Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

environmental impact statement is not

required. The final EA and Finding of

No Significant Impact may be reviewed

at the Los Angeles District Office. Please

contact Peggy Bartels at the phone

number specified above for further

information.

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

This rule does not impose an

enforceable duty among the private

sector and, therefore, is not a Federal

private sector mandate and is not

subject to the requirements of Section

202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48,

2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). We have also

found, under Section 203 of the Act,

that small governments will not be

significantly or uniquely affected by this

rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334

Danger zones, Navigation (water),

Transportation, Waterways.

* For the reasons stated in the preamble,

the Corps is amending 33 CFR part 334

to read as follows:

PART 334-DANGER ZONE AND

RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS

m 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR

part 334 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and

40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).

* 2. Add § 334.866 to read as follows:

§334.866 Pacific Ocean at Naval Base

Coronado, in the City of Coronado, San

Diego County, California; Naval Danger

Zone.

(a) The area. A fan-shaped area

extending westerly into the waters of

the Pacific Ocean from a point on the

beach of Naval Base Coronado,

Coronado, California beginning at

latitude 32°41'13" N, longitude

117°12'45" W; thence easterly, along the

mean high water mark, to latitude

32°41'14 " N, longitude 117'12'32" W;

thence southerly to latitude 32'40'31" N,

longitude 117'12'12" W; thence westerly

to latitude 32'40'25" N, longitude

117°12'43" W; thence northerly,

landward, to the point of origin.

(b) The regulations. (1) Range live

firing on the Naval Base Coronado,

Coronado, California small arms range

may occur at any time. Information on

live firing schedules and coordination

for community concerns can be

obtained by calling the Naval Base

Coronado Small Arms Range Safety

Officer at 619-545-8413 during normal

working hours. Assistance is also

available via the Naval Base Coronado

Hotline at 619-545-7190 or the Naval

Base Coronado operator at 619-545-

1011. If the phone numbers are changed,

they will be updated on the Naval Base

Coronado Web site http://

www.cnic.navy.mil/Coronado.

(2) The danger zone will be open to

fishing and general navigation when no

weapons firing is scheduled, which will

be indicated by the absence of any

warning flags or flashing lights on land

in the locations specified in paragraphs

(b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section.

(3) When live firing is about to be

undertaken or is in progress during

daylight hours, three (3) large red

warning flags will be displayed at the

top of the flag poles on the southern

berm of the small arms range, so as to

be clearly visible from all points of entry

into the danger zone. The west flag pole

is located on the southern berm at

latitude 32o41'21.5" N, longitude

117'12'42.8" W, the middle flag pole is

located at latitude 32o41'21.7" N,

longitude 117o12'40.9" W, and the east

flag pole is located at latitude

32o41'22.4" N, longitude 117'12'38.7"

W.

(4) When live firing is about to be

undertaken or is in progress during

periods of darkness, three (3) red

flashing warning lights will be

displayed at the top of the flag poles on

the southern berm of the small arms

range at the locations described in

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, so as to

be clearly visible from all points of entry

into the danger zone.

(5) The danger zone is not considered

safe for vessels or individuals when live

firing is in progress. When live firing is

about to begin or is scheduled as

indicated by the warning flags or

flashing warning lights described in

paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this

section, all vessels will be required to

expeditiously vacate the danger zone.

(6) Anchoring by any vessel within

the danger zone is prohibited.

(7) Prior to conducting live firing,

Navy personnel will visually scan the

danger zone to ensure that no vessels or

individuals are located within it. Any

vessels or individuals in the danger

zone will be notified by the Navy Range

Safety Officer using a marine VHF-FM

marine radio and by other means as

necessary, to exit the danger zone and

remain outside the area until conclusion

of live firing. As new technology

becomes available, the VHF-FM marine

radio communications system may be

updated.

(8) Safety observers will be posted in

accordance with range standard

operating procedures at all times when

the warning flags or flashing lights

described in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4)

of this section are displayed. Operation

of the small arms range will only occur

when visibility is sufficient to maintain

visual surveillance of the danger zone

and vicinity. In the event of limited

visibility due to rain, fog or other

conditions, live firing will be postponed

until the danger zone can be confirmed

clear of all vessels and individuals.

(9) Naval Base Coronado will

maintain a schedule of live firing at the

small arms range on its Web site,

http://www.cnic.navy.mil/Coronado,

which will be accessible to the public,

mariners, and recreationists. The Navy

will maintain the Web site on a year

round basis and update information as

needed for public safety.

(c) Enforcement. The regulation in

this section will be enforced by the

Commanding Officer, Naval Base

Coronado, and such agencies and

persons as he/she may designate.

Dated: April 30, 2010.

Approved:

Michael G. Ensch,

Chief, Operations, Directorate of Civil Works.

[FR Doe. 2010-11125 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3720-58-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0062; FRL-9141-3]

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: EPA is taking final action on

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

portion of the California State

Implementation Plan. Specifically, EPA

is taking final action on three amended

District rules, one of which was

submitted on March 7, 2008 and the

other two of which were submitted on

March 17, 2009. Two of the submitted

rules reflect revisions to approved

District rules that provide for review of

new and modified stationary sources

("new source review" or NSR) within

the District, and the third reflects

revisions to an approved District rule

that provides a mechanism by which

existing stationary sources may

voluntarily limit their operations to

avoid the requirement to secure a

Federally-mandated operating permit.

The NSR rule revisions relate to

exemptions from permitting and offsets

requirements for certain agricultural

26102
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

operations, to the establishment of NSR

applicability and offset thresholds

consistent with a classification of

"extreme" nonattainment for the ozone

standard, and to the implementation of

EPA's NSR Reform Rules. With respect

to the revised District NSR rules, EPA is

finalizing a limited approval and

limited disapproval because, although

the changes would strengthen the SIP,

there are deficiencies in enforceability

that prevent full approval. With respect

to the rule pertaining to operating

permit requirements, EPA is finalizing a

full approval. EPA is also taking final

action to remove certain obsolete

conditions placed on previous

approvals of various California

nonattainment plans. Lastly, EPA is

deferring further action on the Agency's

proposal to correct the May 2004

approval of the previous version of the

District's NSR rules pending receipt

from California of an interpretation of

the District's legal authority with

respect to agricultural sources under

state law.

The limited approval and limited

disapproval action triggers a sanctions

clock, and EPA's obligation to

promulgate a Federal implementation

plan, because the revisions to the

District rules that are the subject of this

action are required under antibacksliding principles established for

the transition from the 1-hour to the 8-

hour ozone standard.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is

effective on June 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket

number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0062 for

this action. The index to the docket is

available electronically at http://

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 (AIR3), 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 EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action

A. Correction of EPA's May 2004 Final

Approval

B. Proposed Action on Amended District

Rules

1. Summary of Evaluation of Changes

Related to Minor NSR

2. Summary of Evaluation of Changes

Related to "Extreme" Ozone Area NSR

Requirements

3. Summary of Evaluation of Changes

Implementing EPA's NSR Reform Rules

4. Summary of Evaluation of Amended

Rules for Enforceability

5. Summary of Evaluation of Amended

Rule 2530

6. Summary of Evaluation of Amended

Rules for Compliance with CAA Section

110(1)

C. Removal of Obsolete Conditions on SIP

Approvals

II. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

II. Final Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

I. Proposed Action

On January 29, 2010 (75 FR 4745),

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act"),

we proposed three actions in connection

with the permitting rules for the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District ("District") portion of

the California State Implementation

Plan (SIP).'

A. Correction of EPA's May 2004 Final

Approval

First, we proposed to correct an error

in our May 2004 final rule approving

the District's Rules 2020 and 2201 that

establish the requirements and

exemptions for review of new or

modified stationary sources ("new

source review" or "NSR"). In our

1 The San Joaquin Valley includes all of San

Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings

and Tulare counties, and the western half of Kern

County, in the State of California. The San Joaquin

Valley is designated as a nonattainment area for the

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality

standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 (annual) and 2006

(24-hour) fine particulate matter (PM2 .5) NAAQS

and is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for

the other NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.303. The area is

further classified as "serious" for the 8-hour ozone

NAAQS, but the State of California has submitted

a request to reclassify the area to "extreme." See 74

FR 43654 (August 27, 2009) for EPA's proposed

approval of the State's reclassification request. The

San Joaquin Valley was further classified as an

"extreme" area for the now-revoked 1-hour ozone

NAAQS when EPA designated the area with respect

to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

proposed rule, we explained how our

error arose from the failure, based on

information available at the time, to

recognize that the District did not have

the authority under State law to

implement Rules 2020 and 2201 with

respect to permitting of minor

agricultural sources with actual

emissions less than 50% of the

applicable "major source" thresholds

and with respect to the imposition of

emissions offset requirements for minor

agricultural sources.

In response to our proposed rule,

several comments were submitted that

object to our proposed correction action

and the interpretation of State law upon

which it is based, and raise significant

questions as to the true extent of District

authority with respect to agricultural

sources under State law. Specifically,

the commenters who object to our

proposed correction cite "savings"

clauses in State law that they contend

ratify District NSR rules that contain no

permitting or offsets exemptions for

agricultural sources notwithstanding

other provisions in State law that would

otherwise limit such District authority

over those sources. To ensure our action

is based on a correct interpretation of

State law, we have decided to request

the State of California to provide us

with a legal interpretation of the extent

of District authority with respect to

agricultural sources under State law and

to defer further rulemaking on the

correction proposal until we have the

opportunity to consider the StateY's

response to our request.

B. Proposed Action on Amended District

Rules

In this section, we summarize the

information we provided in the

proposed rule concerning the submitted

rules subject to this final action, the

changes in the rules relative to the

corresponding rules in the existing SIP,

and our evaluation of the amended rules

relative to the applicable CAA and EPA

requirements. We provide only a

summary of this information herein. For

a more detailed discussion of these

issues, please see our January 29, 2010

proposed rule.

Table 1 lists the rules on which we

proposed action in our January 29, 2010

proposed rule with the dates that they

were revised by the District and

submitted to EPA by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB). Today, we are

taking final action on the three listed

rules.

26103
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1-SUBMITTED RULES FOR WHICH WE ARE TAKING FINAL ACTION IN TODAY'S ACTION

Local agency Rule # Rule title Amended Submitted

SJVUAPCD ................................. 2020 Exem ptions ........................ . .. ...................................... 12/20/07 03/07/08

SJVUAPCD ................................. 2201 New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule ....................... 12/18/08 03/17/09

SJVUAPCD ................................. 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Em it ......................................... 12/18/08 03/17/09

With respect to District Rule 2020

("Exemptions"), the rule's purpose is to

specify emission units that are not

required to obtain an Authority to

Construct or Permit to Operate and to

specify the recordkeeping requirements

to verify such exemptions. Generally,

the changes that we are taking action on

today relative to the existing SIP version

would revise and clarify certain

exemptions and exempt certain

agricultural sources from permitting

requirements.

Among the changes in amended

District Rule 2020 relative to the version

previously approved into the SIP are

changes that will do the following:

* Revise the existing exemption for

steam generators, steam superheaters,

water boilers, water heaters, steam

cleaners, and closed indirect heat

transfer systems that have a maximum

input heat rating of five million Btu per

hour or less and that are fired

exclusively on natural gas or liquefied

petroleum gas (LPG) (see paragraph

6.1.1 of the submitted rule); 2

* Clarify and tighten the existing

exemption for certain types of transfer

equipment, such as loading and

unloading racks, and equipment used

exclusively for the transfer of refined

lubricating oil (see paragraph 6.7 of the

submitted rule); and

* Exempt agricultural sources to the

extent such sources are exempt

pursuant to California Health & Safety

Code (CH&SC) section 42301.16 (see

paragraph 6.20 of the submitted rule).

CH&SC section 42301.16 essentially

exempts agricultural sources with actual

emissions less than 50 percent of a

major source applicability threshold

from permitting unless the District

makes certain findings.

With respect to District Rule 2201

("New and Modified Stationary Source

Review Rule"), the rule's purpose is to

provide for the review of new and

2 The existing exemption is limited to the types

of equipment described above but also establishes

the following specifications for both natural gas and

LPG combusted by the equipment: "provided the

fuel contains no more than five percent by weight

hydrocarbons * * * and no more than 0.75 grains

of total sulfur per 100 standard cubic feet of gas

* * *." The revised exemption establishes separate

specifications for natural gas and for LPG. The

hydrocarbon content limit remains five percent for

natural gas but drops to two percent for LPG. The

sulfur content limit increases from 0.75 grains, to

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.

Generally, amended District Rule

2201 incorporates three major changes

relative to the version of Rule 2201 that

is approved into the SIP. First, amended

District Rule 2201 would replace the

term, "Major Modification," with two

terms, "Federal major modification" and

"SB 288 major modification." (See

paragraphs 3.17 and 3.34 of the

amended rule.) The former term

incorporates EPA's NSR reform

principles, and the latter term retains

the pre-NSR reform approach to

determining whether a modification is a

major modification. 3 Second, amended

District Rule 2201 would incorporate

the lower "major source" and "Federal

major modification" emissions

thresholds, and higher offset ratios, for

the ozone precursors, VOC and NOx,

consistent with an "extreme" ozone

classification. (See paragraphs 3.17,

3.23, and 3.34 of the amended rule.)

Lastly, changes to District Rule 2201

would exempt new or modified

agricultural sources from offset

requirements to the extent provided by

CH&SC section 42301.18(c), which

exempts agricultural sources from the

offsets requirement if emissions

reductions from such sources would not

meet the criteria for real, permanent,

quantifiable, and enforceable emissions

reductions, unless the offsets are

required by Federal CAA requirements.

1.0 grain for natural gas, and to 15 grains (per 100

standard cubic feet of gas). The revised exemption

requires use of the latest versions of the relevant

ASTM test methods.

3 Using these two definitions, the District

performs two separate "major modification"

determinations. Where the modification of an

existing source falls within the definition of "SB

288 Major Modification," the modification will be

required at a minimum to meet the NSR SIP

requirements that had applied prior to adoption by

(See paragraph 4.6.9 of the amended

rule.)

Unlike District Rules 2020 and 2201,

District Rule 2530 ("Federally

Enforceable Potential to Emit") is not an

NSR rule, but is a rule that relies on

thresholds based on certain percentages

of the major source thresholds

established for NSR purposes as a basis

to exempt sources from the

requirements of Rule 2520 ("Federally

Mandated Operating Permits"). Relative

to the corresponding rule in the existing

SIP, the amended rule would lower the

thresholds below which sources of VOC

or NOx are exempt from the

requirements of Rule 2520 (see

paragraph 6.1 of the amended rule),

would lower the thresholds below

which sources are exempt from certain

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements under Rule 2530 (see

paragraph 5.4.1.2 of the amended rule);

and would lower certain alternative

operational limits (see, e.g., paragraph

6.2.4 of the amended rule).

In evaluating the amendments to the

three District Rules, we found that

significant changes fall into four broad

categories: Changes affecting minor

source NSR permitting requirements;

changes relating to the area's extreme

classification for the 1-hour ozone

standard; changes relating to NSR

Reform; and changes affecting the

mechanism used by sources to avoid

title V requirements, and we evaluated

these changes for compliance with the

requirements under CAA section 110(a),

section 110(1), and section 182(e) and

(f). In addition, we reviewed the

amended rules for compliance with

EPA's regulations for NSR, including 40

CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR 51.165. In

so doing, we took into account the

pollutant-specific designations for the

San Joaquin Valley, summarized in table

2. 4

the District of the 2002 NSR Reforms into Rule

2201. Where the modification also falls within the

definition of "Federal Major Modification," the

modification will have to meet additional NSR

Requirements consistent with 2002 NSR Reform.

4 We also identified and evaluated a number of

other, less substantive changes, and found all of

them to be either neutral or strengthening relative

to the existing SIP and consistent with all

applicable requirements. See section IV.B.5 of the

January 29, 2010 proposed rule.

26104
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AREA DESIGNATIONS

Pollutant Designation Classification

(Revoked) Ozone-i -hour standard .................. Nonattainment .................................................. Extreme (at the time of designation for the

1997 8-hour ozone standard).

Ozone- 1 997 8-hour standard ........................... Nonattainment .................................................. Serious.a

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM o) ................. Attainment ........................................................ Not Applicable.

Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.

5 ) ........................... Nonattainment .................................................. Not Applicable.

Carbon Monoxide ............................................... Attainment (4 urban areas); Unclassifiable/At- Not Applicable.

tainment (rest of valley).

Nitrogen Dioxide ................................................. Unclassifiable/Attainment ................................. Not Applicable.

Sulfur Dioxide ..................................................... Unclassifiable/Attainment ................................. Not Applicable.

aThe State of California has requested reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley to "extreme"

43654 (August 27, 2009).

1. Summary of Evaluation of Changes

Related to Minor NSR

As to the changes related to minor

source NSR permitting requirements, we

found that the amended rules would

affect minor source NSR ("minor NSR")

by revising an existing permitting

exemption for certain natural-gas- or

LPG-fired combustion and heat transfer

systems (see paragraph 6.1 in submitted

District Rule 2020), by exempting minor

agricultural sources with actual

emissions less than 50 percent of the

major source threshold (see paragraph

6.20 in submitted District Rule 2020)

from permitting, and by exempting all

new or modified minor agricultural

sources from the offset requirement (see

paragraph 4.6.9 of submitted District

Rule 2201).

We concluded that the amended rules

met EPA's minor NSR requirements in

40 CFR 51.160 because, even with the

new and amended exemptions, the

District NSR program would continue to

provide the District with the

information necessary to determine

whether the construction or

modification of a stationary source

would result in a violation of applicable

portions of the control strategy; or

would result in interference with

attainment or maintenance of the

NAAQS. With respect to the revised

exemption for certain smaller

combustion and heat transfer systems,

we based this conclusion on our

determination that the relaxed sulfur

content specification in amended Rule

2020, paragraph 6.1, would have no

significant impact on emissions in the

valley.

With respect the limited permitting

exemption for agricultural sources, we

based this conclusion on a number of

factors. For particulate matter, we rely

upon the implementation of certain

prohibitory rules, such as District Rule

4550 ("Conservation Management

Practices") and the District's Regulation

VIII ("Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions",

particularly, Rules 8011 and 8081) to act

as non-permitting means to reduce

fugitive dust emissions at agricultural

sources that fall under the exemption

and thereby reduce the potential for

localized exceedances of the PM10 and

PM 2.

5 standards. For ozone precursors

(VOC and NOx), we noted that the

limited permitting exemption would

only apply to agricultural operations

with "actual" emissions (i.e., including

fugitive emissions) 5 of less than 5 tons

per year, and that, as such, the scope of

the exemption would be limited to

small-scale agricultural operations and

would be acceptable so long as the

ozone plans for the valley do not count

on permitting of such sources.

With respect to the regional planning

context, for the proposed rule, we

reviewed the various approved and

submitted San Joaquin Valley

attainment or maintenance plans, and

noted that none of these plans rely upon

reductions from NSR for agricultural

sources less than 50 percent of the major

source threshold. We also noted that, for

attainment planning purposes, growth

in emissions from agricultural sources

has been established by CARB's area

source inventory growth methodologies,

and no mitigation of that growth from

an offsets requirement has been

considered when determining the

5 The District's view on whether the CH&SC

section 42301.16 (and cited in District Rule 2020,

section 6.20) covers fugitive VOC emissions is

found in the District's Final Staff Report (page B13, response to comment #19) on proposed

amendments to Rule 2201 and Rule 2530 (dated

December 18, 2008): "The District appreciates the

opportunity to reiterate that, for the purposes of

implementing CH&SC sections 40724.6(c) and

42301.16(c), all emissions, except for fugitive dust,

must be included in calculations to determine

district permitting requirements based on one-half

of the major source thresholds. The statutory

language of these sections is consistent, which read

separately or in the interrelated nature in which

they were intended to be read, and [sic] District's

implementation adheres to this statutory language."

Thus, fugitive VOC emissions are included in the

determination of whether actual emissions from a

minor agricultural operation are greater than 50%

of the applicable major source threshold which, for

VOC, is 10 tons per year, or, in other words, greater

than 5 tons per year.

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 74 FR

impact of the growth on the District's

ability to achieve attainment with the

standards.6 We concluded that, because

the plans do not rely on emission

reductions from permitting of

agricultural sources less than 50% of the

major source threshold and do not rely

on offsets for new or modified minor

agricultural sources, approval of the

amended Rules 2020 and 2201 would be

consistent with regional planning efforts

to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

Lastly, with respect to minor source

NSR changes, we noted that, under

Federal law, minor sources are not

required to obtain offsets, and thus, the

exemption for minor agricultural

sources from the offsets requirement is

consistent with Federal requirements.

2. Summary of Evaluation of Changes

Related to "Extreme" Ozone Area NSR

Requirements

In our January 29, 2010 proposed rule,

we identified the applicable

requirements for nonattainment areas

classified as "extreme" for the 1-hour

ozone standard and reviewed the

amended District rules for compliance

with the applicable requirements. For

such areas, the relevant NSR

requirements include a major source

threshold of 10 tons per year of VOC or

NON [see CAA section 182(e) and 182(f)

and 51.165(a)(1)(iv)], an offset ratio of

1.5 to 1 [see CAA section 182(e)(1) and

40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)], and definition of

major modification that applies to any

change at a major stationary source

which results in any increase in

emissions from any discrete operation,

unit, or other pollutant emitting activity

at the source [see CAA section 182(e)(2)

and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(E)].

As submitted on March 17, 2009, the

VOC and NON provisions in District

Rule 2201 have been amended to

include the 10 ton per year threshold

6 Also see the District's Clean Air Act section

110(1) analysis, entitled "San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District Rules 2020 and 2201, as amended September 21, 2006, District's Clean

Air Act 110(1) Analysis," dated November 20, 2007.

26105
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

(see paragraph 3.23 of amended Rule

2201), the 1.5 to 1 offset ratio (see

paragraph 4.8.1 of amended Rule 2201),

and the "any increase" threshold for

major modifications (see paragraph

3.17.1.4 of amended Rule 2201). As

such, we concluded that District Rule

2201 has adequately been amended to

reflect "extreme" ozone area

requirements under the CAA and 40

CFR 51.165.

3. Summary of Evaluation of Changes

Implementing EPA's NSR Reform Rules

In our proposed rule, we described

EPA's implementation of NSR Reform

Rules and the ensuing litigation and

identified the basic program elements

that NSR programs must be amended to

include. We concluded that, as

submitted on March 17, 2009, District

Rule 2201 has been amended to provide

for the minimum program elements of

the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that remain

in the wake of subsequent litigation and

EPA rulemaking. The amended District

Rule provides for the minimum program

elements by replacing a single definition

for "Major Modification" with two

definitions, one for "Federal Major

Modification" and the other for "SB 288

Major Modification." As discussed

above, the former term captures the NSR

Reform program elements (and the "any

increase" emissions threshold required

in "extreme" ozone areas), while the

latter retains the pre-Reform approach to

determining major modification status.

Paragraph 3.17.1 of amended Rule 2201

incorporates the new method for

determining baseline actual emissions

and the actual-to-projected-actual

methodology for determining whether a

major modification has occurred.

Paragraph 3.17.2 incorporates

provisions allowing major stationary

sources to comply with Plantwide

Applicability Limits (PALs).

4. Summary of Evaluation of Amended

Rules for Enforceability

For the reasons given in the January

2010 proposed rule and summarized

above, we found the amendments to

District Rules 2020 and 2201 to be

acceptable under applicable NSR

regulations; however, SIP rules must

also be enforceable [see CAA section

110(a)], and we found two specific

deficiencies related to enforceability of

Rules 2020 and 2201 that prevent our

full approval. These deficiencies arise

from the ambiguity introduced by the

references in both paragraph 6.20 (of

Rule 2020) and paragraph 4.6.9 (of Rule

2201) to State law under circumstances

where the State law has not been

submitted to EPA for approval into the

SIP. Specifically, paragraph 6.20 (of

Rule 2020) provides a permitting

exemption for: "Agricultural sources,

but only to the extent provided by

California Health and Safety Code,

Section 42301.16." In turn, CH&SC

section 42301.16(a) requires districts to

extend permitting requirements to all

agricultural sources that are "required to

obtain a permit pursuant to Title I * * *

or Title V * * * of the Federal Clean

Air Act," which we have interpreted as

referring to "major" sources under the

CAA, and to all other agricultural

sources (referred to herein as "minor")

with actual emissions one-half of the

applicable major source emissions

thresholds (or greater) for any air

contaminant, excluding fugitive dust.

See CH&SC section 42301.16(b).

However, CH&SC section 42301.16(b)

also provides a means through which a

district can extend the exemption from

"one-half of any applicable emissions

threshold" to the "major source"

threshold if certain findings are made in

a public hearing.

Because CH&SC section 42301.16 is

not included in the California SIP, nor

has California submitted the section to

EPA for approval, the SIP would be

ambiguous as to the extent of the

agricultural source permitting

exemption if EPA were to approve

submitted District Rule 2020 into the

SIP. Effective enforcement of the

permitting requirements would rely on

judicial notice of the statutory provision

cited in the rule, and such judicial

notice may or may not be forthcoming.

There is no need to rely on judicial

notice when the District can eliminate

the ambiguity by clearly stating the

exemption for agricultural sources in

District Rule 2020 or by submitting

CH&SC section 42301.16 to EPA for

approval into the SIP. Moreover, even if

we could assume that judicial notice of

the statutory provision would be taken,

CH&SC section 42301.16 by its terms

allows for a relaxation of the one-half of

major source permitting threshold for

agricultural sources, and such

relaxations should be reviewed by EPA

under section 110 for approval as a SIP

revision. Therefore, we proposed a

limited approval and limited

disapproval of submitted Rule 2020. In

our January 2010 proposed rule, we

noted that the deficiency in Rule 2020

can be remedied by the District by

replacing the statutory reference to

CH&SC section 42301.16 in paragraph

6.20 with a clear description of the

sources covered by the exemption, and

by submitting the amended rule to EPA

(via CARB) as a SIP revision. In today's

document, we are taking final limited

approval and limited disapproval action

today on amended Rule 2020 consistent

with our January 29, 2010 proposal.

Paragraph 4.6.9 of submitted Rule

2201 contains a similarly-ambiguous

reference to state law in listing emission

offset exemptions: "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(a)."

CH&SC section 42301.18(c) states: "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 emission reductions." Our

understanding is that the District has no

plans to require emissions offsets for

new or modified agricultural sources

unless such new or modified source is

a "Major Source" or a "Federal Major

Modification" as defined in another

section of Rule 2201. Once again, there

is no need for ambiguity in the

applicability of the emissions offset

exemption, and therefore, EPA proposed

a limited approval and limited

disapproval of submitted Rule 2201.

The deficiency in Rule 2201 can be

remedied by either submittal of the

statutory provisions cited in paragraph

4.6.9 or by replacing the references with

a clear description of the applicability of

the offset requirement to agricultural

sources, and by submitting the amended

rule to EPA (via CARB) as a SIP

revision. In today's document, we are

taking final limited approval and

limited disapproval action today on

amended Rule 2201 consistent with our

January 29, 2010 proposal.

5. Summary of Evaluation of Amended

Rule 2530

In our January 2010 proposed rule, we

discussed the purpose of District Rule

2530 and the applicable EPA guidance

and corresponding parameters for such

rules, and explained that the emission

limits and the alternative operational

limits in the rule were amended by the

District in step with the valley's

classification of "extreme" for the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. We reviewed the

amended limits in District Rule 2530, as

submitted on March 17, 2009, and

found them to be acceptable. Based on

our review of the amended rule in

relation to its underlying purpose, we

are taking final action today to approve

amended District Rule 2530 because we

find that it has been appropriately

modified to reflect the decrease in the

major source threshold for VOC and

NOx consistent with the area's

26106
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

"extreme" classification for the 1-hour

ozone standard.

6. Summary of Evaluation of Amended

Rules for Compliance with CAA Section

110(1)

CAA section 110(1) provides: "Each

revision to an implementation plan

submitted by a State under this chapter

shall be adopted by such State after

reasonable notice and public hearing.

The administrator shall not approve a

revision of a plan if the revision would

interfere with any applicable

requirement concerning attainment and

reasonable further progress (as defined

in section 7501 of this title) or any other

applicable requirement of this chapter."

42 U.S.C. 7410(1).

In our January 2010 proposed rule, for

the purposes of CAA section 110(1), we

took into account the overall effect of

the revisions included in this action.

Given the wide application of the lower

major source thresholds to all types of

new or modified stationary sources of

VOC and NOx and the limited extent of

the exemptions from permitting and

offsets for certain types of agricultural

sources, we found that the overall effect

of the revisions would strengthen the

SIP, notwithstanding deficiencies

identified above in enforceability.

Moreover, we concluded that we do not

anticipate localized exceedances of the

PM10 or PM2 .5 standards, due to the

permitting exemption for certain

agricultural sources, given the

application of non-permitting

requirements in the SIP. Lastly, we

noted that the revisions are consistent

with the assumptions of the various air

quality plans developed for the valley.

Accordingly, we concluded that the

revisions to Rules 2020, 2201, and 2530

would not interfere with any applicable

requirements for attainment and

reasonable further progress or any other

applicable requirement of the CAA and

are approvable under section 110(1) of

the Clean Air Act.

C. Removal of Obsolete Conditions on

SIP Approvals

In our January 29, 2010 proposed rule,

we also proposed to remove certain

obsolete conditions placed on SIP

approvals of certain California

nonattainment plans in the 1980's.

These NSR-related conditions are

identified in table 3, below, by

applicable county, EPA action, and CFR

citation.

TABLE 3-OBSOLETE CONDITIONS BEING REMOVED

County Conditional approval Federal Register Regulatory citation citation

Kern County a ..................................................... 46 FR 42450 (August 21, 1981) ...................... 40 CFR 52.232(a)(5)(i)(A)

San Joaquin County ........................................... 47 FR 19694 (May 7, 1982), amended at 50 40 CFR 52.232(a)(6)(i)(A)

FR 7591 (February 25, 1985).

Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tulare 47 FR 19694 (May 7, 1982) ............................ 40 CFR 52.232(a)(10)(i)(A)

Counties.

Fresno County .................................................... 47 FR 28617 (July 1, 1982) ............................. 40 CFR 52.232(a)(11)(i)(A)

a In today's document, we are removing the Kern County condition for carbon monoxide and ozone only.

We proposed removal of the condition

in 40 CFR 52.232(a)(5)(i)(A) because we

concluded that it was obsolete as to

carbon monoxide and ozone in light of

the approval of District NSR rules in

2004 (69 FR 27837, May 17, 2004), the

change in the boundary for the 1-hour

ozone nonattainment boundary for San

Joaquin Valley (66 FR 56476, November

8, 2001), and the redesignation of the

East Kern County 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area to attainment (69 FR

21731, April 22, 2004). However, as to

particulate matter, we found the

condition to be unfulfilled because the

Kern County Air Pollution Control

District (APCD) 7 retains jurisdiction

over a small portion of the San Joaquin

Valley planning area, the portion of the

San Joaquin Valley planning area over

which Kern County APCD retains

jurisdiction remains nonattainment for

PM1 o (see 73 FR 66759, November 12,

2008), and because we have yet to

approve a revision to Kern County

APCD NSR rules that meet the condition

7 Kern County ACPD, one of the original countybased APCDs covering San Joaquin Valley, was not

entirely consolidated into the current San Joaquin

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

(herein, referred to as "District"), but its jurisdiction

is no longer county-wide, and is limited to the

eastern portion of the county.

in 40 CFR 52.232(a)(5)(i)(A). We

proposed removal of the conditions set

forth in 40 CFR 52.232(a)(6)(i)(A),

(a)(10)(i)(A), and (a)(11)(i)(A) as obsolete

in light of the approval of District NSR

rules in 2004 (69 FR 27837, May 17,

2004).8 We are taking final action today

to remove the obsolete provisions

described above for the reasons given in

our January 29, 2010 proposed rule and

that are summarized above. We are

retaining the condition in 40 CFR

52.232(a)(5)(i)(A) as to particulate

matter until we approve the Kern

County APCD's nonattainment NSR

rules for the East Kern County PM10

nonattainment area or until we approve

a redesignation request for the East Kern

PM10 area to "attainment."

II. Public Comments and EPA's

Responses

Our January 29, 2010 proposed rule

(75 FR 4745) provided for a 30-day

comment period. During that period, we

received adverse comments from three

groups: Greenberg-Glusker law firm

8 The condition established in 40 CFR

52.232(a)(11) also relates to Ventura County, but

removal of the condition is proper as to Ventura

County in light of EPA's subsequent approval of the

Ventura County nonattainment NSR rules at 68 FR

9561 (February 28, 2003).

(referred to herein as "Dairy Cares"), on

behalf of Dairy Cares, a coalition of

California's dairy producer and

processor associations, by letter dated

March 1, 2010; Earthjustice, by letter

dated March 1, 2010; and the Center on

Race, Poverty & the Environment

(referred to herein as "AIR"), on behalf

of the Association of Irritated Residents

and other community and

environmental groups, by letter dated

March 1, 2010. AIR joins in the

comments from Earthjustice, but also

adds comments of its own. As noted

previously, we have decided to defer

further rulemaking action on our

proposal to correct our May 2004

approval of the previous version of

District NSR rules pending a legal

interpretation from the state regarding

the extent of the District's permitting

and offsets authority in connection with

agricultural sources under State law.

Thus, we have not responded to the

comments related to that aspect of our

proposal in this document, but will

respond to those comments in a separate

final rule if we subsequently finalize our

proposed correction as proposed on

January 29, 2010. In the following

paragraphs, we provide a summary of

the significant adverse comments and

26107
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

our responses (i.e., related to the aspects

of our proposal other than the error

correction).

Comment #1: Dairy Cares disagrees

with EPA's approval of the District's

Rule Revisions to the extent it is

predicated on an interpretation that the

exemption for emission offsets does not

apply to major sources. Dairy Cares

claims that CH&SC section 42301.18(c)

prohibits any district from requiring any

agricultural source to obtain offsets until

agricultural source reductions meet the

criteria for creditability. Dairy Cares

claims that, under CH&SC 42301.18(c),

the District does not have the requisite

State authority to require emission

offsets unless the offsets can be credited.

Dairy Cares acknowledges that CH&SC

section 42301.16(a) requires that

agricultural sources obtain permits "consistent with Federal requirements,"

and that the Clean Air Act generally

requires certain emission offsets from

new or expanding Federal major

sources, but argues that integral to such

emission offsets requirements is the

ability to credit emission reductions. To

the extent there is a conflict between

sections 42310.16(a) and 42301.18(c),

Dairy Cares asserts that the more

specific provision-section

42301.18(c)-must control.

Response #1: Dairy Cares is correct

that EPA's proposed (limited) approval

(and limited disapproval) of revised

District Rule 2201 is predicated in part

on an interpretation of CH&SC sections

42301.16(a) and 42301.18(c) to the effect

that CH&SC section 42301.16(a) limits

the applicability of the emission offset

exemption in CH&SC section

42301.18(c) so as to exclude major

agricultural sources from the exemption.

In other words, we have concluded that

State law requires the District to impose

the emissions offsets requirements on

new or modified agricultural sources

that are considered new major sources

or major modifications, notwithstanding

the limitation on District authority set

forth in CH&SC section 42301.18(c).

Paragraph 4.6.9 of revised District

Rule 2201 provides that emission 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)."

CH&SC section 42301.16(a) provides:

"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 1 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et

seq.) or Title V (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7661 et seq.)

of the Federal Clean Air Act is required by

district regulations to obtain a permit in a

manner that is consistent with the Federal

requirements."

CH&SC section 42301.18(c) provides:

"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 emission reductions."

EPA interprets the reference in

CH&SC section 42301.16(a) to "any

agricultural source that is required to

obtain a permit pursuant to Title I * * *

or Title V * * * of the Federal Clean

Air Act" as a reference to sources

considered "major sources" under the

Clean Air Act and not to "minor

sources" because only the former are

required to obtain a permit. A state may

exempt new or modified minor sources

from regulation so long as the overall

program for regulation of new or

modified stationary sources assures that

the NAAQS are achieved. See section

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act.

EPA interprets the directive in CH&SC

42301.16(a) to the Districts to ensure

that their permit rules require major

agricultural sources (and major

modifications of such sources) to obtain

a permit in a manner "that is consistent

with the Federal requirements" as

referring to, in this context, the

minimum requirements for new or

modified major sources, including but

not limited to, emission offsets [see

CAA section 173(a)(1)] and use of

emissions control technology

representing the lowest achievable

emission rate [see CAA section

173(a)(2)]. With certain exceptions not

relevant here (e.g., rocket engines), the

Act does not exempt any major sources

or major modifications in nonattainment

areas from the offset requirement,

regardless of whether emissions

reductions for a given source meet the

criteria for real, permanent, quantifiable,

and enforceable emission reductions. In

other words, contrary to Dairy Cares'

claim, the ability to credit emission

reductions is not integral to the

emissions offset requirements.

We find no statutory or regulatory

basis to support Dairy Cares' claim that

exemption of major agricultural sources

from the offset requirement does not

conflict with the Clean Air Act. Dairy

Cares points to Clean Air Act sections

173(c) and 182(e)(2), 40 CFR

51.165(a)(1)(vi)(A) and 40 CFR part 51,

appendix S as support for the general

principle that credits are an integral part

of the statutory and regulatory scheme

for offsets, and further, that one cannot

be imposed (emission offsets

requirements) without allowing for the

other (credits for emissions reductions

from the source).

First, section 173 ("* * * may comply

with any offset requirement only by

obtaining emission reductions from the

same source or other sources * * * I

provides two basic approaches to

meeting the emissions offset

requirement, by obtaining emissions

reductions from the same source or by

obtaining emissions reductions from

other sources. The fact that, for the time

being, one approach (internal offsets) is

quite limited (i.e., limited to certain

discrete units at a farm from which

emissions reductions are considered

creditable, e.g., boilers and stationary

engines and pumps) does not justify a

full exemption from the emissions offset

requirement for all major agricultural

sources. If Congress had intended major

agricultural sources to be exempt from

the offset requirement, it could well

have carved out an exception as it has

for rocket engines [see CAA section

173(e)]. Moreover, a new major

agricultural source is in no different

position than any other new major

source in that both have no internal

emissions reductions to use to comply

with the offset requirement.

Two other provisions cited by Dairy

Cares, CAA section 182(e)(2) (" * *

not considered a modification if the

owner * * * elects to offset the increase

* * * from discrete operations, units or

activities within the source") and 40

CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(A) ("net emissions

increase means * * * any other

increases and decreases in actual

emissions that are * * * otherwise

creditable") relate to identification of

modifications as "major modifications."

Dairy Cares is correct in that the limited

ability by agricultural sources to use

internal credits may well make it harder

to avoid "major modification" status and

the corresponding requirements.

However, there is simply no language in

either the statutory provision or

regulatory provision cited above that

conditions "major modification" status

on whether or not the source can credit

its emissions reductions. Furthermore,

as noted above, discrete units at

agricultural sources, such as boilers and

stationary pumps, can already be used

for internal credits in a major

modification applicability

determination at an agricultural source.

Dairy Cares points to a provision in 40

CFR part 51, appendix S, that allows,

under certain circumstances, emissions

reduction credits from shutdowns or

curtailments as further evidence that

allowance for credits from a source are

integral to the imposition of the

emissions offset requirement on the

source. However, once again, the

26108
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

provision allowing under certain

circumstances the use of credits from

shutdowns or curtailments is but one

means to comply with the offset

requirement, and its unavailability to a

certain category of sources does not

negate the underlying statutory

requirement on all new major sources

and major modifications, including the

category of sources for which shutdown

or curtailment credits are unavailable,

in nonattainment areas to provide

emissions offsets for the applicable

nonattainment pollutants.

Hence, with respect to agricultural

sources, to be "consistent with the

Federal requirements" within the

meaning of CH&SC 42301.16(a) means a

District permitting program must

impose an emissions offset requirement

for new major sources and major

modifications. We view CH&SC

42301.16(a) as not only a grant of

authority to Districts to establish a

permitting system that, in

nonattainment areas, requires

imposition of an emissions offset

requirement on all agricultural sources

that are new major sources or major

modifications, but as an affirmative

directive to do so.

Lastly, we recognize that CH&SC

section 42301.18(c), read in isolation,

withholds the authority from Districts to

require emissions offsets from any (i.e.,

major and minor) new or modified

agricultural sources until agricultural

source reductions meet the criteria for

creditability. As explained above,

however, such a reading would prevent

District from establishing permitting

programs for major sources and major

modifications "consistent with Federal

requirements" as required by the

Legislature through CH&SC section

42301.16(a).

We also do not agree that CH&SC

section 42301.18(c) is simply a more

specific statute that should be given

precedence over the more general

statute CH&SC section 42301.16(a). The

two CH&SC sections simply address

different permitting issues; one

generally relates to emissions offsets for

(both major and minor) agricultural

sources whereas the other generally

relates to permitting of major sources.

We see no reason to interpret the two

statutory provisions in question as in

direct conflict and thereby to choose

one provision over the other, but rather

to give effect to both by interpreting

CH&SC section 42301.18(c) as

withholding the authority from Districts

to impose an emission offset

requirement on new or modified

agricultural sources (until emissions

reductions from such sources are

creditable) but only with respect to nonmajor agricultural sources and

modifications.

Our interpretation of CH&SC sections

42301.16(a) and 42301.18(c) is further

supported by our knowledge of the

regulatory context in which Senate Bill

700 (SB 700), which established the two

cited provisions, was promulgated by

the California Legislature. One of the

principal purposes for promulgation of

SB 700 was to respond to a "SIP call"

under CAA section 110(k)(5) by EPA

based on the lack of State or District

authority to carry out the applicable

nonattainment NSR or PSD portions of

the SIP with respect to major

agricultural sources. See 68 FR 37746

(June 25, 2003). Under Dairy Cares'

interpretation, the California Legislature

would have failed to address this

deficiency by failing to provide the

necessary authority with respect to

nonattainment NSR. However, for the

reasons stated above, the relevant

provisions of SB 700, i.e., CH&SC

sections 42301.16(a) and 42301.18(c),

need not be interpreted that way.

Finally, we note that CARB and the

District interpret the relevant State law

in the same way as EPA. In a letter to

Air Pollution Control Officers dated

September 3, 2008, the CARB Executive

Officer requests the heads of the various

air districts in California to update their

permit rules as they apply to

agricultural sources in accordance with

CH&SC 42301.16. In reference to

agricultural sources that are major, the

CARB Executive Officer states that

"Both Federal and State law require

"best available control technology"

(BACT) and offsets for these sources.

Any exemption for major sources from

permit requirements that can arguably

be considered to be in your District's

rule and in the SIP must be removed."

See page 3 of the CARB September 3,

2008 letter. Later, in this letter, in

reference to the offsets exemption in

CH&SC 42301.18(c), the CARB

Executive Officer states "This exemption

should be narrowly applied, and, in any

event, cannot be used to exempt major

Federal sources from offset

requirements." See page 4 of the CARB

September 3, 2008 letter.

The District's interpretation can be

found in its response to a similar

comment as addressed herein, wherein

the District stated:

"The District appreciates the opportunity to

further clarify this very important issue. To

state it as clearly as possible, the offset

exemption of section 4.6.9 is NOT [emphasis

from original] available to agricultural

sources which are major sources of air

pollution. Only non-major sources are

provided any exemption from offsetting

requirements by this section.

This is not new language, nor is it new

interpretation. There is no confusion in the

legislative history, or in CAPCOA's white

paper on SB 700 implementation. The

purpose of the language of section

42301.16(a) is to specifically require

[emphasis from original] offsets from major

sources of air contaminants, as this was

specifically necessary to fulfill the mandates

of the Federal SIP call that the state was

under at the time. Without this language

specifically requiring offsets of major

agricultural sources, the law would not have

met EPA's requirement that we subject major

California agricultural sources to Federal

permitting requirements, and EPA would not

have been able to stop the SIP call and the

impending sanctions. Therefore the

suggested change cannot be made."

See the District's final staff report on

proposed amendment to Rule 2201

(page B-12).

In light of EPA's, CARB's, and the

District's interpretation of CH&SC

sections 42301.16(a) and 42301.18(c),

we view paragraph 4.6.9 of revised

District Rule 2020 as simply, and

correctly, reflecting current State law as

set forth in the two cited sections of the

CH&SC. In other words, with respect to

the issue of emissions offsets

requirements, we see no difference

between the authority granted to the

District under applicable State law and

the language found in paragraph 4.6.9 of

revised District Rule 2020. Thus, we

disagree with Dairy Care's assertion that

we are again making the error of

approving a rule change that is in

conflict with California law.

Comment #2: Earthjustice claims that

EPA's rationale for approval of the

various exemptions being added to the

District's NSR rules is flawed because it

is premised on the false claim that the

District has a plan that will achieve the

national standards for particulate matter

and ozone.

Response #2: In our January 2010

proposed rule, we reviewed the status of

air quality plans in the San Joaquin

Valley, and relied upon the plans as a

basis to conclude that the net effect of

the changes in the rules would not

interfere with reasonable further

progress or attainment of any of the

NAAQS and thus are approvable under

CAA section 110(1). See sections IV.B.1

("Regulatory Context") and IV.B.8 ("CAA

Section 110(1)") of the proposed rule. In

our proposed rule, we noted that EPA

has not yet taken action on the

submitted San Joaquin Valley 2007

Ozone Plan or the submitted San

Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.

5 Plan. Thus, it

is incorrect to say that we have based

our proposed approval of the revised

District NSR rules on the premise that

the District has a plan that will achieve

the national standards for those

26109
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

pollutants. Instead, we have reviewed

the plans to ensure that the changes to

the District's NSR rules are consistent

with the assumptions and control

strategies in these plans and found that

the changes are indeed consistent with

the plans and would strengthen the SIP.

Furthermore, we continue to believe

that the plans are facially valid, contrary

to the unsupported claims by

Earthjustice that they are not

meaningful plans or that the plans have

been undermined by the state.

Our detailed review of the plans and

subsequent notice-and-comment

rulemaking may lead to the requirement

that California adopt additional control

measures to provide for attainment of

the ozone and particulate matter

standards, but California will not

necessarily be required to extend

permitting and offsets requirements to

minor agricultural sources to meet that

requirement. While certain SIP

requirements are prescribed by the Act

and EPA regulations, extending

permitting and offsets requirements to

minor agricultural sources would be

considered a discretionary control

measure and thus the state may well

decide to select some other measure.

Comment #3: Earthjustice claims that

EPA's analysis under CAA section

110(1) of the boilers and steam generator

exemptions is incomplete because it

does not address whether the District

can allow these sources to be

constructed or expanded with no

mitigation for emissions increases.

Response #3: As an initial starting

point, the exemption in amended Rule

2020, paragraph 6.1, would not be a new

permitting exemption. Rather, the

existing exemption found in the current

SIP version of paragraph 6.1 of Rule

2020 is being revised in certain ways,

only one of which arguably expands the

exemption. The revision that arguably

expands the exemption involves

changes in the maximum sulfur content

specifications for natural gas and

liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)

combusted by the applicable types of

sources (such as boilers and steam

generators with maximum input heat

ratings of 5 million Btu per hour (gross)

or less).

With respect to the sulfur content

specification, the amended rule would

raise the maximum allowable limit from

0.75 grains (of total sulfur) per 100

standard cubic feet (scf) for both natural

gas and LPG, to 1.0 grain per 100 scf for

natural gas and 15 grains per 100 scf for

LPG. The District's memo dated

November 13, 2009, which is cited in

the proposed rule, indicates that the

reason for the increase is to align the

maximum sulfur content specification

in the exemption to the corresponding

specification used by the relevant

utilities in their own contracts for

delivery of natural gas. For LPG, the

reason for the increase is to align the

specification in the exemption with the

corresponding industry standard

specifications as set by the Gas

Processors Association (GPA). The

industry practice by LPG distributors of

adding odorant for safety purposes

(typically mercaptan) containing

between 1 and 3 grains of sulfur per 100

scf alone exceeds the existing

specification of 0.75 grains of sulfur.

For perspective, we note that the

sulfur dioxide emissions from natural

gas combustion at 5 million Btu per

hour or less amounts to 0.35 lb per day

and 0.06 tons per year, assuming

maximum operation 24 hours per day,

365 days per year (based on AP-42

(section 1.4) emissions factors, sulfur

content of 1 grain per 100 cubic feet).

The corresponding sulfur dioxide

emissions for LPG are 1.97 lb/day and

0.36 ton per year, once again, assuming

maximum continuous operation (based

on AP-42 (section 1.5) emissions factors

for propane, and sulfur content of 15

grains per 100 cubic feet). In other

words, this particular exemption relates

to very small emissions sources, that

would not be subject to BACT under

District Rule 2201, paragraph 4.1.1

* * BACT shall be required for

• * * any new emissions unit * * *

with a Potential to Emit exceeding 2.0

pounds in any one day"), even if such

sources were subject to permitting.

Sulfur dioxide is a criteria pollutant

in its own right, but is also a precursor

pollutant for PMo and PM 2.

5 . While San

Joaquin Valley is designated as "attainment" for both the sulfur dioxide

NAAQS and the PM1o NAAQS, the

valley is designated as nonattainment

for the PM 2.

5 NAAQS. Thus, to satisfy

Federal Clean Air Act requirements

regarding NSR, the valley must require

emissions offsets for new major sources

of sulfur dioxide and major

modifications at existing major sources

of sulfur dioxide. The applicable major

source threshold for sulfur dioxide, as a

precursor to PM 2.5, is 100 tons per year.

The District's NSR rule is more broad

than required in this respect and applies

the emission offset requirement for

sulfur dioxide to sulfur dioxide sources

with emissions exceeding 54,750

pounds per year (27.4 tons per year).

See paragraph 4.5.3 of the District Rule

2201. Clearly, at less than 1 ton of sulfur

dioxide per year, new sources of the

type covered by the revised exemption

would not otherwise be subject to the

offset requirement unless they were

located at an existing sulfur dioxide

source with emissions greater than 27.4

tons per year. To gain some perspective

as to the number of facilities with sulfur

dioxide emissions greater than 27.4 tons

per year within the valley, we used

CARB's California Emission Inventory

Development and Reporting System

(CEIDARS) database and reviewed the

listings of 3,651 facilities and

discovered a total of only 26 that had

sulfur dioxide emission greater than

27.4 tons per year based on actual

emission in 2007. Based on the low rate

of sulfur dioxide emissions generated by

types of sources covered by the revised

exemption and the small number of

sources subject to the offset

requirement, the potential in foregone

sulfur dioxide emission reductions

(offsets) due to the installation of the

types of sources covered by this

particular exemption is very limited.

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

proposed rule and supplemented

herein, we continue to believe that the

relaxed sulfur content specification in

amended Rule 2020, paragraph 6.1,

would have no significant impact on

emissions in the valley. Even if there

would be some small incremental

increase in sulfur dioxide emissions due

to the hypothetical relaxation in an

otherwise applicable emissions offset

requirement on account of the revised

exemption, such an increase would be

more than offset itself by the reductions

in emissions that would flow from the

lower major source emissions

thresholds and more stringent emissions

offset requirement for the other PM 2.

5

precursors, volatile organic compounds

and nitrogen oxides. Moreover, we have

concluded that overall set of changes in

District Rules 2020, 2201, and 2530,

including the change in the sulfur fuel

content specification, other changes in

the permitting and offsets exemptions,

the lower major source emissions

thresholds, and the more stringent

emissions offset requirement, would not

interfere with reasonable further

progress or attainment of any of the

NAAQS and thus are approvable under

CAA section 110(1).

Comment #4: Earthjustice contends

that, in addition to the relaxations

highlighted by EPA in the notice of

proposed rulemaking, the District is also

relaxing its equivalency demonstration

outlined in section 7.0 of Rule 2201 by

removing the requirement to

demonstrate equivalency with the

Federal new source review program that

was in effect in December 2002.

Earthjustice asserts that the purpose of

this provision was to enshrine

equivalency with the Federal program

prior to the relaxations adopted by EPA

as part of NSR Reform and that the

26110
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

District now seeks to take advantage of

the less stringent NSR Reform

provisions governing major

modifications. Earthjustice claims that

the change to section 7.1.1 means that

fewer offsets will be required in order to

demonstrate equivalence, that EPA's

analysis completely fails to address this

relaxation, and that EPA needs to

quantify the reduction in offsets this

change will allow and explain how this

growth in emissions can be reconciled

with the fact that the District has no real

strategy for attaining the national

standards.

Response #4: Earthjustice claims that

the revisions to Rule 2201 have the

effect of (1) relaxing the equivalency

demonstration required in Section 7.0 of

Rule 2201, because it removed the

requirement to demonstrate equivalency

with the Federal NSR program that was

in effect in December 2002, i.e., prior to

the effective date of EPA's NSR reform

rules, and (2) now requires

demonstration with current "less

stringent" Federal NSR program

requirements. EPA disagrees with both

of these claims. First, the only

significant revisions made to Section 7.0

was to remove the December 2002 date

reference as to which version of 40 CFR

51.165 should be used for determining

equivalency with Federal offset

requirements. The underlying

requirements for demonstrating

equivalency with the Federal NSR

program offset requirements remain

unchanged.

Second, regarding the claim that the

current Federal NSR regulations are less

stringent, and therefore fewer Federal

offsets are now required, we do not

agree that fewer offsets necessarily

means that the San Joaquin Valley NSR

program would achieve fewer emissions

reductions overall. Even if the District's

implementation of revised NSR rules

that incorporate NSR reform requires

fewer emissions offsets, EPA concludes

that any such foregone offsets are

themselves offset by the new lower

"major modification" threshold of zero

for ozone precursors, down from 25 tons

per year under the existing SIP District

Rule 2201, and higher offset ratio of 1.5

to 1, up from 1.2 to 1. Moreover, the

regional air quality plans do not take

credit for reductions and mitigations

required under the District's NSR rules

in that they do not reduce future year's

emissions by taking credit for emissions

reductions provided through permitting

actions. See, e.g., page D-4, of appendix

D to the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone

Plan.

Comment #5: AIR takes issue with

EPA's statement in the proposed rule

that the Agency's 2001 limited approval

and limited disapproval of Rule 2020

had the effect of exempting all

agricultural sources from permitting in

the San Joaquin Valley portion of the

SIP. AIR contends that EPA's statement

is at odds with the plain language of the

Clean Air Act, which neither exempts

major agricultural stationary sources nor

affords EPA the authority to grant an

exemption through a limited approval/

limited disapproval action.

Response #5: AIR is objecting to

EPA's background discussion

concerning the effect of EPA's approval

(in 2001) of the versions of the District's

NSR rules that preceded the versions of

the rules in the current applicable SIP

(which were approved in 2004), and

thus AIR's comment has no direct

bearing on today's final action on

amended District NSR rules, as

submitted in 2008 and 2009. 9

III. Final Action

Under CAA sections 110(k)(2) and

301(a) and for the reasons set forth

above and in our January 29, 2010

proposed rule, we are finalizing a

limited approval and limited

disapproval of amended District NSR

Rules 2020 and 2201, as submitted on

March 7, 2008 and March 17, 2009,

respectively. The amended District

Rules 2020 and 2201 revise certain

existing exemptions; establish an

exemption from permitting, and from

offsets, for certain minor agricultural

operations; establish applicability

thresholds (for major sources and major

modifications) and offset thresholds

consistent with a classification of

"extreme" for the ozone standard; and

implement NSR Reform.

We are finalizing a limited approval

and limited disapproval action, because

the individual provisions within District

Rules 2020 and 2201 are not separable,

9 Nonetheless, we affirm our statement that, prior

to our 2004 approval of the District's NSR rules

(Rules 2020 and 2201), the District portion of the

California SIP included a broad exemption from

permitting for all agricultural sources. This is

because our 2001 action on previous versions of

District Rule 2020 and 2201 was a limited approval

and limited disapproval action and that the version

of Rule 2020 approved in 2001 included a full

exemption from permitting for agricultural sources

consistent with state law at the time. See paragraph

4.1.2 of District Rule 2020, as amended on

September 17, 1998, and approved on July 19, 2001.

We identified the agricultural permitting exemption

as one of the deficiencies that prevented our full

approval of the rules and that triggered a "sanctions

clock." As explained in our July 2001 final rule, the

limited approval and limited disapproval action

incorporated the rules into the SIP, as they were

submitted, with no exception as to those provisions

that we found deficient. We generally take limited

approval and limited disapproval actions where a

given SIP revision is not composed of separable

parts, and while the overall submittal strengthens

the SIP, there are deficiencies that prevent full

approval. See 66 FR 37587, at 37590 (July 19, 2001).

and, because, although the rule

amendments would strengthen the SIP

and meet all but one of the applicable

requirements for SIPs in general and

NSR SIPs in particular, they contain

unacceptably ambiguous references to

statutory provisions that prevent full

approval. This action incorporates

amended Rules 2020 and 2201 into the

District portion of the Federally

enforceable California SIP, including

those provisions identified as deficient.

The amended Rules 2020 and 2201

approved herein supersede the versions

of the corresponding rules that were

approved in May 2004 in the applicable

SIP.

The final limited disapproval triggers

a sanctions clock and EPA's obligation

to promulgate a Federal implementation

plan. Sanctions will be imposed unless

EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions

that correct the rule deficiencies within

18 months of the effective date of this

action. These sanctions will be imposed

under section 179 of the Act according

to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must

promulgate a FIP under section 110(c)

unless we approve subsequent SIP

revisions that correct the rule

deficiencies within 24 months. Note

that the submitted rules have been

adopted by the District, and EPA's final

limited disapproval does not prevent

the local agency from enforcing it.

With respect to amended District Rule

2530, as submitted on March 17, 2009,

we are taking final action to approve the

amended rule because we find that it

has been appropriately modified to

reflect the decrease in the major source

threshold for VOC and NON consistent

with an "extreme" classification. This

action incorporates amended Rule 2530

into the District portion of the Federally

enforceable California SIP. The

amended Rule 2530 approved herein

supersedes the previous version of the

corresponding rule that was approved in

April 1996 in the applicable SIP.

EPA is also removing certain obsolete

conditions placed on 1980's era

approvals by EPA on various

nonattainment plans submitted by

California for the San Joaquin Valley.

Lastly, we have decided to defer

further action on the Agency's January

2010 proposal to correct a previous

approval of the District NSR rules

pending receipt from California of a

legal interpretation of the extent of

District authority with respect to

agricultural sources under state law.

26111
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

IV. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled "Regulatory Planning and

Review."

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals and

limited approvals/limited disapprovals

under section 110 and subchapter I, part

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any

new requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because this

limited approval/limited disapproval

action and approval action does not

create any new requirements, I certify

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into

law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the limited

approval/limited disapproval action and

approval action promulgated today do

not include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure "meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism implications" is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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." Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This rule 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, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely approves a State rule

implementing a Federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination

With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

"Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications." This rule does not have

tribal implications, as specified in

Executive Order 13175. It will not have

substantial direct effects on tribal

governments, on the relationship

between the Federal government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal government and Indian tribes.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not

apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as

applying only to those regulatory

actions that concern health or safety

risks, such that the analysis required

under section 5-501 of the Executive

Order has the potential to influence the

regulation. This rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045, because it

approves a State rule implementing a

Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13211, "Actions Concerning

Regulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is

not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

L National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use "voluntary

consensus standards" (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

26112
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 90/Tuesday, May 11, 2010/Rules and Regulations

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today's

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

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).

K. Petitions for Review of This Action

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 July 12, 2010.

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,

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 12, 2010.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

* Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

m 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)(354)(i)(E)(14) and

(c)(363)(i)(A)(5) and (6) to read as

follows:

§52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * * *

(354) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) * * *

(14) Rule 2020, "Exemptions,"

adopted on September 19, 1991 and

amended on December 20, 2007.

(363) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) ***

(5) Rule 2201, "New and Modified

Stationary Source Review Rule,"

adopted on September 19, 1991, and

amended on December 18, 2008.

(6) Rule 2530, "Federally Enforceable

Potential to Emit," adopted on June 15,

1995, and amended on December 18,

2008.

* * * * *

* 3. Section 52.232 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraphs

(a)(6), (a)(10), and (a)(11) and by

revising paragraph (a)(5)(i) to read as

follows:

§52.232 Part D conditional approval.

(a) * * *

(5) * * *

(i) For PM:

(A) By November 19, 1981, the NSR

rules must be revised and submitted as

an SIP revision. The rules must satisfy

section 173 of the Clean Air Act and 40

CFR Subpart I, "Review of new sources

and modifications." In revising Kern

County's NSR rules, the State/APCD

must address all the requirements in

EPA's amended regulations for NSR (45

FR 31307, May 13, 1980 and 45 FR

52676, August 7, 1980) which the APCD

rules do not currently satisfy including

those deficiencies cited in EPA's

Evaluation Report Addendum which

still apply despite EPA's new NSR

requirements (contained in document

File NAP-CA-07 at the EPA Library in

Washington, DC and the Regional

Office).

* * * * *

[FR Doe. 2010-10925 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0512; FRL-9147-2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of

Lake and Porter Counties to

Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking several related

actions affecting Lake and Porter

Counties and the State of Indiana for the

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or

standard). EPA is approving a request

from the State of Indiana to redesignate

Lake and Porter Counties, the Indiana

portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake

County, Illinois-Indiana (IL-IN) 8-hour

ozone nonattainment area, to attainment

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In

addition, EPA is approving, as a

revision to the Indiana State

Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's

plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS through 2020 in Lake

and Porter Counties and in the ChicagoGary-Lake County, IL-IN ozone

nonattainment area. EPA is also

approving the 2002 Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides

(NOx) emission inventories for Lake and

Porter Counties as a SIP revision and as

meeting the requirements of the Clean

Air Act (CAA). Finally, EPA finds

adequate and is approving the State's

2010 and 2020 VOC and NOx Motor

Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for

Lake and Porter Counties.

DATES: This final rule is effective May

11, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a

docket for this action: Docket ID No.

EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0512. All

documents in the docket are listed on

the http://www.regulations.gov Web

site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available,

i.e., Confidential Business Information

(CBI) or other information whose

disclosure is restricted by statute.

Certain other material, such as

copyrighted material, is not placed on

the Internet and will be publicly

available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are

available either electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

26113