Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10589 

compliance with our 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Our decision is also based, in 

part, on the fact that both nonattainment 

areas within the Commonwealth have 

attained our 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

by their attainment date of June 15, 2010 

as noted in Section IV, Proposed Action. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Massachusetts’ January 31, 2008 SIP 

submittal that demonstrates that the 

state has adopted air pollution control 

strategies that represent RACT for 

purposes of compliance with the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we 

are proposing approval of two revised 

regulations submitted by Massachusetts 

on June 1, 2010: 310 CMR 7.18(8), 

‘‘Solvent Metal Degreasing;’’ and 310 

CMR 7.24(6), ‘‘Dispensing of Motor 

Vehicle Fuel.’’ 

EPA has evaluated the VOC and NOX

stationary source control regulations 

which Massachusetts contends meets 

RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, and determined that a level of 

control consistent with RACT has been 

implemented in the state for purposes of 

the 1997 ozone standard. We do not 

anticipate any difficulties with 

enforcing the state’s standards, as EPA 

has previously approved the rules 

Massachusetts cites as the means by 

which RACT is implemented. We have 

determined that these regulatory 

elements and the resulting reduction in 

VOC and NOX emissions from major 

sources demonstrate that a RACT level 

of control for both pollutants has been 

implemented in the state. EPA has 

previously determined that 

Massachusetts’ two 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas attained the 1997 

ozone standard by their attainment date, 

based on quality-assured air monitoring 

data. This determination was published 

on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 31496) for the 

Eastern Massachusetts nonattainment 

area, and on June 19, 2012 (77 FR 

36404) for the Western Massachusetts 

nonattainment area. The improvements 

in air quality represented by these clean 

data determinations were brought about, 

in part, by the RACT program 

implemented by Massachusetts. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA New England 

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

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, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 Clean Air Act; 

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 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, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

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: February 5, 2013. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03472 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0064; FRL–9777–7] 

Revision of Air Quality Implementation 

Plan; California; Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District; Stationary Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to fully 

approve two permitting rules submitted 

by California as a revision to the 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD or 

District) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules 

were adopted by the SMAQMD to 

regulate the construction and 

modification of stationary sources of air 

pollution within Sacramento County. 

EPA is proposing to approve this SIP 

revision based on the Agency’s 

conclusion that the rules are consistent 

with applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements, policies and guidance. 

Final approval of these rules would 

make the rules federally enforceable and 

correct program deficiencies identified 

in a previous EPA rulemaking on July 

20, 2011. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

March 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0064, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10590 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 VOCs and NOX are subject to NSR as precursors 

to ozone, and NOX and SOX are subject to NSR as 

precursors to PM2.5 in Sacramento County. See 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C). 

2New or modified major stationary sources of air 

pollutants for which Sacramento County is 

designated attainment or unclassifiable are subject 

to separate permitting procedures and requirements 

under Rule 203 (Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration), which EPA fully approved into the 

California SIP on July 20, 2011. See 76 FR 43183. 

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 will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. http:// 

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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under EPA–R09–OAR– 

2013–0064. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents are listed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), and some may not be publicly 

available in either location (e.g., CBI). 

To inspect the hard copy materials, 

please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. 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 and Proposed Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Proposed action and request for public 

comment. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal, including the dates they 

were adopted by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended/Adopted Submitted 

SMAQMD ................. 214 Federal New Source Review ........................................................ Amended 8/23/12 ...... 9/26/12 

SMAQMD ................. 217 Public Notice Requirements for Permits ....................................... Adopted 8/23/12 ........ 9/26/12 

CARB’s SIP submittal includes 

evidence of public notice and adoption 

of these regulations. We find that the 

submittals for SMAQMD Rules 214 and 

217 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? 

EPA approved a previous version of 

Rule 214 into the SIP on July 20, 2011 

(76 FR 43183). There are no previous 

versions of Rule 217 in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires 

that each SIP include, among other 

things, a preconstruction permit 

program to provide for regulation of the 

construction and modification of 

stationary sources within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D of title I of the 

CAA. For areas designated as 

nonattainment for one or more NAAQS, 

the SIP must include preconstruction 

permit requirements for new or 

modified major stationary sources of 

such nonattainment pollutant(s), 

commonly referred to as 

‘‘Nonattainment New Source Review’’ 

or ‘‘NSR.’’ CAA 172(c)(5). 

Sacramento County is currently 

designated and classified as severe 

nonattainment for the 1997 and 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and moderate 

nonattainment for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. The area is also designated 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. 

Therefore, California is required under 

part D of title I of the Act to adopt and 

implement a SIP-approved NSR 

program for the Sacramento area that 

applies, at minimum, to new or 

modified major stationary sources of the 

following pollutants: volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), particulate matter of 10 microns 

of less (PM10), particular matter of 2.5 

microns or less (PM2.5) and sulfur oxides 

(SOX).1

Rule 214 (Federal New Source 

Review) implements the NSR 

requirements under part D of title I of 

the CAA for new or modified major 

stationary sources of these 

nonattainment pollutants within 

Sacramento County. Rule 217 (Public 

Notice Requirements for Permits) 

contains the public notice and other 

procedural requirements for issuance of 

permits to all minor sources and to new 

or modified major sources of 

nonattainment pollutants in the 

County.2 The SMAQMD amended Rule 

214 and adopted Rule 217 to correct 

program deficiencies identified by EPA 

on July 20, 2011 (76 FR 43183). 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

EPA has reviewed the submitted 

permitting rules for compliance with the 

CAA’s general requirements for SIPs in 

CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA’s 

regulations for stationary source permit 

programs in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I 

(‘‘Review of New Sources and 

Modifications’’), and the CAA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10591 

3Section 110(l) of the CAA 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 Act. 

requirements for SIP revisions in CAA 

section 110(l).3 As explained below, 

EPA is proposing to fully approve the 

submitted rules. 

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 

SMAQMD’s September 26, 2012 rule 

submittals, we find that the State 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, EPA has reviewed the 

submitted rules in accordance with the 

CAA and regulatory requirements that 

apply to NSR permit programs under 

part D of title I of the Act and the 

general public notice requirements for 

stationary source permits in 40 CFR 

section 51.161. Based on our evaluation 

of these rules, we are proposing to fully 

approve Rule 214 as satisfying the CAA 

and regulatory requirements for NSR 

permit programs in part D of title I of 

the Act and EPA’s NSR implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR section 51.165 for 

new or modified major stationary 

sources proposing to locate in 

Sacramento County. Additionally, we 

are proposing to fully approve Rule 217 

as satisfying the general public notice 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.161 for both 

minor source permits and major source 

NSR permits issued in Sacramento 

County. Final approval of Rule 214 and 

Rule 217 would correct all deficiencies 

in SMAQMD’s permit programs 

identified in our July 20, 2011 final rule. 

See 76 FR 43183. The Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for this action 

contains a more detailed discussion of 

our evaluation. 

C. Proposed action and request for 

public comment 

For the reasons given above and 

described more fully in the TSD for this 

rulemaking, EPA is proposing to fully 

approve Rule 214 and Rule 217 into the 

California SIP pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(3). We will accept comments 

from the public on this proposal for the 

next 30 days. 

III. 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, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this 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 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, 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, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 29, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03249 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS