

NSR and PSD programs compared to the 

existing SIP rules that we approved in 

1987, 1999 and 2000, and that our 

approval of the SIP submittal would not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

Act. 

Given all these considerations and in 

light of the air quality improvements in 

MBUAPCD, we propose to conclude 

that our approval of these updated NSR 

regulations into the California SIP 

would not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

Act. 

5. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above and 

explained further in our TSD, we find 

that the submitted rules satisfy most of 

the applicable CAA and regulatory 

requirements for the District’s minor 

NSR and PSD permit programs under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and part C of 

title I of the Act. However, Rule 207 

contains certain deficiencies that 

prevent us from proposing a full 

approval and we are proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of that 

Rule. We do so based also on our 

finding that, while Rule 207 does not 

meet all of the applicable requirements, 

the Rule represents an overall 

strengthening of the SIP by clarifying 

and enhancing the permitting 

requirements for major and minor 

stationary sources in MBUAPCD. We are 

also proposing a full disapproval of Rule 

200. We are proposing to approve the 

District’s request to repeal Rule 208 

from the SIP. Finally, we are proposing 

a full approval of the remaining four 

permitting rules. 

III. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA 

and for the reasons provided above, EPA 

is proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Rule 207, a full 

disapproval of Rule 200 and approval of 

the remaining revisions to the 

MBUAPCD portion of the California SIP 

that governs the issuance of permits for 

stationary sources under the jurisdiction 

of the MBUAPCD, including review and 

permitting of major sources and major 

modifications under part C of title I of 

the CAA. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

an action on MBUAPCD regulations 

listed in table 1, above, as a revision to 

the MBUAPCD portion of the California 

SIP. 

EPA is proposing this action because, 

although we find that the new and 

amended rules meet most of the 

applicable requirements for such permit 

programs and that the SIP revisions 

improve the existing SIP, we have found 

certain deficiencies that prevent full 

approval of Rule 207, as explained 

further in this preamble and in the TSD 

for this rulemaking. The intended effect 

of the proposed approval and limited 

approval and limited disapproval 

portions of this action is to update the 

applicable SIP with current MBUAPCD 

permitting regulations 2 and to set the 

stage for remedying deficiencies in these 

regulations. 

If finalized as proposed, the limited 

disapproval of Rule 207 would trigger 

an obligation for EPA to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan unless the 

State of California corrects the 

deficiencies, and EPA approves the 

related plan revisions, within two years 

of the final action. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposed action for 30 

days following publication in the 

Federal Register. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under the 

EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

because this proposed action under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of 

itself create any new information 

collection burdens but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. 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 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. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed action under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part C of 

the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of 

itself create any new requirements but 

simply disapproves certain State 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61799 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 

for EPA to fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

Therefore, this proposed action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval and limited disapproval 

portions of this action 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 action proposes to 

disapprove 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 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), 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.’’ 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It 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 disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this proposed action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP EPA 

is proposing to disapprove would not 

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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). These proposed 

actions under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part C of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (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(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 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. 

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, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 30, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24506 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0178; FRL–9917–85– 

Region–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

California; Sacramento Metro Area; 

Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

California to provide for attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standard (‘‘standard’’ or 

NAAQS) in the Sacramento Metro 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS