73316 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional 

explanation 

*******

2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) standard.

Baltimore, Maryland 1997 PM2.5

nonattainment area.

6/8/08 12/10/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

§ 52.1075(n) 

.

■ 3. In § 52.1075, paragraph (n) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.1075 Base year emissions inventory. 

* * * * * 

(n) EPA approves as a revision to the 

Maryland State Implementation Plan the 

2002 base year emissions inventory for 

the Baltimore, Maryland 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area submitted by the Maryland 

Department of Environment on June 6, 

2008. The 2002 base year emissions 

inventory includes emissions estimates 

that cover the general source categories 

of point sources, non-road mobile 

sources, area sources, on-road mobile 

sources, and biogenic sources. The 

pollutants that comprise the inventory 

are nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), PM2.5, 

coarse particles (PM10), ammonia (NH3), 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

[FR Doc. 2012–29610 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0732; FRL–9739–5] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; California; Eastern Kern, 

Imperial, Placer, and Yolo-Solano; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action on 

revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA is 

approving four permitting rules 

submitted for the Eastern Kern Air 

Pollution Control District (EKAPCD), 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control 

District (ICAPCD), Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), 

and Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD) 

portions of the California SIP. The State 

of California is required under part C of 

title I of the Act to adopt and implement 

a SIP-approved Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

program. We are revising the SIP to 

incorporate EKAPCD Rule 210.4— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

ICAPCD Rule 904—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit 

Program, PCAPCD Rule 518— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Permit Program, and YSAQMD 

Rule 3.24—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. The approval of these 

rules will establish a PSD permit 

program in each District for preconstruction review of certain new and 

modified major stationary sources in 

attainment or unclassifiable areas. 

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

8, 2013, and the incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of February 8, 

2013, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by January 9, 2013. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this rule, or the relevant provisions 

of the rule, will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0732, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: 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 received 

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. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site 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: The index to the docket for 

this action is 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 in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Beckham, Permits Office (AIR–3), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3811, 

beckham.lisa@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 

A. How is EPA evaluating these rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Significant Impact Levels for PM2.5.

D. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD 

Permits 

E. What action is EPA finalizing? 

F. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules on which we 

are taking action along with the dates on 

which they were adopted or amended 

by the applicable local agency and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 73317 

submitted to EPA by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

EKAPCD ........... 210.4 Prevention of Significant Deterioration ........................................................................ 1/12/2012 4/25/2012 

ICAPCD ............. 904 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program ................................... 12/20/2011 2/23/2012 

PCAPCD ........... 518 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program ................................... 2/10/2011 6/21/2011 

YSAQMD ........... 3.24 Prevention of Significant Deterioration ........................................................................ 6/13/2012 7/3/2012 

The rule submittals were found to 

meet the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be 

met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

There are no previous versions of 

these rules in the SIP. However, 

EKAPCD originally adopted EKAPCD 

Rule 210.4 on September 9, 1984 and 

amended it on November 18, 1985, and 

September 2, 1999. We are only taking 

action on the currently submitted 

version of each rule as listed in Table 1. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to adopt and submit regulations 

for the implementation, maintenance 

and enforcement of the primary and 

secondary national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Specifically, 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

and 110(a)(2)(J) require such state plans 

to meet the applicable requirements of 

section 165 relating to a preconstruction permit program for the 

prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality and visibility protection. The 

purpose of the rule submittals that are 

addressed in this action is to establish 

and implement a pre-construction PSD 

permit program as required by section 

165 of the CAA for certain new and 

modified major stationary sources 

located in attainment areas. Because the 

State of California does not currently 

have a SIP-approved PSD program 

within EKAPCD, ICAPCD, PCAPCD, and 

YSAQMD (referred to hereinafter as the 

‘‘Districts’’), EPA is currently the PSD 

permitting authority for each District. 

Inclusion of these rules into the SIP 

transfers PSD permitting authority from 

EPA to the Districts. EPA will assume 

the role of overseeing the PSD 

permitting program within each District. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating these rules? 

The relevant statutory provisions for 

our review of the submitted rules 

include CAA sections 110(a), 110(l), and 

165 and part 51, section 166 of title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 

CFR 51.166). Section 110(a) requires, 

among other things, that SIP rules be 

enforceable, while section 110(l) 

precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress. Section 165 

of the CAA requires states to adopt a 

pre-construction permitting program for 

certain new and modified major 

stationary sources located in attainment 

or unclassifiable areas. 40 CFR 51.166 

establishes the specific requirements for 

SIP-approved PSD permit programs that 

must be met to satisfy the requirements 

of section 165 of the CAA. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

With some exclusions and revisions, 

EKAPCD Rule 210.4, ICAPCD Rule 904, 

PCAPCD Rule 518, and YSAQMD Rule 

3.24 incorporate by reference EPA’s PSD 

permit program at 40 CFR 52.21, as of 

January 12, 2012, December 20, 2011, 

February 10, 2011, and July 12, 2012, 

respectively. We generally consider 

EPA’s PSD permit program to be 

consistent with the criteria in 40 CFR 

51.166. However, we conducted a 

review of each rule to ensure that all 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 were 

met. Our evaluations are available as an 

attachment to the technical support 

document (TSD) for this rulemaking. We 

also reviewed the revisions the Districts 

made to the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 

that were incorporated by reference into 

each rule, such as revising certain terms 

and definitions to reflect the fact that 

the Districts, rather than the EPA, will 

be the PSD permitting authority. Based 

on our evaluation we have concluded 

each rule meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.166 for a PSD program. 

Specifically, EKAPCD Rule 210.4 

makes significant revisions to the 

applicability procedures and definitions 

for major modification, actual 

emissions, baseline actual emission, and 

net emissions increase as incorporated 

by reference in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2) and 

(b). EKAPCD Rule 210.4 also excludes 

the Actuals Plantwide Applicability 

Limits (PALs) provisions contained in 

40 CFR 52.21(aa). These revisions are 

intended to implement a PSD program 

that does not contain the 2002 NSR 

Reform provisions (see generally 67 FR 

80,185 (Dec. 31, 2002)). Based on our 

evaluation of Rule 210.4 and the 

EKAPCD’s Staff Report, we have 

concluded that Rule 210.4 is at least as 

stringent, in all respects, as the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 for a 

PSD program. A more detailed 

discussion of those revisions and our 

analysis are in the TSD for this 

rulemaking. 

We note that three of the District rules 

under consideration in this action also 

rely on existing SIP-approved permit 

application processing requirements, 

which are found in EKAPCD Rule 210.1, 

ICAPCD Rule 206, and PCAPCD Rule 

502, for meeting some of the PSD 

program requirements. 

We also reviewed clarifying 

information provided by the Districts in 

letters dated July 19, 2012 (EKAPCD), 

July 10, 2012 (ICAPCD), July 6, 2012 

(PCAPCD), and August 7, 2012 

(YSAQMD). Based on our review of the 

Districts’ rules as well as these 

clarification letters, we have determined 

that the Districts’ PSD SIP rules are 

acceptable under CAA sections 110(a), 

110(l) and 165 and 40 CFR 51.166. 

EPA’s TSD for this rulemaking has more 

information about these rules, including 

our evaluation and recommendation to 

approve them into the SIP. 

C. Significant Impact Levels for PM2.5

Eastern Kern Rule 210.4, Imperial 

Rule 904, and Placer Rule 518 

incorporate by reference the PM2.5

significant impact levels (SILs) found in 

40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). Yolo-Solano Rule 

3.24 does not incorporate these PM2.5

SILs, by reference or otherwise. 

Consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2), 

these PM2.5 SILs are an optional portion 

of the PSD permitting program. 

However, EPA’s authority to implement 

the PM2.5 SILs for PSD purposes is 

currently subject to litigation, Sierra 

Club v. EPA, Case No. 10–1413 (D.C. 

Circuit). As a result, EPA has come to 

recognize that the regulatory text it 

adopted in 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
73318 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR 52.21(k)(2) does not accurately 

reflect EPA’s intent, because the text 

does not afford permitting authorities 

sufficient discretion to deny sources use 

of the SILs where their use would lead 

to a new violation of the NAAQS or 

increment. In our response brief to the 

Court in this litigation, EPA requested 

that the Court remand and vacate 40 

CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2) 

so that we may initiate a rulemaking to 

make revisions to the regulatory text. 

Paragraph (k)(1) of 40 CFR section 

52.21 requires that sources applying for 

a new PSD permit demonstrate that any 

allowable emission increases from the 

proposed source or modification, in 

conjunction with all other applicable 

emissions increases or reductions, will 

not cause or contribute to a violation of 

any NAAQS or any applicable 

increment. In the preamble to the 2010 

final rule adding the (k)(2) provision to 

section 52.21, EPA advised that, 

‘‘notwithstanding the existence of a SIL, 

permitting authorities should determine 

when it may be appropriate to conclude 

that even a de minimis impact will 

‘cause or contribute’ to an air quality 

problem and to seek remedial action 

from the proposed new source or 

modification.’’ Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC), 75 FR 64,864, 

64,892 (Oct. 20, 2010). In another 

passage of the preamble to the 2010 

final rule, EPA also observed that ‘‘the 

use of a SIL may not be appropriate 

when a substantial portion of any 

NAAQS or increment is known to be 

consumed.’’ Id. at 64,894. 

We requested clarification from 

EKAPCD, PCAPCD, and ICAPCD 

concerning their interpretation of their 

respective rules that incorporate by 

reference 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). Consistent 

with the statements by EPA in the 

preamble to the 2010 final rule, 

EKAPCD, PCAPCD, and ICAPCD 

confirmed that they do not interpret 

section 52.21(k)(2) to preclude them 

from exercising the discretion to 

determine when it may be appropriate 

to conclude that even a de minimis 

impact on air quality (an impact below 

the PM2.5 SIL values) will cause or 

contribute to an air quality problem and 

to seek remedial action from the 

proposed new source or modification. 

See clarification letters from EKAPCD 

dated August 21, 2012, from ICAPCD 

dated August 21, 2012, and from 

PCAPCD dated August 20, 2012. Based 

on this interpretation, each of these 

Districts has clarified that it will not 

read section 52.21(k)(2) as an absolute 

‘‘safe harbor,’’ but will exercise 

discretion to determine whether a 

particular application of the PM2.5 SILs 

is appropriate when a substantial 

portion of the PM2.5 NAAQS or 

increment is known to be consumed. 

These Districts have also clarified that 

they retain the discretion to require 

additional information from a permit 

applicant as needed to assure that the 

source will not cause or contribute to a 

violation of any NAAQS or applicable 

increment pursuant to section 

52.21(k)(1). 

Based on these clarifications provided 

by EKAPCD, PCAPCD, and ICAPCD, we 

find that these Districts’ PSD rules are 

approvable and consistent with the Act 

and the requirements for a PSD 

program. 

D. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD 

Permits 

The Districts have also requested 

approval to exercise their authority, as 

applicable, to administer the PSD 

program with respect to those sources 

located in the Districts that have 

existing PSD permits issued by EPA. 

This would include authority to 

conduct general administration of these 

existing permits, authority to process 

and issue any and all subsequent PSD 

permit actions relating to such permits 

(e.g., modifications, amendments, or 

revisions of any nature), and authority 

to enforce such permits. Pursuant to the 

criteria under section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of 

the CAA, we have determined that these 

districts have the authority, personnel, 

and funding to implement the PSD 

program within each District for existing 

EPA-issued permits. Upon the effective 

date of our approval of the Districts’ 

PSD programs into the SIP, the EPAissued PSD permits will be transferred 

to each District, as applicable. A list of 

these EPA-issued permits is provided as 

an attachment to the TSD for this action. 

In addition, any PSD permit 

applications submitted to EPA for 

which EPA has not yet proposed a 

permit decision upon the effective date 

of this action will also be transferred to 

the applicable District upon the 

effective date of this rule. 

E. What action is EPA finalizing? 

EPA is finalizing a SIP revision for the 

Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Placer 

County, and Yolo-Solano portions of the 

California SIP. This SIP revision will be 

codified in 40 CFR 52.220 by 

incorporating by reference the District 

PSD rules listed in Table 1. In addition, 

the letters from the Districts to EPA 

described elsewhere in this preamble 

that provide certain clarifications 

concerning the Districts’ rules will be 

included as additional material in 40 

CFR 52.220. The regulatory text 

addressing this action also makes it 

clear that EPA is relying, in part, on the 

clarifications provided in the Districts’ 

clarification letters in taking this final 

approval action. As such, the Districts’ 

implementation of the PSD program in 

a manner consistent with these 

clarifications is a pre-condition of 

today’s final approval of this PSD SIP 

revision. This SIP revision provides a 

federally approved and enforceable 

mechanism for the District to issue preconstruction PSD permits for certain 

new and modified major stationary 

sources subject to PSD review within 

the Districts. The regulatory text at 40 

CFR 52.270 will also be revised so that 

these Districts are no longer a part of 

California’s Federal Implementation 

Plan for the PSD program. 

F. Why is EPA using a direct final rule? 

EPA is publishing this action without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial action 

and anticipates no adverse comments. 

As discussed above, this approval action 

will transfer PSD permitting program 

responsibility and authority from EPA 

to the Districts, which will generally 

continue to implement the PSD program 

consistent with 40 CFR section 52.21 as 

incorporated by reference into the 

Districts’ rules. However, in the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this 

Federal Register publication, EPA is 

publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve 

this SIP revision should relevant 

adverse comments be filed on this direct 

final rule. We will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

This rule will be effective February 8, 

2013 without further notice unless the 

Agency receives relevant adverse 

comments by January 9, 2013. If EPA 

receives such comments, then EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. All public comments received 

would then be addressed in any 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on a distinct 

provision of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. In such case, EPA would 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 73319 

Federal Register indicating which 

provisions we are withdrawing. The 

provisions that are not withdrawn will 

become effective on the date set out 

above, notwithstanding adverse 

comment on any other provision. 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

EPA is approving the following CARB 

submittals into the California SIP to 

establish a PSD permit program for preconstruction review of certain new and 

modified major stationary sources in 

attainment or unclassifiable areas: 

CARB’s 4/25/2012 submittal of EKAPCD 

Rule 210.4—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; CARB’s 2/23/2012 

submittal of ICAPCD Rule 904— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Permit Program; CARB’s 6/21/ 

2011 submittal of PCAPCD Rule 518— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Permit Program; and CARB’s 7/3/ 

2012 submittal of YSAQMD Rule 3.24— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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). Thus, in reviewing 

SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the CAA. 

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 (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 proposed 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 of California 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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by February 8, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action 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 challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 25, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

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 as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising the introductory text of 

paragraphs (c)(391) and (c)(411). 

■ b. By adding new paragraphs 

(c)(391)(i)(C), (c)(391)(ii), (c)(411)(i)(E), 

(c)(411)(ii), (c)(419), and (c)(420). 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(391) New and amended regulations 

were submitted on June 21, 2011 by the 

Governor’s designee. Final approval of 

these regulations is based, in part, on 

the clarifications contained in letters 

dated July 6, 2012 and August 20, 2012 

from the Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District regarding specific 

implementation of parts of the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

program. 

(i) * * * 

(C) Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 518, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit 

Program,’’ adopted on February 10, 

2011. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District (PCAPCD). 

(1) Letter dated July 6, 2012 from 

Thomas J. Christofk, PCAPCD, to 

Gerardo Rios, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9, regarding Clarifications of 

District Rule 518 and 40 CFR 51.166. 

(2) Letter dated August 20, 2012 from 

Thomas Christofk, PCAPCD, to Gerardo 

Rios, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 9, regarding 

Clarifications of District Rule 518 and 

40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). 

* * * * * 

(411) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on February 23, 2012. Final approval of 

these regulations is based, in part, on 

the clarifications contained in letters 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
73320 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

dated July 10, 2012 and August 21, 2012 

from the Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District regarding specific 

implementation of parts of the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

program. 

(i) * * * 

(E) Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 904, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit 

Program,’’ revised on December 20, 

2011. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District (ICAPCD). 

(1) Letter dated July 10, 2012 from 

Brad Poiriez, ICAPCD, to Gerardo Rios, 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 9, regarding 

Clarifications of District Rule 904 and 

40 CFR 51.166. 

(2) Letter dated August 21, 2012 from 

Brad Poiriez, ICAPCD, to Gerardo Rios, 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 9, regarding 

Clarifications of District Rule 904 and 

40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). 

* * * * * 

(419) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on April 25, 2012. Final approval of 

these regulations is based, in part, on 

the clarifications contained in letters 

dated July 19, 2012 and August 21, 2012 

from the Eastern Kern Air Pollution 

Control District regarding specific 

implementation of parts of the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

program. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control 

District. 

(1) Rule 210.4, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration,’’ adopted on 

January 12, 2012. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control 

District (EKAPCD). 

(1) Letter dated July 19, 2012 from 

David L. Jones, EKAPCD, to Gerardo 

Rios, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 9, regarding 

Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 

40 CFR 51.166. 

(2) Letter dated August 21, 2012 from 

David L. Jones, EKAPCD, to Gerardo 

Rios, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 9, regarding 

Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 

40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). 

(420) A new regulation for the 

following APCD was submitted on July 

3, 2012. Final approval of this 

regulation is based, in part, on the 

clarifications contained in a letter dated 

August 7, 2012 from the Yolo-Solano 

Air Quality Management District 

regarding specific implementation of 

parts of the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration program. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 3.24, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration,’’ adopted on 

June 13, 2012. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD). 

(1) Letter dated August 7, 2012 from 

Mat Ehrhardt, YSAQMD, to Gerardo 

Rios, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 9, regarding 

Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 

40 CFR 51.166. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.270 is amended by 

adding new paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), 

(b)(8), and (b)(9) to read as follows: 

§ 52.270 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) The PSD program for the Placer 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(PCAPCD), as incorporated by reference 

in § 52.220(c)(391), is approved under 

part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act. 

For PSD permits previously issued by 

EPA pursuant to § 52.21 to sources 

located in the PCAPCD, this approval 

includes the authority for the PCAPCD 

to conduct general administration of 

these existing permits, authority to 

process and issue any and all 

subsequent permit actions relating to 

such permits, and authority to enforce 

such permits. 

(7) The PSD program for the Imperial 

County Air Pollution Control District, as 

incorporated by reference in 

§ 52.220(c)(411), is approved under part 

C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) The PSD program for the Eastern 

Kern Air Pollution Control District 

(EKAPCD), as incorporated by reference 

in § 52.220(c)(419), is approved under 

part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act. 

For PSD permits previously issued by 

EPA pursuant to § 52.21 to sources 

located in the EKAPCD, this approval 

includes the authority for the EKAPCD 

to conduct general administration of 

these existing permits, authority to 

process and issue any and all 

subsequent permit actions relating to 

such permits, and authority to enforce 

such permits. 

(9) The PSD program for the YoloSolano Air Quality Management 

District, as incorporated by reference in 

§ 52.220(c)(420), is approved under part 

C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–29535 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0513; FRL–9749–6] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; California; South Coast Air 

Quality Management District; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gases 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for 

the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD or 

District) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP 

revision incorporates District Rule 

1714—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration for Greenhouse Gases into 

the California SIP. The submitted 

revision is a permitting rule that 

contains the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit program 

applicable to new and modified major 

stationary sources of greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) as required by Part C of title I 

of the Clean Air Act. In addition, upon 

the effective date of this action, the 

District is no longer subject to the 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) at 40 

CFR 52.21 as it pertains to GHGs. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0513 for 

this action. 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, 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with