58538 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Exclusion Portal will prohibit persons 

from being able to submit exclusion 

requests for these identified GDEs. 

These GDEs are indefinite in length, but 

the Department of Commerce on behalf 

of the Secretary of Commerce may at 

any time issue a Federal Register notice 

removing, revising or adding to an 

existing GDE in this supplement as 

warranted to align with the objectives of 

the Section 232 exclusions process as 

described in supplement no. 1 to this 

part. The Department of Commerce on 

behalf of the Secretary of Commerce 

may periodically publish notices of 

inquiry in the Federal Register 

soliciting public comments on potential 

removals, revisions or additions to this 

supplement. 

GDE Identifier. Description of Aluminum That May Not Be Requested 

in an Exclusion Request (at 10-digit Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting number or more narrowly defined at 

product level). 

Other Limitations. Federal Register Citation. 

Matthew S. Borman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18328 Filed 8–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0925; FRL–10943– 

01–R9] 

Air Quality Implementation Plan; 

California; Great Basin Unified Air 

Pollution Control District; Stationary 

Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Great Basin Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD or 

‘‘District’’) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this 

action, we are proposing to approve one 

rule governing the issuance of permits 

for new and modified major sources in 

nonattainment areas under part D of 

title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the 

Act’’) in the District. We are also 

proposing to find that PM10 precursors 

are not significant contributors to PM10

levels in the Mono Basin, as the 

majority of direct PM emissions come 

from dry lake beds. We are taking 

comments on this proposal and a final 

action will follow. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 27, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2022–0925 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be removed or edited 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 the disclosure of 

which 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 and multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nidia Trejo, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3968, or by 

email at trejo.nidia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Is there another version of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. What is the background for this 

proposal? 

B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

C. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal including the date it was 

adopted by the District and the date on 

which it was submitted to the EPA by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB or ‘‘the State’’). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

Rule 222 ..................................................... NSR Requirements for New and Modified Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas.01/06/22 07/05/22 

On January 5, 2023, the submittal for 

District Rule 222 was deemed by 

operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Is there another version of this rule? 

There is no previous version of Rule 

222 in the California SIP. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 58539 

1CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that 

regulations submitted to the EPA for SIP approval 

be clear and legally enforceable, and CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that states have adequate 

personnel, funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out their proposed SIP revisions. 

2CAA 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. 

3CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of 

any SIP-approved control requirement in effect 

before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area, 

unless the modification ensures equivalent or 

greater emission reductions of the relevant 

pollutants. 

4 82 FR 13390, (March 13, 2017). See also 81 FR 

89407, (December 12, 2016). 

5See GBUAPCD 1995 PM10 State Implementation 

Plan for Mono Basin Planning Area, Table 4.1— 

PM10 Emissions Summary; see also 82 FR 13390 

(Mar. 13, 2017). 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

Rule 222 is intended to address the 

CAA’s statutory and regulatory 

requirements for Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NNSR) permit programs 

for major sources emitting 

nonattainment air pollutants and their 

precursors. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. What is the background for this 

proposal? 

Historically, the District had four 

designated PM10 nonattainment areas, 

including the Owens Valley and Coso 

Junction Planning Areas in Inyo County, 

CA, and the Mono Basin and Mammoth 

Lake Planning Areas in Mono County, 

CA. Currently, however, only the Mono 

Basin and Owens Valley Planning Areas 

are designated nonattainment for PM10. 

The designation of the Mono Basin and 

Owens Valley Planning Areas as federal 

PM10 nonattainment areas triggered the 

requirement for the District to develop 

and submit an NNSR program to the 

EPA for approval into the California SIP. 

The District’s NNSR program must 

satisfy the NNSR requirements 

applicable to a Moderate PM10

nonattainment area for the Mono Basin 

and a Serious PM10 nonattainment area 

for the Owens Valley. 

Our Technical Support Document 

(TSD) for this action contains additional 

information regarding the history of the 

District’s PM10 nonattainment areas. The 

District is designated attainment/ 

unclassifiable for all other NAAQS. 

B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

The EPA reviewed Rule 222 for 

compliance with CAA requirements for: 

(1) stationary source preconstruction 

permitting programs as set forth in CAA 

part D, including CAA sections 172(c)(5) 

and 173; (2) the review and 

modification of major sources in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.160–51.165 

as applicable in Moderate and Serious 

PM10 nonattainment areas; (3) the 

review of new major stationary sources 

or major modifications in a designated 

nonattainment area that may have an 

impact on visibility in any mandatory 

Class I Federal area in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.307; (4) SIPs in general as set 

forth in CAA sections 110(a)(2), 

including 110(a)(2)(A) and 

110(a)(2)(E)(i); 1 and (5) SIP revisions as 

set forth in CAA section 110(l) 2 and 

193.3 Our review evaluated the 

submittals for compliance with the 

NNSR requirements applicable to 

nonattainment areas designated 

Moderate and Serious, and ensured that 

the submittals addressed the NNSR 

requirements for the 1987 PM10

NAAQS. 

C. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

With respect to procedural 

requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) 

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 July 5, 

2022 submittal of Rule 222, we find that 

the District has provided sufficient 

evidence of public notice, opportunity 

for comment, and a public hearing prior 

to adoption and submittal of this rule to 

the EPA. 

With respect to the substantive 

requirements found in CAA sections 

172(c)(5), 173, 189 and 40 CFR 51.160– 

51.165, we have evaluated Rule 222 in 

accordance with the applicable CAA 

and regulatory requirements that apply 

to NNSR permit programs under part D 

of title I of the Act for the 1987 PM10

NAAQS. We find that Rule 222 satisfies 

these requirements as they apply to 

sources subject to NNSR permit program 

requirements applicable to Moderate 

and Serious PM10 nonattainment areas. 

As part of our determination, we relied 

on a previous finding from our 2016 

final action approving the Owens Valley 

1987 PM10 attainment plan that PM10

precursors are not significant 

contributors to PM10 in the area,4 and a 

comparative analysis of emission 

sources in the Mono Basin to determine 

that PM10 precursors are also not 

significant contributors to PM10 in the 

Mono Basin.5

We have also determined that this 

rule satisfies the related visibility 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.307. In 

addition, we find that Rule 222 satisfies 

the requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) that regulations submitted 

to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and 

legally enforceable and that the 

submittal demonstrates in accordance 

with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) that the 

Districts have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out the proposed SIP revision. 

Regarding the additional substantive 

requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and 

193, our action will result in a more 

stringent SIP, while not relaxing any 

existing provision contained in the SIP. 

We have concluded that our action 

would comply with section 110(l) 

because our approval of Rule 222 will 

not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

CAA applicable requirement. In 

addition, our approval of Rule 222 will 

not relax any pre-November 15, 1990 

requirement in the SIP, and therefore 

changes to the SIP resulting from this 

action ensure greater or equivalent 

emission reductions of PM10 and its 

precursors in the District; accordingly, 

our action is consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 193. 

Our TSD, which can be found in the 

docket for this rule, contains a more 

detailed discussion of our analysis of 

Rule 222. 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD also includes 

recommendations for an additional 

clarifying revision to consider for 

adoption when the District next 

modifies Rule 222. 

III. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is 

proposing approval of the submitted 

rule because it fulfills the relevant CAA 

requirements and strengthens the SIP. 

We have concluded that our approval of 

the submitted rule would comply with 

the relevant provisions of CAA sections 

110(a)(2), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 173, 189, and 

193, and 40 CFR 51.160–51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.307. 

If we finalize this action as proposed, 

our action will be codified through 

revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a 

(Identification of plan—in part). This 

action would incorporate the submitted 

rule into the SIP. In conjunction with 

the EPA’s SIP approval of the District’s 

visibility provisions for sources subject 

to the NNSR program as meeting the 

relevant requirements of 40 CFR 51.307, 

this action would also revise the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
58540 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

regulatory provision at 40 CFR 52.281(d) 

concerning the applicability of the 

visibility Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) at 40 CFR 52.28 as it pertains to 

California, to provide that this FIP does 

not apply to sources subject to review 

under the District’s SIP-approved NNSR 

program. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal until September 

27, 2023. 

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 GBUAPCD rule listed in Table 1 of 

this preamble, which regulates the 

issuance of permits for new and 

modified major sources in 

nonattainment areas in the District. The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, this document available 

electronically through https://

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region IX Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it proposes to approve a state 

program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition, 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. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The District did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA did not perform an 

EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in 

this action. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goals of 

E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for people of color, low-income 

populations, and indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: August 17, 2023. 

Cheree Peterson, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18401 Filed 8–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 21–456; Report No. 3200; 

FR ID 166483] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Petition for Reconsideration 

(Petition) has been filed in the 

Commission’s proceeding by Kimberly 

Baum, on behalf of WorldVu Satellites 

Limited. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed on or before September 12, 

2023. Replies to oppositions must be 

filed on or before September 22, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clay 

DeCell at (202) 418–0803 or 

Clay.DeCell@fcc.gov. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1