Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55637 

1The purpose of District Rule 2020 

(‘‘Exemptions’’) is to specify emission units that are 

not required to obtain an Authority to Construct or 

Permit to Operate. Rule 2020 also specifies the 

recordkeeping requirements to verify such 

exemptions and outlines the compliance schedule 

for emission units that lose the exemption. 

2The purpose of District Rule 2201 (‘‘New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review Rule’’) is to 

provide for the review of new and modified 

stationary sources of air pollution and to provide 

mechanisms including emission trade-offs by which 

Authorities to Construct such sources may be 

granted, without interfering with the attainment or 

maintenance of ambient air quality standards. 

District Rule 2201 is also intended to provide for 

no net increase in emissions above specified 

thresholds from new and modified stationary 

sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their 

precursors. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0881; FRL–9916–06- 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans, State of 

California, San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District, New 

Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action 

under the Clean Air Act to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board. These 

revisions concern pre-construction 

review of new and modified stationary 

sources located within the District. The 

revisions are intended to remedy 

deficiencies the EPA identified when 

granting limited approval and limited 

disapproval to the rules in 2010, and to 

add requirements for pre-construction 

review of new and modified sources of 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0881 for 

this action. The index to the docket 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, Permits Office (AIR– 

3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3534, 

yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA’s Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Proposed Action 

On December 6, 2011 (76 FR 76112), 

under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), we proposed to 

approve two amended rules adopted by 

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (District or 

SJVUAPCD) and submitted to EPA by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) as a revision to the California 

state implementation plan (SIP). The 

two amended rules include District Rule 

2020 (‘‘Exemptions’’) 1 and District Rule 

2201 (‘‘New and Modified Stationary 

Source Review Rule’’).2 These rules 

concern pre-construction review of new 

and modified stationary sources (‘‘new 

source review’’ or NSR) within the 

District. Collectively, we refer to District 

Rules 2020 and 2201 herein as the 

‘‘District NSR rules.’’ Table 1 below 

shows the relevant amendment and 

submittal dates for this SIP revision. 

TABLE 1—AMENDED SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY NSR RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ...................................... 2020 Exemptions ................................................................... 8/18/11 9/28/11 

SJVUAPCD ...................................... 2201 New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule ..... 4/21/11 05/19/11 

In our December 6, 2011 proposed 

rule, we indicated that, in May 2010, 75 

FR 26102 (May 11, 2010), we took a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval action on previous versions 

of District Rules 2020 and 2201 because, 

although we found that the rules 

strengthened the SIP, they contained 

deficiencies in enforceability that 

prevented full approval. Specifically, in 

our May 2010 final rule, we indicated 

that both rules contained references to 

California Health and Safety Code 

(CH&SC) that were unacceptably 

ambiguous because the State law cited 

therein had not been submitted to EPA 

for approval into the SIP. 

In the year following our May 2010 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval action, the District 

amended the NSR rules to address the 

deficiencies that EPA had identified in 

the previous version of the District NSR 

rules. In addition to addressing the 

deficiencies, the District amended the 

NSR rules in 2011 to address the 1997 

PM2.5 standards to ensure that new 

major sources of PM2.5, and major 

modifications at existing major PM2.5

sources, will undergo pre-construction 

review that requires permit applicants 

to apply Lowest Achievable Emission 

Rate (LAER) and provide emission 

offsets. The District NSR rules, as 

amended in 2011, are the subject of our 

December 6, 2011 proposed rule. 

In our December 6, 2011 proposed 

rule, we proposed approval of District 

Rule 2020 (‘‘Exemptions’’) because the 

rule, as amended, replaced a crossreference to CH&SC section 42301.16, 

which is not approved in the SIP, with 

a clear description of the agricultural 

sources covered by the exemption based 

on the language from the corresponding 

CH&SC section. We also proposed to 

approve a new permitting exemption in 

District Rule 2020 for wind machines 

because wind machines are not subject 

to any prohibitory District rule, because 

no controls would approach any 

reasonable threshold of costeffectiveness given the very limited use 

of the machines and the low emissions 

per unit, and because neither the EPAapproved San Joaquin Valley PM10

maintenance plan nor the EPAapproved PM2.5 attainment plan relies 

on emissions reductions from this 

particular episodic source of emissions. 

With respect to District Rule 2201 

(‘‘New and Modified Stationary Source 

Review Rule’’), we proposed approval 

because the rule, as amended, replaced 

references to CH&SC sections not 

approved into the SIP with a clear 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55638 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. 

Cir. 2013), the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA 

the implementation rules, including the NSR 

implementation rule, promulgated by EPA at 73 FR 

28321 (May 16, 2008) to implement the 1997 PM2.5

standards. The Court found that the EPA erred in 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standards pursuant 

solely to the general implementation provisions of 

subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, without 

also considering the particulate matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of Part D. In the wake of 

the decision in NRDC v. EPA, EPA has classified 

a number of areas, including the San Joaquin 

Valley, under subpart 4 as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards and has established a deadline of 

December 31, 2014 for submittal of SIP revisions 

necessary to meet subpart 4 requirements for the 

PM2.5 standards, including any necessary revisions 

to the District NSR rules. 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 

2014). In today’s final rule, we are taking final 

action to approve the District NSR rules, as 

amended in 2011 to meet the NSR requirements for 

PM2.5 under subpart 1, because they address 

previously-identified deficiencies and strengthen 

the existing SIP by meeting subpart 1 NSR 

requirements for PM2.5, but we also recognize that 

further amendments may be necessary to the PM2.5- 

related portions of the District NSR rules to meet 

the applicable NSR requirements under subpart 4. 

4Consistent with EPA’s 2008 NSR 

implementation rule for PM2.5 as developed 

consistent with subpart 1 of the CAA, District NSR 

rules currently regulate direct PM2.5 but only NOX

and SOx as PM2.5 precursors. To meet the 

requirements of subpart 4, the District’s NSR rules 

may need to be revised to include VOCs or 

ammonia or both as additional PM2.5 precursors. As 

noted in the previous footnote, any changes to 

District NSR rules necessary to meet the 

requirements of subpart 4 with respect to PM2.5

must be submitted to EPA by December 31, 2014. 

5Our proposed approval of the 2011 amended 

versions of District Rules 2020 and 2201 provided 

us with the basis to issue an interim final rule (76 

FR 76046, December 6, 2011) deferring imposition 

of sanctions under CAA section 179 resulting from 

the limited disapproval of the rules on May 11, 

2010 at 75 FR 26102. 

description of the applicability of the 

offset requirement to agricultural 

sources based on the language from the 

corresponding CH&SC sections. We also 

proposed approval of the revisions to 

District Rule 2201 that added 

requirements to address the 1997 PM2.5

standard, including permitting 

thresholds, Best Available Control 

Technology (which in California is the 

same as Federal LAER), and emission 

offset requirements, because we found 

that they satisfy the CAA requirements 

for NSR for new and modified major 

stationary sources of PM2.5.3

Lastly, in our December 6, 2011 

proposed rule, we found that approval 

of amended Rules 2020 and 2201 would 

not interfere with attainment and 

reasonable further progress for any of 

the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS or standards), and 

would not interfere with any other 

applicable requirement of the Act, and 

thus was acceptable under section 110(l) 

of the CAA. We based this finding on 

the following considerations: 

• Amended Rule 2201 does not relax 

the SIP in any aspect; rather, the 

amended rule strengthens the SIP by 

applying NSR requirements to new 

major stationary sources and major 

modifications of PM2.5.4

• While amended Rule 2020 contains 

a new exemption for wind machines, 

this exemption would not lead to an 

increase in emissions because, as 

explained above, wind machines would 

not be subject to any particular controls 

under the NSR rule even if no such 

exemption were in effect because no 

control device would be considered 

cost-effective. 

• Neither the EPA-approved San 

Joaquin Valley PM10 maintenance plan 

nor the EPA-approved PM2.5 attainment 

plan relies on emissions reductions 

from this particular episodic source of 

emissions (i.e., wind machines). 

Please see our December 6, 2011 

proposed rule and related technical 

support document (TSD) for a more 

detailed discussion of the background 

for this action and our rationale for 

proposing approval of the amended 

District NSR rules.5

II. Public Comments and EPA’s 

Responses 

Our December 6, 2011 proposed rule 

provided for a 30-day comment period. 

During that period, we received one 

comment letter from Earthjustice (dated 

January 5, 2012), containing four 

comments. In the following paragraphs, 

we summarize the comments and 

provide our responses. 

Earthjustice Comment #1: Earthjustice 

asserts that District Rule 2201 is not 

fully approvable under 40 CFR 51.165 

until it is revised to include 

condensable emissions in the definition 

of PM2.5. Earthjustice argues that EPA is 

simply assuming this defect away, 

because it has pointed to no District 

permitting decision or any statement by 

the District providing evidence to 

support EPA’s belief that the District is 

appropriately accounting for 

condensable emissions. 

Response to Earthjustice Comment #1: 

To appropriately account for 

condensable particulate matter in 

regulating PM2.5 from stationary 

sources, we agree that District rules 

should be amended to be explicit 

regarding the inclusion of the 

condensable portion of particulate 

matter in the definition of PM2.5, and 

indicated as much in our proposed rule 

at 76 FR 76112, at 76114, footnote 3. 

The commenter is correct that we did 

not refer to any specific District 

permitting decision or District statement 

in support of our stated belief that, 

notwithstanding the absence of explicit 

rule language, the District is 

appropriately accounting for 

condensable particulate matter in 

regulating PM2.5. 

Thus, in response to this comment, 

we have requested, and the District has 

responded with, a letter clarifying how 

the District treats the condensable 

portion of particulate matter for NSR 

purposes. In a letter dated June 26, 

2014, from David Warner, Deputy Air 

Pollution Control Officer, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District, to Gerardo C. Rios, EPA Region 

IX, the District explains that it interprets 

its current regulations to require 

consideration of condensable particulate 

matter for PM2.5 NSR purposes based on 

the definitions for ‘‘PM2.5’’ and 

‘‘particulate matter’’ in District Rules 

2201 and 1020, respectively. The former 

term is defined in terms of ‘‘particulate 

matter,’’ and the latter term is defined 

in terms of ‘‘any material except 

uncombined water, which exists in a 

finely divided form as a liquid or solid 

at standard conditions.’’ As such, the 

condensable portion of particulate 

matter is treated as a part of total PM2.5

emissions under existing District NSR 

rules. 

Nonetheless, in its letter, the District 

indicates that it will amend its rules to 

eliminate any confusion about the 

inclusion of condensable particulate 

matter as part of PM2.5 when it considers 

further PM2.5-related amendments to 

District NSR rules. CARB must submit 

to EPA, no later than December 31, 

2014, any revisions to District NSR rules 

that are necessary to address subpart 4. 

See 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). 

Earthjustice Comment #2: Earthjustice 

asserts that District Rule 2201 does not 

ensure PM2.5 offsets will be surplus at 

time of use and must do so in order to 

be approved as meeting NSR 

requirements. Earthjustice notes that, 

unlike the District’s NSR requirements 

for ozone and PM10, PM2.5 offsets are not 

required of minor sources or at more 

stringent ratios, and thus no 

demonstration can be made to show that 

the District’s NSR program, in the 

aggregate, achieves PM2.5 offsets 

equivalent to those that would be 

required if all major sources were 

required to provide offsets that are 

surplus at the time of use. 

Response to Earthjustice Comment #2: 

As the commenter notes, EPA has 

previously approved versions of District 

Rule 2201 that allow the District to 

demonstrate that an equal number of 

‘‘surplus’’ emission reductions are 

provided by District Rule 2201 as would 

be required if all major sources, 

including PM2.5 major sources, were 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55639 

6See email from Arnaud Marjollet, Director of 

Permit Services, SJVUAPCD, to Laura Yannayon, 

EPA Region IX, July 24, 2014. 

required to provide offsets that are 

surplus at the time of use. The offset 

equivalency provisions provided in 

section 7 (‘‘Annual Offset Equivalency 

Demonstration and Pre-baseline ERC 

Cap Tracking System’’) of District Rule 

2201 require the District to submit an 

annual report demonstrating that the 

amount of ‘‘surplus’’ emission 

reductions required by the CAA are 

provided by the sources that 

surrendered the emission reduction 

credits or by additional or ‘‘extra’’ 

emission reductions (in the form of 

offsets) not otherwise required by the 

CAA. 

EPA recognizes that District Rule 

2201 does not require new or modified 

minor PM2.5 sources to offset their 

emissions with surplus emission 

reductions nor does District Rule 2201 

impose a more stringent PM2.5 ratio to 

compensate for the absence of a 

requirement that all offsets must be 

surplus at the time of use. However, the 

District can still provide an equivalency 

demonstration for PM2.5 under the 

provisions of section 7 of District Rule 

2201 because the District holds a large 

quantity of PM10 offsets that can be 

speciated to determine the portion of 

the offset that is made up of PM2.5

emissions. Thus, if an applicant 

surrenders PM2.5 offsets that are not 

considered surplus at the time of use, 

then the provisions of section 7 would 

apply, and the District could supply the 

necessary PM2.5 offsets by speciating 

existing PM10 offsets that it holds. Thus, 

EPA finds that District Rule 2201 does 

provide an appropriate mechanism to 

ensure that either (1) all PM2.5 credits 

surrendered are surplus at time of use 

or (2) the District provides the necessary 

quantity of surplus PM2.5 offsets by 

speciating PM10 offsets into their PM2.5

fraction. Lastly, we note that the District 

has yet to issue a permit for a new major 

PM2.5 source or a major modification of 

an existing major PM2.5 source, and 

thus, while the mechanism exists for 

showing equivalency, it has yet to be 

relied upon by the District in practice.6

Earthjustice Comment #3: Earthjustice 

requests that EPA clarify that no sources 

will ever qualify for the offset 

exemption in section 4.6.9 in District 

Rule 2201 because any source that emits 

criteria pollutants is capable of 

generating real, permanent, quantifiable 

and enforceable emission reductions. 

Earthjustice states that it is not a 

question of ‘‘if’’ emissions reductions 

from agricultural sources would meet 

the criteria in section 4.6.9 but how the 

emission reductions are demonstrated 

and enshrined. Earthjustice further 

requests that EPA reiterate that the 

ability of a source to generate creditable 

emissions reductions does not depend 

on whether an agency chooses to adopt 

protocols allowing such credits. 

Response to Earthjustice Comment #3: 

The District adopted the offset 

exemption in section 4.6.9 of District 

Rule 2201 to explicitly align District 

NSR rules with State law regarding 

District regulation of agricultural 

sources. We first approved the offset 

exemption in section 4.6.9 of Rule 2201 

as part of the California SIP in our 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval action published in May 

2010. See 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010). 

As approved in May 2010, section 

4.6.9 provides that emissions offsets 

shall not be required for: ‘‘Agricultural 

sources, to the extent provided by 

California Health and Safety Code, 

section 42301.18(c), except that nothing 

in this section shall circumvent the 

requirements of section 42301.16(a).’’ 

California Health & Safety Code 

(CH&SC) section 42301.18(c) provides 

that: ‘‘A district may not require an 

agricultural source to obtain emissions 

offsets for criteria pollutants for that 

source if emissions reductions from that 

source would not meet the criteria for 

real, permanent, quantifiable, and 

enforceable emissions reductions.’’ 

CH&SC section 42301.16(a) in turn 

provides that: ‘‘In addition to complying 

with the requirements of this chapter, a 

permit system established by a district 

pursuant to Section 42300 shall ensure 

that any agricultural source that is 

required to obtain a permit pursuant to 

Title I . . . or Title V . . . of the federal 

Clean Air Act is required by district 

regulation to obtain a permit in manner 

that is consistent with the federal 

requirements.’’ Our action in May 2010 

was a limited approval and limited 

disapproval action because, while 

strengthening the SIP and meeting most 

applicable requirements, District Rule 

2201 contained unacceptably 

ambiguous provisions in section 4.6.9 

because the statutory provisions cited 

therein are not approved as part of the 

California SIP. In our May 2010 final 

rule, we understood the offset 

exemption to apply to all new minor 

agricultural sources and minor 

modifications to agricultural sources 

and determined that the exemption was 

consistent with Federal NSR 

requirements and would not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley. 75 FR at 

26105 (May 11, 2010). 

In response to our limited approval 

and limited disapproval action in May 

2010, the District amended section 4.6.9 

of Rule 2201 to provide that emissions 

offsets shall not be required for: 

‘‘Agricultural Sources, for criteria 

pollutants for that source if emissions 

reductions from that source would not 

meet the criteria for real, permanent, 

quantifiable and enforceable emissions 

reductions.’’ The District also added a 

new subsection 4.6.9.1 that reads: ‘‘In 

no case shall the offset exemption in 

section 4.6.9 apply to an agricultural 

source that is also a major stationary 

source for the pollutant for which the 

offset exemption is sought.’’ As such, 

the District merely replaced the 

statutory reference to CH&SC section 

42301.18(c) with text mirroring the 

language from the code section itself 

and added language limiting the 

exemption to give effect to CH&SC 

section 42301.16(a). EPA’s proposed 

approval of District Rule 2201, as 

amended in 2011, recognizes that the 

District amended the rule in such a way 

as to eliminate the deficiency that we 

had identified in May 2010. In today’s 

action, we are taking final action to 

approve the amended version of District 

Rule 2201, including the amendment to 

section 4.6.9 as a revision to the 

California SIP. 

The commenter does not object to the 

District’s amendment to section 4.6.9 to 

address the deficiency identified by 

EPA in our May 2010 final action, nor 

does it object to our determination that 

the amendment has resolved the 

identified deficiency. Rather, the 

comment seeks EPA agreement on a 

factual statement that derives logically 

from the commenter’s interpretation of 

the language of the underlying state law 

provision. As noted above, in our May 

2010 final action, in contrast to the 

commenter’s interpretation, we 

understood the offset exemption to 

apply to all new minor agricultural 

sources and to all minor modifications 

to agricultural sources. Notwithstanding 

the breadth of application of the 

exemption to minor agricultural 

sources, we determined in our May 

2010 final action that the exemption 

was consistent with Federal NSR 

requirements and would not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS. If, as commenter contends, the 

exemption applies to no minor 

agricultural sources or modifications to 

minor agricultural sources, our 

determination as to whether the 

exemption is acceptable would remain 

the same. 

Nonetheless, we note that the 

commenter’s opinion that section 4.6.9 

of District Rule 2201 does not in fact 

exempt any new or modified 

agricultural source from the offset 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
55640 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7Letter and attachment from Robert W. Byrne, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

IX, March 18, 2013. 

8Upon the effective date of this final rule, District 

Rules 2020 and 2201, as approved herein, will 

supersede District Rules 2020 and 2201 as approved 

on May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26102) in the applicable 

California SIP. 

exemption is not shared by EPA or the 

State of California. In a detailed 

response to a comment in a separate 

final rule, we explain that, while we 

agree that the criteria in CH&SC section 

42301.18(c) allowing districts to require 

emissions offsets for new or modified 

agricultural sources does not depend 

upon the district’s adoption of a specific 

protocol or rule allowing offsets from 

such sources to be generated, some 

determination is necessary. See at 78 FR 

46504, at 46509 (August 1, 2013). More 

specifically, in our August 2013 final 

rule, at 46509, we explain: 

However, whether emissions reductions 

from a given agricultural source meet the 

relevant criteria is not self-evident or selfimplementing. Some determination is 

necessary. For instance, the District is the 

agency responsible for allowing the 

emissions reductions from a given 

agricultural source to be banked or used for 

the purpose of offsetting emissions increases 

from new or modified stationary sources that 

are subject to the offset requirement under an 

approved NSR program. If the District 

allowed emission reductions to be banked or 

used for offsetting emission increases, then 

the District would thereby be determining 

that the emissions reductions are ‘‘real, 

permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable’’ 

since those are the basic criteria for judging 

the creditability of emission reductions for 

use as NSR offsets. The District’s authority to 

impose the offset requirement on new or 

modified minor agricultural sources would 

vest as to those agricultural sources for which 

it has allowed banking or use of emission 

reductions for NSR offset purposes. Thus, 

while no protocol or District rule specifically 

directed at agricultural sources need be 

adopted for the offset authority to vest, some 

determination is necessary. 

Moreover, by letter dated March 18, 

2013, the California Attorney General’s 

office states, in connection with CH&SC 

section 42301.18(c): ‘‘It is our 

understanding that currently emissions 

reductions from minor agricultural 

sources do not meet the criteria for real, 

permanent, quantifiable and enforceable 

emission reductions. On these facts, the 

plain language of subdivision (c) of the 

statute serves to suspend the duty of a 

minor agricultural source to offset 

emissions from that source.’’ 7 As such, 

given the direct connection between 

CH&SC section 42301.18(c) and section 

4.6.9 in District Rule 2201, it is clear 

that new minor agricultural sources and 

minor modifications to existing 

agricultural sources have qualified for 

the offset exemption in section 4.6.9 of 

District Rule 2201. 

Earthjustice Comment #4: Earthjustice 

asserts that EPA should finalize a 

limited approval/limited disapproval 

and maintain sanctions until the defects 

in District Rule 2201, including the 

condensable emissions issue and the 

offsets issue, discussed in comments #1 

and #2, above, are adequately 

addressed. 

Response to Earthjustice Comment #4: 

For the reasons given in the proposed 

rule, and in responses to comments, we 

conclude that amended District Rules 

2020 and 2201, as submitted on 

September 28, 2011 and May 19, 2011, 

respectively, adequately address 

deficiencies in the previous version of 

the District NSR rules and provide for 

review of new and modified sources of 

PM2.5, including the requirements for 

LAER and emissions offsets for new 

major PM2.5 sources and major 

modifications to existing major PM2.5

sources, consistent with the 

requirements under subpart 1 of part D. 

In addition, under an EPA rule 

published in June 2014 (79 FR 31566, 

June 2, 2014), CARB must submit a SIP 

revision containing further amendments 

to District NSR rules no later than the 

end of 2014 as necessary to address 

PM2.5-related requirements under 

subpart 4 of part D. Thus, while the 

District NSR rules, amended in 2011, 

may not yet meet all of the requirements 

for PM2.5 (i.e., those under subpart 4), 

we believe that full approval, rather 

than limited approval, of the 2011 

amended District NSR rules is the 

appropriate action to take at this time 

given the SIP strengthening aspects of 

the amended rules. EPA will consider 

whether District NSR rules meet all 

applicable PM2.5 requirements under 

subpart 4 in a separate rulemaking after 

submittal by CARB of any necessary SIP 

revisions. 

III. Final Action 

After due consideration of the 

comments submitted on our proposed 

action, and for the reasons provided in 

our proposed rule and summarized 

above, we are taking final action under 

CAA section 110(k)(3) to approve 

District Rule 2020 (‘‘Exemptions’’), as 

amended by the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District on 

August 18, 2011 and submitted by 

CARB on September 28, 2011; and 

District Rule 2201 (‘‘New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review Rule’’), as 

amended by the District on April 21, 

2011 and submitted by CARB on May 

19, 2011, as revisions to the California 

SIP.8 In so doing, we conclude that the 

District has remedied deficiencies that 

EPA had identified in previous versions 

of the rules and that other changes made 

by the District to the rules strengthen 

the SIP. Further PM2.5-related 

amendments in the District’s NSR rules 

as necessary to address subpart 4 of part 

D are due for submittal to EPA by the 

end of 2014. 

Upon the effective date of today’s 

final approval, all sanctions and 

sanctions clocks that were triggered 

upon our final limited disapproval at 75 

FR 26102 (May 11, 2010) of previous 

versions of District Rules 2020 and 

2201, and deferred upon our interim 

final rule at 76 FR 76046 (December 6, 

2011), are permanently terminated. 

IV. 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 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 55641 

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 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 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 rule 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. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 17, 

2014. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule 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 section 

307(b)(2).) 

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. 

Dated: August 11, 2014. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 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 by 

adding paragraphs(c)(400)(i) and 

(c)(400)(ii)(C), and (c)(440), to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(400) * * * 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 2201, ‘‘New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review Rule,’’ 

amended on April 21, 2011. 

(ii) * * * 

(C) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Letter from David Warner, Deputy 

Air Pollution Control Officer, San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District, to Gerardo C. Rios, 

Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region 

IX, dated June 26, 2014. 

* * * * * 

(440) Amended regulations were 

submitted by the Governor’s designee 

on September 28, 2011. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 2020, ‘‘Exemptions,’’ 

amended on August 18, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22019 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0968; FRL–9916–47– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Open Burning Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a November 

14, 2011, request by Indiana to revise 

the state implementation plan (SIP) to 

incorporate the open burning provisions 

in Title 326 of the Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC), Article 4, 

Rule 1 (326 IAC 4–1), Open Burning 

Rule. EPA is approving this rule for 

attainment counties and is taking no 

action on the rule for Clark, Floyd, Lake 

and Porter counties which are 

nonattainment or maintenance areas for 

ozone (O3) or particulate matter (PM). 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective November 17, 2014, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

October 17, 2014. If adverse comments 

are received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0968, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 

0968. EPA’s policy is that 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES