Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31567 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0240; FRL–9946–45– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Limited Approval and 

Limited Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; 

Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution 

Control District; Stationary Source 

Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on 

five permitting rules submitted as a 

revision to the Northern Sonoma County 

Air Pollution Control District 

(NSCAPCD or District) portion of the 

applicable state implementation plan 

(SIP) for the State of California pursuant 

to requirements under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). We are proposing a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of two rules; we are 

proposing to approve the remaining 

three permitting rules; and we are 

proposing to repeal three rules. The 

submitted revisions include 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 Act. The 

intended effect of these proposed 

actions is to update the applicable SIP 

with current NSCAPCD permitting rules 

and to set the stage for remedying 

certain deficiencies in these rules; this 

proposal also seeks to remedy specific 

deficiencies identified in our recent 

action on the California Infrastructure 

SIP. If finalized as proposed, the limited 

disapproval actions would trigger an 

obligation for EPA to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan for the 

specific New Source Review (NSR) 

program deficiencies unless California 

submits and we approve SIP revisions 

that correct the deficiencies within two 

years of the final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

June 20, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2016–0240 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

r9airpermits@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

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 NSCAPCD 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. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittals 

A. Which rules did the State submit? 

On October 16, 1985 and December 

11, 2014, California submitted amended 

regulations to EPA for approval as 

revisions to the NSCAPCD portion of 

the California SIP under the Clean Air 

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 significant 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 Amended Submitted 

130 ................................................... Definitions .................................................................................................. 11/14/14 12/11/14 

200 ................................................... Permit Requirements ................................................................................. 11/14/14 12/11/14 

220 ................................................... New Source Review .................................................................................. 11/14/14 12/11/14 

230 ................................................... Action on Applications ............................................................................... 11/14/14 12/11/14 

240 ................................................... Permit to Operate ...................................................................................... 2/22/84 10/16/85 

The submittal of Rule 240 was 

deemed complete by operation of law 

six months after the date of submittal. 

40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The 

remaining rule submittals were 

determined to meet the completeness 

criteria 40 CFR part 51, appendix V on 

February 20, 2015. A completeness 

finding must be made before formal EPA 

review. Each of these submittals 

includes evidence of public notice and 

adoption of the regulation. Our 

technical support document (TSD) 

provides additional background 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31568 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / 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. 

information on each of the submitted 

rules. 

B. What are the existing NSCAPCD 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 

NSCAPCD. All of these rules would be 

replaced or deleted from the SIP if EPA 

takes final action on the proposed 

approval of the submitted set of rules 

listed in Table 1. 

TABLE 2—EXISTING SIP RULES

Rule No. Rule title SIP Approval 

date 

Federal Register 

citation 

10 ............................. Permits Required ........................................................................................................... 9/22/72 37 FR 19812. 

12 ............................. Transfer .......................................................................................................................... 9/22/72 37 FR 19812. 

18 ............................. Conditional Approval ...................................................................................................... 9/22/72 37 FR 19812. 

130 ........................... Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 5/6/11 76 FR 26192. 

200 ........................... Permitting Requirements ............................................................................................... 7/31/85 50 FR 30943. 

220a ......................... New Source Review ...................................................................................................... 7/31/85 50 FR 30943. 

220b ......................... New Source Review ...................................................................................................... 7/31/85 50 FR 30943. 

220c .......................... New Source Review ...................................................................................................... 7/31/85 50 FR 30943. 

230 ........................... Action on Applications ................................................................................................... 7/31/85 50 FR 30943. 

240 ........................... Permit to Operate .......................................................................................................... 10/31/80 45 FR 72148. 

240e ......................... Mandatory Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................. 12/21/78 43 FR 59489. 

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 NSCAPCD 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, § 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 limited approval 

and limited disapproval of Rules 130 

(Definitions) and 220 (New Source 

Review); full approval of Rules 200 

(Permit Requirements), 230 (Action on 

Applications), and 240 (Permit to 

Operate); and replacement of Rules 10 

(Permits Required), 12 (Transfer) and 18 

(Conditional Approval). 

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. Based on our review of the 

public process documentation included 

in the various submittals, we find that 

NSCAPCD 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; however the 

submitted rules also contain specific 

deficiencies which prevent full approval 

of Rules 130 and 220. Below, we discuss 

generally our evaluation of NSCAPCD’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 national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) are 

achieved. These general preconstruction requirements are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘minor NSR’’ 

and are subject to EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.160–51.164. 

Rules 130—Definitions, 200—Permit 

Requirements, 220—New Source 

Review, 230—Action on Applications, 

and 240—Permit to Operate, contain the 

requirements for review and permitting 

of individual minor stationary sources 

in NSCAPCD. These rules satisfy the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for minor NSR programs. The changes 

the District made to the rules listed 

above as they pertain to the minor 

source program were largely 

administrative in nature and provide 

additional clarity to the rules. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31569 

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. NSCAPCD is 

currently designated as ‘‘attainment’’ or 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for all 

NAAQS pollutants. 

The submitted rules contain the 

requirements for review and permitting 

of minor and PSD sources in NSCAPCD. 

The rules satisfy most of the statutory 

and regulatory requirements for PSD 

permit programs, but Rules 130 and 220 

also contain some deficiencies that form 

the basis for our proposed limited 

disapproval, as discussed below. 

First, 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 Rule 220 

(b) cross-reference the definition of the 

term Significant in Rule 130 to provide 

specific public notice emission rate 

thresholds used to determine when 

public notice is required. Rule 130 

provides thresholds for all NAAQS 

pollutants except lead. To correct this 

deficiency, the District should add an 

emission threshold for lead by revising 

the definition of the term ‘‘Significant’’ 

in Rule 130. 

Second, Rule 220 does not contain 

any provisions specifying that required 

air quality modeling shall be based on 

the applicable models, databases, and 

other requirements specified in Part 51 

Appendix W, as required by 40 CFR 

51.160(f) and 51.166(f). Provisions 

pertaining to modeling requirements 

must also specify the requirements for 

using any alternative models. To correct 

the deficiency, the District should add 

the required modeling provisions to 

Rule 220. 

Third, text in Rule 220, Subsection 

(b)(3) contains a significant typo 

concerning the requirements pertaining 

to stack height. This deficiency may be 

corrected by adding the missing word 

‘‘not’’. 

Finally, Rule 230 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 can 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 220 

(approved July 31, 1985), however, 

submitted Rules 130 and 220 represent 

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 are unregulated under the 

existing SIP PSD program. Because 

submitted Rules 130 and 220 strengthen 

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 

NAAQS for the given criteria pollutant. 

The NSCAPCD is not designated 

nonattainment for any NAAQS. Because 

the NSCAPCD 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. 

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].’’ 

NSCAPCD 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 NSCAPCD 

portion of the California SIP for the 

purpose of continued attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Our 

approval of the NSCAPCD SIP submittal 

(and supersession of the existing SIP 

rules) would strengthen the applicable 

SIP. Therefore we find that this SIP 

revision represents a strengthening of 

NSCAPCD’s minor NSR and PSD 

programs compared to the existing SIP 

rules that we previously approved, 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 

NSCAPCD, we propose 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, Rules 130 

and 220 contain certain deficiencies that 

prevent us from proposing a full 

approval and we are proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

these two rules. We do so based on our 

finding that, while these rules do not 

meet all of the applicable requirements, 

the rules represent an overall 

strengthening of the SIP by clarifying 

and enhancing the permitting 

requirements for major and minor 

stationary sources in NSCAPCD. 

Finally, we are proposing a full 

approval of Rules 200, 230, and 240, 

which will replace existing SIP Rules 

10, 12 and 18. Our TSD, which is 

available in the docket for today’s 

action, contains additional information 

on this rulemaking. 

III. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA 

and for the reasons provided above, EPA 

is proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Rules 130 and 

220, and approval of the remaining 

revisions to the NSCAPCD portion of 

the California SIP that governs the 

issuance of permits for stationary 

sources under the jurisdiction of 

NSCAPCD, 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 NSCAPCD rules listed in 

Table 1, above, as a revision to the 

NSCAPCD portion of the California SIP. 

EPA is proposing this action because, 

although we find that the new and 

amended rules meet most of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31570 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2Final approval of the rules in Table 1 would 

supersede all of the rules in the existing California 

SIP as listed in Table 2. 

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 Rules 130 and 220, 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 

NSCAPCD permitting regulations 2 and 

to set the stage for remedying 

deficiencies in these regulations. 

In addition, on April 1, 2016 (81 FR 

18766), EPA partially disapproved 

California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittal 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to Northern Sonoma 

County APCD because it did not include 

requirements for a baseline date for PSD 

increments for PM2.5. If we finalize our 

proposed action, this Infrastructure SIP 

deficiency pertaining to the PSD-related 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II) and (J) will be remedied, and 

we will update the approved SIP for 

California accordingly. 

If finalized as proposed, the limited 

disapproval of Rules 130 and 220 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 the proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the NSCAPCD rules as described in 

Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, this 

document generally electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and in 

hard copy at U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region IX (Air-3), 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 

94105–3901. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The 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, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: May 3, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11621 Filed 5–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS