43576 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1An example of such a rule is as follows: A 

person shall not discharge from any source 

whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or 

other material which cause injury, detriment, 

nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number 

of persons or to the public or which endanger the 

comfort, repose, health or safety of any such 

persons or the public or which cause or have a 

natural tendency to cause injury or damage to 

business or property. 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule to 

approve Maryland’s 2017 progress 

report does not have tribal implications 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 

because the SIP is not approved to apply 

in Indian country located in the state, 

and EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 15, 2018. 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18526 Filed 8–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0133; FRL–9982– 

76—Region 9] 

Air Plan Revisions; California; 

Technical Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to delete 

various local rules from the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

were approved in error. These rules 

include general nuisance provisions, 

certain federal performance 

requirements, hearing board procedures, 

variance provisions, and local fee 

provisions. The EPA has determined 

that the continued presence of these 

rules in the SIP is potentially confusing 

and thus problematic for affected 

sources, the state, local agencies, and 

the EPA. The intended effect of this 

proposal is to delete these rules to make 

the SIP consistent with the Clean Air 

Act. The EPA is also proposing to make 

certain other corrections to address 

errors made in previous actions taken by 

the EPA on California SIP revisions. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0133 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Kevin Gong, at gong.kevin@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be removed or edited 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3073, gong.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the 

SIP? 

II. What is the EPA’s authority to correct 

errors in SIP rulemakings? 

III. Which rules are proposed for deletion? 

IV. What other corrections is the EPA 

proposing to make? 

V. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Why is the EPA proposing to correct 

the SIP? 

The Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) 

was first enacted in 1970. In the 1970s 

and early 1980s, thousands of state and 

local agency regulations were submitted 

to the EPA for incorporation into the SIP 

to fulfill the new federal requirements. 

In many cases, states submitted entire 

regulatory air pollution programs, 

including many elements not required 

by the Act. Due to time and resource 

constraints, the EPA’s review of these 

submittals focused primarily on the new 

substantive requirements, and we 

approved many other elements into the 

SIP with minimal review. We now 

recognize that many of these elements 

were not appropriate for approval into 

the SIP. In general, these elements are 

appropriate for state and local agencies 

to adopt and implement, but it is not 

necessary or appropriate to make them 

federally enforceable by incorporating 

them into the applicable SIP. These 

include: 

A. Rules that prohibit emissions 

causing general nuisance or annoyance 

in the community.1 Such rules address 

local issues but have essentially no 

connection to the purposes for which 

SIPs are developed and approved, 

namely the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43577 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). See CAA section 110(a)(1). 

B. Local adoption of federal New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

or National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

requirements either by reference or by 

adopting text identical or modified from 

the requirements found in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60 or 61. 

Because the EPA has independent 

authority to implement 40 CFR parts 60 

and 61, it is not appropriate to make 

parallel local authorities federally 

enforceable by approving them into the 

applicable SIP. 

C. Rules that govern local hearing 

board procedures and other 

administrative requirements such as 

fees, frequency of meetings, salaries 

paid to board members, and procedures 

for petitioning for a local hearing. 

D. Variance provisions that provide 

for modification of the requirements of 

the applicable SIP. State- or districtissued variances provide an applicant 

with a mechanism to obtain relief from 

state enforcement of a state or local rule 

under certain conditions. Pursuant to 

federal law, specifically section 110(i) of 

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(i), neither the 

EPA nor a state may revise a SIP by 

issuing an ‘‘order, suspension, plan 

revision or other action modifying any 

requirement of an applicable 

implementation plan’’ without a plan 

promulgation or revision. The EPA and 

California have long recognized that a 

state-issued variance, though binding as 

a matter of state law, does not prevent 

the EPA from enforcing the underlying 

SIP provisions unless and until the EPA 

approves that variance as a SIP revision. 

The variance provisions included in this 

action are deficient for various reasons, 

including their failure to address the 

fact that a state- or district-issued 

variance has no effect on federal 

enforceability unless the variance is 

submitted to and approved by the EPA 

as a SIP revision. Therefore, their 

inclusion in the SIP is inconsistent with 

the Act and may be confusing to 

regulated industry and the general 

public. Moreover, because state-issued 

variances require independent EPA 

approval to modify the substantive 

requirements of a SIP, removal of these 

variance provisions from the SIP will 

have no effect on regulated entities. See 

Industrial Environmental Association v. 

Browner, No. 97–71117 (9th Cir., May 

26, 2000). 

E. Local fee provisions that are not 

economic incentive programs and are 

not designed to replace or relax a SIP 

emission limit. While it is appropriate 

for local agencies to implement fee 

provisions, for example, to recover costs 

for issuing permits, it is generally not 

appropriate to make local fee collection 

federally enforceable. 

II. What is the EPA’s authority to 

correct errors in SIP rulemakings? 

Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, as 

amended in 1990, provides that, 

whenever the EPA determines that the 

EPA’s action approving, disapproving, 

or promulgating any plan or plan 

revision (or part thereof), area 

designation, redesignation, 

classification or reclassification was in 

error, the EPA may in the same manner 

as the approval, disapproval, or 

promulgation revise such action as 

appropriate without requiring any 

further submission from the state. Such 

determination and the basis thereof 

must be provided to the state and the 

public. We interpret this provision to 

authorize the EPA to make corrections 

to a promulgated regulation when it is 

shown to our satisfaction (or we 

discover) that (1) we clearly erred by 

failing to consider or by inappropriately 

considering information made available 

to the EPA at the time of the 

promulgation, or the information made 

available at the time of promulgation is 

subsequently demonstrated to have been 

clearly inadequate, and (2) other 

information persuasively supports a 

change in the regulation. See 57 FR 

56762, at 56763 (November 30, 1992) 

(correcting designations, boundaries, 

and classifications of ozone, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter and lead 

areas). 

III. Which rules are proposed for 

deletion? 

The EPA has determined that the 

rules listed in Table 1 below are 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP, 

but were previously approved into the 

SIP in error. Dates that these rules were 

submitted by the state and approved by 

the EPA are provided. We are proposing 

deletion of these rules and any earlier 

versions of these rules from the 

individual air pollution control district 

portions of the California SIP under 

CAA section 110(k)(6) as inconsistent 

with the requirements of CAA section 

110. A brief discussion of the proposed 

deletions is provided in the following 

paragraphs. 

TABLE 1—LOCAL AIR DISTRICT RULES PROPOSED FOR DELETION

Rule or regulation Title Submittal date EPA approval 

Amador County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 

Rule 5 .................................................. Nuisance .............................................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Rule 6 .................................................. Additional Exception ............................ June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AQMD) 

Los Angeles County APCD Rule 51 ... Nuisance .............................................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Bay Area AQMD 

Division 11 ........................................... Hydrogen Sulfide ................................. February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

Section 11101 ...................................... [establishes hydrogen sulfide limits] ... November 2, 1973 ..... 42 FR 23802 (May 11, 1977); corrected at 42 FR 42219 (August 22, 

1977). 

Regulation 8 ......................................... Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Pollutants.

January 10, 1975 ...... 42 FR 23802 (May 11, 1977). 

Butte County AQMD 

Section 2–1 .......................................... [general nuisance provision] ............... February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

Rule 619 .............................................. Effective Date of Decision ................... February 10, 1986 ..... 52 FR 3226 (February 3, 1987). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43578 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—LOCAL AIR DISTRICT RULES PROPOSED FOR DELETION—Continued 

Rule or regulation Title Submittal date EPA approval 

Calaveras County APCD 

Rule 205 .............................................. Nuisance .............................................. July 22, 1975 ............. 42 FR 23803 (May 11, 1977); corrected at 42 FR 42219 (August 22, 

1977). 

Rule 603 .............................................. Hearing Board Fees ............................ July 22, 1975 ............. 42 FR 23803 (May 11, 1977); corrected at 42 FR 42219 (August 22, 

1977). 

Colusa County APCD 

Rule 4.5 ............................................... Nuisance .............................................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Rule 4.6 ............................................... Additional Exception ............................ June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Eastern Kern APCD 

Kern County APCD Rule 419 .............. Nuisance .............................................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Kern County APCD Rule 420 .............. Exception ............................................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

El Dorado County AQMD 

Rule 52 ................................................ Nuisance .............................................. February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

Rule 53 ................................................ Exceptions to Rule 52 ......................... February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

Rule 706 .............................................. Failure to Comply with Rules .............. May 23, 1979 ............ 46 FR 27115 (May 18, 1981). 

Feather River AQMD 

Yuba County Rule 9.7 ......................... Permit Actions ..................................... March 30, 1981 ......... 47 FR 15585 (April 12, 1982). 

Yuba County Rule 9.8 ......................... Variance Actions ................................. March 30, 1981 ......... 47 FR 15585 (April 12, 1982). 

Glenn County APCD 

Rule 78 ................................................ Nuisance .............................................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Rule 79 ................................................ Exceptions ........................................... June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Great Basin Unified APCD 

Rule 402 .............................................. Nuisance .............................................. April 21, 1976 ............ 42 FR 28883 (June 6, 1977). 

Rule 617 .............................................. Emergency Variances ......................... December 17, 1979 .. 46 FR 8471 (January 27, 1981). 

Imperial County APCD 

Rule 117 .............................................. Nuisances ............................................ February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

Rule 513 .............................................. Record of Proceedings ........................ November 4, 1977 ..... 43 FR 35694 (August 11, 1978). 

Lake County AQMD 

Section 1602 ........................................ Petition Procedures ............................. March 30, 1981 ......... 47 FR 15784 (April 13, 1982). 

Section 1701.Q .................................... [excess emissions estimate for variance petitions].February 10, 1986 ..... 52 FR 3226 (February 3, 1987). 

Lassen County APCD 

Rule 3:2 ............................................... Permit Fees ......................................... June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Rule 3:3 ............................................... Permit Fee Schedules ......................... June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Rule 3:4 ............................................... Analysis Fees ...................................... June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Rule 3:5 ............................................... Technical Reports, Charges For ......... June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Rule 4:2 ............................................... Nuisance .............................................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Mariposa County APCD 

Rule 205 .............................................. Nuisance .............................................. January 10, 1975 ...... 42 FR 42219 (August 22, 1977). 

Mendocino County APCD 

Rule 4.A ............................................... General ................................................ February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

Rule 620 .............................................. Hearing Procedures ............................ August 6, 1982 .......... 47 FR 50864 (November 10, 1982). 

Modoc County APCD 

Rule 3:2 ............................................... Nuisance .............................................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Rule 3:6 ............................................... Additional Exception ............................ June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43579 

TABLE 1—LOCAL AIR DISTRICT RULES PROPOSED FOR DELETION—Continued 

Rule or regulation Title Submittal date EPA approval 

Mojave Desert AQMD 

Riverside County Rule 51 .................... Nuisance .............................................. February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

Riverside County APCD Rule 106 ...... Record of Proceedings ........................ February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

South Coast AQMD Rule 1231 ........... Judicial Review .................................... January 2, 1979 ........ 45 FR 30626 (May 9, 1980). 

Monterey Bay Air Resources District 

Monterey-Santa Cruz County Unified 

APCD Rule 402.

Nuisance .............................................. February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

San Benito County APCD Rule 403 .... Nuisance .............................................. February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

North Coast Unified AQMD 

Del Norte County APCD Regulation 

IV, introductory paragraph.

[untitled but represents a general nuisance type of provision].February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

Del Norte County APCD Rule 340 ...... Technical Report Charges .................. November 10, 1976 ... 43 FR 25677 (June 14, 1978). 

Del Norte County APCD Rule 620 ...... Hearing Procedures ............................ November 10, 1976 .. 43 FR 25677 (June 14, 1978). 

Del Norte County APCD Rule 620 ...... Hearing Procedures ............................ August 6, 1982 .......... 47 FR 50864 (November 10, 1982). 

Del Norte County APCD Rule 630 ...... Decisions ............................................. November 10, 1976 .. 43 FR 25677 (June 14, 1978). 

Del Norte County APCD Rule 640 ...... Record of Proceedings ........................ November 10, 1976 .. 43 FR 25677 (June 14, 1978). 

Del Norte County APCD Rule 650 ...... Appeal of Decision .............................. November 10, 1976 .. 43 FR 25677 (June 14, 1978). 

Humboldt County APCD Rule 51 ........ Prohibited Emissions ........................... February 21, 1972 ..... 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). 

Trinity County APCD Regulation IV, 

introductory paragraph.

[untitled but represents a general nuisance type of provision].June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Trinity County APCD Rule 56 .............. Failure to Comply with Rules .............. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Trinity County APCD Rule 62 .............. Preliminary Matters ............................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Trinity County APCD Rule 67 .............. Lack of Permit ..................................... June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Trinity County APCD Rule 68 .............. Issuance of Subpoenas, Subpoenas 

Duces Tecum.

June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Trinity County APCD Rule 620 ............ Hearing Procedures ............................ August 6, 1982 .......... 47 FR 50864 (November 10, 1982). 

Northern Sierra AQMD 

Nevada County APCD Rule 700 ......... Applicable Articles of the Health and 

Safety Code.

June 6, 1977 ............. 43 FR 41039 (September 14, 1978). 

Nevada County APCD Rule 703 

(paragraphs (E) and (I)).

Contents of Petitions ........................... June 6, 1977 ............. 43 FR 41039 (September 14, 1978). 

Nevada County APCD Rule 711 ......... Evidence .............................................. April 10, 1975 ............ 43 FR 25687 (June 14, 1978). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 51 ........... Prohibited Emissions ........................... June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 516 (paragraph (C)).Emergency Variance Provisions ......... June 22, 1981 ........... 47 FR 17486 (April 23, 1982). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 701 ......... General ................................................ January 10, 1975 ...... 43 FR 25680 (June 14, 1978). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 702 ......... Filing Petitions ..................................... January 10, 1975 ...... 43 FR 25680 (June 14, 1978). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 703 ......... Contents of Petitions ........................... June 22, 1981 ........... 47 FR 17486 (April 23, 1982). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 704 ......... Petitions for Variances ........................ January 10, 1975 ...... 43 FR 25680 (June 14, 1978). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 710 ......... Notice of Public Hearing ..................... June 22, 1981 ........... 47 FR 17486 (April 23, 1982). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 711 ......... Evidence .............................................. January 10, 1975 ...... 43 FR 25680 (June 14, 1978). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 712 ......... Preliminary Matters ............................. January 10, 1975 ...... 43 FR 25680 (June 14, 1978). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 713 ......... Official Notice ...................................... January 10, 1975 ...... 43 FR 25680 (June 14, 1978). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 714 ......... Continuances ....................................... January 10, 1975 ...... 43 FR 25680 (June 14, 1978). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 715 ......... Decision ............................................... January 10, 1975 ...... 43 FR 25680 (June 14, 1978). 

Plumas County APCD Rule 716 ......... Effective Date of Decision ................... January 10, 1975 ...... 43 FR 25680 (June 14, 1978). 

Sierra County APCD Rule 516 (paragraph (C)).Emergency Variance Provisions ......... June 22, 1981 ........... 47 FR 17486 (April 23, 1982). 

Sierra County APCD Rule 703 ............ Contents of Petitions ........................... June 22, 1981 ........... 47 FR 17486 (April 23, 1982). 

Sierra County APCD Rule 710 ............ Notice of Public Hearing ..................... June 22, 1981 ........... 47 FR 17486 (April 23, 1982). 

Northern Sonoma County APCD 

52 ......................................................... Nuisance .............................................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

85 ......................................................... Failure to Comply with Rules .............. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

91 ......................................................... Preliminary Matters ............................. June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

96 ......................................................... Lack of Permit ..................................... June 30, 1972 ........... 37 FR 19812 (September 22, 1972). 

600 ....................................................... Authorization ........................................ October 16, 1985 ...... 52 FR 12522 (April 17, 1987). 

610 ....................................................... Petition Procedure ............................... October 16, 1985 ...... 52 FR 12522 (April 17, 1987). 

620 ....................................................... Hearing Procedures ............................ August 6, 1982 .......... 47 FR 50864 (November 10, 1982). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43580 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Amador County APCD 

Amador County APCD Rule 5 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 5 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Amador County APCD Rule 6 

(Additional Exception) provides an 

exception to Amador County APCD 

Rule 5 and should be deleted if Rule 5 

is deleted. In this action, we are 

proposing to delete Amador County 

APCD Rules 5 and 6 from the Amador 

County portion of the California SIP. 

Antelope Valley AQMD 

Formed in 1997, the Antelope Valley 

AQMD administers air quality 

management programs in the Southeast 

Desert portion of Los Angeles County 

that is referred to as ‘‘Antelope Valley.’’ 

The Antelope Valley AQMD portion of 

the California SIP includes rules 

adopted by various air pollution control 

agencies that had jurisdiction over 

stationary sources in Antelope Valley 

since 1972, including the Los Angeles 

County APCD, the Southern California 

APCD, the South Coast AQMD, and the 

Antelope Valley AQMD. Los Angeles 

County APCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) is a 

general-nuisance type of prohibitory 

rule. As such, Rule 51 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Although Rule 51 was rescinded 

in the South Coast AQMD portion of Los 

Angeles County at 64 FR 71660 

(December 22, 1999), the rescission did 

not apply within the Antelope Valley 

AQMD portion of the county because, 

by the time of the 1999 action, the South 

Coast AQMD no longer had jurisdiction 

within the Antelope Valley portion of 

Los Angeles County. In this action, we 

propose to delete Los Angeles County 

APCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) from the 

Antelope Valley AQMD portion of the 

California SIP. 

Bay Area AQMD 

Bay Area AQMD Division 11 

(Hydrogen Sulfide) (including sections 

11100, 11101, 11102, 11102.1–11102.8) 

was approved as part of the original SIP 

for the Bay Area AQMD portion of the 

California SIP. Section 11101, which is 

untitled but establishes hydrogen 

sulfide limits, was superseded by 

approval of Section 11101 at 42 FR 

23802 (May 11, 1977), as corrected and 

recodified at 42 FR 42219 (August 22, 

1977). There has never been a NAAQS 

for hydrogen sulfide, and thus, Bay Area 

AQMD Division 11 (including sections 

11100, 11101, 11102, 11102.1–11102.8) 

does not relate to the NAAQS and was 

approved in error. 

Bay Area AQMD Regulation 8 

(Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Pollutants), as approved in 1977, 

includes certain definitions and four 

substantive rules: Rule 1 (NESHAPS 

General Provisions), Rule 2 (Emission 

Standard for Asbestos), Rule 3 

(Emission Standard for Beryllium), and 

Rule 4 (Emission Standard for Beryllium 

Rocket Motor Firing). Bay Area AQMD 

Regulation 8 adopts text identical or 

modified from the requirements found 

in 40 CFR part 60 or 61, and because the 

EPA has independent authority to 

implement 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, it 

was not appropriate to make parallel 

local authorities federally enforceable 

by approving Regulation 8 into the Bay 

Area AQMD portion of the California 

SIP. In this action, we are proposing to 

delete Division 11 (including the 

amended version of section 11101), and 

Regulation 8 from the BAAQMD portion 

of the California SIP. 

Butte County AQMD 

Butte County AQMD Section 2–1 is a 

general-nuisance type of prohibitory 

rule. As such, Section 2–1 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Butte County AQMD Rule 619 

(Effective Date of Decision) relates to 

hearing board procedures, and as such, 

was inappropriate for inclusion in the 

SIP and was thus approved by the EPA 

in error. In this action, we are proposing 

to delete Section 2–1 and Rule 619 from 

the Butte County AQMD portion of the 

California SIP. 

Calaveras County APCD 

Calaveras County APCD Rule 205 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 205 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Calaveras County APCD Rule 603 

(Hearing Board Fees) relates to hearing 

board procedures, and as such, was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and was thus approved by the EPA in 

error. In this action, we are proposing to 

delete Rules 205 and 603 from the 

Calaveras County APCD portion of the 

California SIP. 

Colusa County APCD 

Colusa County APCD Rule 4.5 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4.5 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Colusa County APCD Rule 4.6 

(Additional Exception) provides an 

exception to Colusa County APCD Rule 

4.5 and should be deleted if Rule 4.5 is 

deleted. In this action, we are proposing 

to delete Rules 4.5 and 4.6 from the 

Colusa County APCD portion of the 

California SIP. 

Eastern Kern APCD 

Kern County APCD Rule 419 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 419 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Kern County APCD Rule 420 

(Exception) provides an exception to 

Kern County APCD Rule 419 and should 

be deleted if Rule 419 is deleted. In this 

action, we are proposing to delete Rules 

419 and 420 from the Eastern Kern 

APCD portion of the California SIP. 

El Dorado County AQMD 

El Dorado County AQMD Rule 52 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 52 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. El Dorado County AQMD Rule 53 

(Exceptions to Rule 52) provides an 

exception to El Dorado County AQMD 

Rule 52 and should be deleted if Rule 

52 is deleted. El Dorado County AQMD 

Rule 706 (Failure to Comply with Rules) 

establishes certain hearing board 

procedures, and as such, was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and was thus approved by the EPA in 

error. In this action, we are proposing to 

delete Rules 52, 53, and 706 from the El 

Dorado County AQMD portion of the 

California SIP. 

Feather River AQMD 

Formed in 1991, the Feather River 

AQMD administers air quality 

management programs in Yuba County 

and Sutter County. The Feather River 

AQMD portion of the California SIP 

includes rules adopted by the 

predecessor agencies, the Yuba County 

APCD and the Sutter County APCD, to 

the extent that such rules have not been 

superseded or removed through EPA 

approval of rules or rescissions adopted 

by the Feather River AQMD. Yuba 

County APCD Rules 9.7 (Permit 

Actions) and 9.8 (Variance Actions) 

establish certain hearing board 

procedures, and as such, were 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and were thus approved by the EPA in 

error. In this action, we are proposing to 

delete Rules 9.7 and 9.8 from the 

Feather River AQMD portion of the 

California SIP. 

Glenn County APCD 

Glenn County APCD Rule 78 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 78 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Glenn County APCD Rule 79 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43581 

2The EPA approved the rescission of South Coast 

AQMD Rule 1231 at 64 FR 71660 (December 22, 

1999), but the rescission was not applicable within 

the Palo Verde Valley portion of Riverside County 

because the Palo Verde Valley had joined Mojave 

Desert AQMD several years before the rescission 

was approved. 

(Exceptions) provides an exception to 

Glenn County APCD Rule 78 and should 

be deleted if Rule 78 is deleted. In this 

action, we are proposing to delete Rules 

78 and 79 from the Glenn County APCD 

portion of the California SIP. 

Great Basin Unified APCD 

Great Basin Unified APCD Rule 402 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 402 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Great Basin Unified APCD Rule 

617 (Emergency Variance) allows an 

owner or operator of stationary sources 

to file a petition for an emergency 

variance under certain circumstances 

and provides for review and action on 

the petition by the APCO and hearing 

board. As described above, such 

provisions are inconsistent with section 

110(i) of the CAA and were thus 

approved by the EPA in error. In this 

action, we are proposing to delete Rules 

402 and 617 from the Great Basin 

Unified APCD portion of the California 

SIP. 

Imperial County APCD 

Imperial County APCD Rule 117 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 117 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Imperial County APCD Rule 513 

(Record of Proceedings) establishes 

certain hearing board procedures, and as 

such, was inappropriate for inclusion in 

the SIP and was thus approved by the 

EPA in error. In this action, we are 

proposing to delete Rules 117 and 513 

from the Imperial County APCD portion 

of the California SIP. 

Lake County AQMD 

Lake County AQMD Section 1602 

(Petition Procedures) establishes certain 

hearing board procedures, and as such, 

was inappropriate for inclusion in the 

SIP and was thus approved by the EPA 

in error. Lake County AQMD Section 

1701.Q requires that petitions for 

variances include an excess emission 

estimate and supporting documentation. 

As described above, variance provisions 

are inconsistent with section 110(i) of 

the CAA and were thus approved by the 

EPA in error. In this action, we are 

proposing to delete Sections 1602 and 

1701.Q from the Lake County AQMD 

portion of the California SIP. 

Lassen County APCD 

Lassen County APCD Rules 3:2, 3:3, 

3:4, and 3:5 are local fee provisions that 

were not appropriate for inclusion in 

the SIP and thus were approved by the 

EPA in error. On January 18, 2002 (67 

FR 2573), the EPA deleted without 

replacement earlier versions of these 

same rules that had been submitted as 

part of the original California SIP on 

February 21, 1972 and approved on May 

31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), but we did not 

recognize at the time of our 2002 action 

that the subject rules had been 

superseded by rules submitted on June 

30, 1972 and approved on September 

22, 1972 (37 FR 19812). In this action, 

we propose to delete the later-submitted 

and approved fee rules for Lassen 

County. Lassen County APCD Rule 4:2 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4:2 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. In this action, we are proposing to 

delete Rule 4:2 and the fee rules 

discussed above from the Lassen County 

APCD portion of the California SIP. 

Mariposa County APCD 

Mariposa County APCD Rule 205 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 205 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. In this action, we are proposing to 

delete Rule 205 from the Mariposa 

County APCD portion of the California 

SIP. 

Mendocino County APCD 

Mendocino County APCD Rule 4.A 

(General) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4.A was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Mendocino County APCD Rule 

620 (Hearing Procedures) establishes 

certain hearing board procedures, and as 

such, was inappropriate for inclusion in 

the SIP and was thus approved by the 

EPA in error. In this action, we are 

proposing to delete Rules 4.A and 620 

from the Mendocino County APCD 

portion of the California SIP. 

Modoc County APCD 

Modoc County APCD Rule 3:2 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 3:2 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Modoc County APCD Rule 3:6 

(Additional Exception) provides an 

exception to Modoc County APCD Rule 

3:2 and should be deleted if Rule 3:2 is 

deleted. In this action, we are proposing 

to delete Rules 3:2 and 3:6 from the 

Modoc County APCD portion of the 

California SIP. 

Mojave Desert AQMD 

Regulation of stationary air pollution 

sources in Riverside County is split 

between the South Coast AQMD (which 

has jurisdiction over all Riverside 

County except the Palo Verde Valley) 

and the Mojave Desert AQMD (which 

has jurisdiction over the Palo Verde 

Valley portion of Riverside County). The 

Palo Verde Valley portion of Riverside 

County left the South Coast AQMD and 

joined the Mojave Desert AQMD on July 

1, 1994. The applicable SIP for the 

Riverside County portion of the Mojave 

Desert AQMD (i.e., the Palo Verde 

Valley) consists, in part, of rules that 

were adopted originally by the Riverside 

County APCD and by the South Coast 

AQMD and then approved by the EPA 

prior to July 1, 1994, and that have not 

yet been superseded or rescinded 

through EPA approval of SIP revisions 

adopted by the Mojave Desert AQMD. 

Riverside County APCD Rule 51 

(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 51 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Riverside County APCD Rule 106 

(Record of Proceedings) is proposed 

herein for deletion because it establishes 

certain hearing board procedures and 

was thus inappropriate for inclusion in 

the SIP and approved by the EPA in 

error. South Coast AQMD Rule 1231 

(Judicial Review), also proposed herein 

for deletion, establishes certain district 

board procedures, and as such, was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and approved by the EPA in error.2 In 

this action, we are proposing to delete 

Riverside County Rules 51 and 106 and 

South Coast AQMD Rule 1231 from the 

Riverside County portion of the Mojave 

Desert AQMD portion of the California 

SIP. 

Monterey Bay Air Resources District 

The Monterey Bay Air Resources 

District (formerly named the Monterey 

Bay Unified APCD) was formed in 1974 

when the Monterey-Santa Cruz County 

Unified APCD merged with the San 

Benito County APCD. The rules adopted 

by the predecessor agencies remain in 

the SIP to the extent they have not been 

superseded or rescinded through EPA 

approvals of rules or rescissions 

adopted by the unified air district. 

Monterey-Santa Cruz County Unified 

APCD Rule 402 (Nuisance) and San 

Benito County APCD Rule 403 

(Nuisance) are general-nuisance type of 

prohibitory rules. As such, Rules 402 

and 403 were inappropriate for 

inclusion in the SIP and, thus, were 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43582 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

approved by the EPA in error. In this 

action, we are proposing to delete Rules 

402 and 403 from the Monterey Bay Air 

Resources District portion of the 

California SIP. 

North Coast Unified AQMD 

Established in 1982, the North Coast 

Unified AQMD has jurisdiction over Del 

Norte, Humboldt and Trinity counties, 

and the North Coast Unified AQMD 

portion of the applicable California SIP 

includes rules that were adopted by 

these counties and approved by the EPA 

and not superseded or rescinded 

through subsequent SIP actions. The 

introductory paragraphs for Del Norte 

County APCD’s Regulation VI 

(Prohibitions) and Trinity County 

APCD’s Regulation IV (Prohibitions) and 

Humboldt County APCD Rule 51 

(Prohibited Emissions) are generalnuisance type of prohibitory rules. As 

such, the introductory paragraphs of 

Regulation IV and Rule 51 were 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, were approved by the EPA in 

error. Del Norte County APCD Rules 620 

(Hearing Procedures), 630 (Decisions), 

640 (Record of Proceedings) and 650 

(Appeal of Decision) and Trinity County 

APCD Rules 56 (Failure to Comply with 

Rules), 62 (Preliminary Matters), 67 

(Lack of Permit), 68 (Issuance of 

Subpoenas, Subpoenas Duces Tecum) 

and 620 (Hearing Procedures) establish 

certain hearing board procedures, and as 

such, were inappropriate for inclusion 

in the SIP and were approved by the 

EPA in error. Del Norte County APCD 

Rule 340 (Technical Report Charges) is 

a local fee provision that also was not 

appropriate for inclusion in the SIP and 

was approved in error. In this action, we 

are proposing to delete the various rules 

listed above from the North Coast 

Unified AQMD portion of the California 

SIP. 

Northern Sierra AQMD 

Established in 1986, the Northern 

Sierra AQMD has jurisdiction over 

Nevada, Plumas, and Sierra counties, 

and the Northern Sierra AQMD portion 

of the applicable California SIP includes 

rules that were adopted by these 

counties and approved by the EPA and 

not superseded or rescinded through 

subsequent SIP actions. Plumas County 

APCD Rule 51 (Prohibited Emissions) is 

a general-nuisance type of prohibitory 

rule. As such, Rule 51 was 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and, thus, was approved by the EPA in 

error. Nevada County APCD Rules 700 

(Applicable Articles of the Health and 

Safety Code), 703 (Contents of Petitions) 

(paragraphs (E) and (I)) and 711 

(Evidence); Plumas County APCD Rules 

701 (General), 702 (Filing Petitions), 703 

(Contents of Petitions), 704 (Petitions for 

Variances), 710 (Notice of Hearing), 711 

(Evidence), 712 (Preliminary Matters), 

713 (Official Notice), 714 

(Continuances), 715 (Decision) and 716 

(Effective Date of Decision); and Sierra 

County APCD Rules 703 (Contents of 

Petitions) and 710 (Notice of Public 

Hearing) establish certain hearing board 

procedures, and as such, were 

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP 

and were thus approved by the EPA in 

error. Plumas County APCD Rule 516 

(Upset and Breakdown Conditions) 

(paragraph C (‘‘Emergency Variance 

Provisions’’)) and Sierra County APCD 

Rule 516 (Upset and Breakdown 

Conditions) (paragraph C (‘‘Emergency 

Variance Provisions’’)) allow an owner 

or operator of stationary sources to file 

a petition for an emergency variance 

under certain circumstances and 

provides for review and action on the 

petition by the APCO and hearing 

board. As described above, such 

provisions are inconsistent with section 

110(i) of the CAA and were thus not 

appropriate for inclusion in the SIP and 

were approved by the EPA in error. In 

this action, we are proposing to delete 

the various rules listed above from the 

Northern Sierra AQMD portion of the 

California SIP. 

Northern Sonoma County APCD 

Northern Sonoma County APCD Rule 

52 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type 

of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 52 

was inappropriate for inclusion in the 

SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA 

in error. Northern Sonoma County 

APCD Rules 85 (Failure to Comply with 

Rules), 91 (Preliminary Matters), 96 

(Lack of Permit), 600 (Authorization), 

610 (Petition Procedure) and 620 

(Hearing Procedures) establish certain 

hearing board procedures, and as such, 

were inappropriate for inclusion in the 

SIP and were thus approved by the EPA 

in error. In this action, we are proposing 

to delete Rules 52, 85, 91, 96, 600, 610 

and 620 from the Northern Sonoma 

County APCD portion of the California 

SIP. 

IV. What other corrections is the EPA 

proposing to make? 

The EPA is also proposing certain 

error corrections not because the rules 

were originally approved into the SIP in 

error but because of other types of errors 

made in the course of the SIP 

rulemaking action. Each such proposal 

is described in the following 

paragraphs. 

Antelope Valley AQMD 

With respect to the Antelope Valley 

AQMD portion of the California SIP, we 

are proposing three additional 

corrections related to the following: Los 

Angeles County APCD Regulation VI 

(Orchard or Citrus Grove Heaters), 

South Coast AQMD Rule 1186 (PM10

Emissions from Paved and Unpaved 

Roads, and Livestock Operations), and 

Antelope Valley AQMD Rules 107 

(Certification of Submissions and 

Emission Statements) and 1151 (Motor 

Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating 

Operations). 

Rescission of Los Angeles County 

APCD Regulation VI (Orchard or Citrus 

Grove Heaters): Los Angeles County 

APCD Regulation VI includes the 

following rules: Rule 100 (Definitions), 

Rule 101 (Exceptions), Rule 102 

(Permits Required), Rule 103 (Transfer), 

Rule 105 (Application for Permits), Rule 

106 (Action on Applications), Rule 107 

(Standards for Granting Permits), Rule 

108 (Conditional Approval), Rule 109 

(Denial of Applications), Rule 110 

(Appeals), Rule 120 (Fees), and Rule 130 

(Prohibitions). California submitted Los 

Angeles County APCD Regulation VI on 

June 30, 1972, and the EPA approved it 

on September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812). 

Rule 120 was deleted without 

replacement at 67 FR 2573 (January 18, 

2002), but the other Regulation VI rules 

remain in the SIP. 

Regulation VI was rescinded in the 

Southeast Desert portion of Los Angeles 

County at 43 FR 40011 (September 8, 

1978), but was reinstated throughout 

Los Angeles County when the EPA 

approved a SIP revision extending the 

jurisdiction of the South Coast AQMD to 

the Southeast Desert portion of the 

county and replacing the SIP rules that 

had been in effect for the Southeast 

Desert portion of Los Angeles County 

with those that applied in the South 

Coast AQMD. See 48 FR 52451 

(November 18, 1983). At that time, the 

applicable SIP for the South Coast 

AQMD included Regulation VI because 

the EPA inadvertently failed to codify 

the rescission of the rules in an action 

affecting the South Coast AQMD portion 

of Los Angeles County published at 43 

FR 25684 (June 14, 1978). In the final 

action on June 14, 1978, the EPA 

indicated: ‘‘The changes to Regulation 

VI, Orchard Grove Heaters, contained in 

the above mentioned submittals and 

being acted upon by this notice include 

total replacement of county rules by 

California Health and Safety Code 

sections covering Orchard Heaters.’’ 43 

FR at 25685. However, the regulatory 

text deleting Regulation VI without 

replacement was not included in the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43583 

3Footnote 4 states: ‘‘As indicated above, the 

SCAQMD has jurisdiction over the South Coast Air 

Basin (SCAB) and Coachella Valley PM–10 serious 

nonattainment areas. This Federal Register action 

for the SCAQMD excludes the Los Angeles County 

portion of the Southeast Desert AQMA, otherwise 

known as the Antelope Valley Region in Los 

Angeles County, which is now under the 

jurisdiction of the Antelope Valley Air Pollution 

Control District as of July 1, 1997.’’ 63 FR 42786, 

at 42788 (August 11, 1998). 

4El Dorado County AQMD Rule 1000.1 provides: 

‘‘The APCO may waive this requirement to any 

class or category of stationary sources which emit 

less than 25 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen or 

reactive organic gas if the district provides the Air 

Resources Board with an emission inventory of 

sources emitting greater than 10 tons per year of 

nitrogen oxides or reactive organic gas based on the 

use of emission factors acceptable to the Air 

Resources Board.’’ 

final rule, and thus, Regulation VI 

became part of the legacy SIP inherited 

by the Antelope Valley AQMD when it 

was established in 1997 in the Southeast 

Desert portion of Los Angeles County. In 

this action, we are proposing to add 

regulatory text deleting Regulation VI 

consistent with our action as described 

in the preamble to the June 14, 1978 

final rule and to delete Los Angeles 

County APCD Regulation VI from the 

South Coast AQMD portion of the 

California SIP and to thereby delete Los 

Angeles County APCD Regulation VI 

from the Antelope Valley AQMD 

portion of the California SIP. 

Deletion of South Coast Rule 1186 

(PM10 Emissions from Paved and 

Unpaved Roads, and Livestock 

Operations) for Implementation in the 

Antelope Valley AQMD: In a final rule 

published at 72 FR 64946 (November 

19, 2007), the EPA added a paragraph to 

40 CFR 52.220(c)(278)(i)(A) deleting 

South Coast AQMD Rule 1186 without 

replacement for implementation in the 

Antelope Valley AQMD. This paragraph 

was added in error. Originally adopted 

on February 14, 1997, no version of 

South Coast AQMD Rule 1186 has been 

approved by the EPA for 

implementation in the Antelope Valley. 

See footnote 4 in the proposed rule (63 

FR 42786, August 11, 1998).3 Thus, we 

are proposing to delete the erroneous 

regulatory language that was added by 

the November 19, 2007 final rule. 

Reorganization of the CFR Affecting 

Antelope Valley AQMD Rules 107 and 

1151: In a final rule published at 80 FR 

13495 (March 16, 2015), we approved a 

rule adopted by the Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD but the 

amendatory instructions revising 

paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(423) were 

in error such that rules that had been 

approved and listed under ‘‘(i) 

Incorporation by reference,’’ were 

erroneously moved under the ‘‘(ii) 

Additional materials’’ portion of 

paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(423), 

including Antelope Valley AQMD Rules 

107 (Certification of Submissions and 

Emission Statements) and 1151 (Motor 

Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating 

Operations), which were approved in 

2013. See 78 FR 21545 (April 11, 2013) 

(approval of Rule 107) and 78 FR 58459 

(September 24, 2013) (approval of Rule 

1151). We are proposing to revise 

paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(423) 

consistent with the rulemakings 

affecting that paragraph. 

Eastern Kern APCD 

Approval of 15% and Post-1996 Rateof-Progress (ROP) Elements for the 1- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS: On January 8, 

1997 (62 FR 1150), the EPA took final 

action to approve revisions to the 

California SIP for ozone for six 

nonattainment areas, including the San 

Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment 

area, which at the time was defined to 

include all of Kern County (as well as 

seven other counties in the Central 

Valley) and thus subject to the 

jurisdiction of two air districts: The San 

Joaquin Valley Unified APCD and the 

Eastern Kern APCD. Among other 

elements, the EPA approved ‘‘the ROP 

plans (the original 1994 submittal for 

15% ROP requirements and the Kern 

District portion of the San Joaquin 

Valley, and the 1996 substitute 

submittal for post-1996 requirements) as 

meeting the 15% ROP requirements of 

section 182(b)(1) and the post-1996 ROP 

requirements of section 182(c)(2) of the 

Act.’’ 62 FR at 1172. In the 

corresponding regulatory language of 

the January 8, 1997 final rule, the EPA 

explicitly identified the approved 15% 

and post-1996 ROP elements from the 

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD but 

failed to do the same for the Eastern 

Kern APCD. Compare 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(204)(i)(D)(1) (for the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified APCD) with 40 

CFR 52.220(c)(205)(i)(A)(1) (for the 

Eastern Kern APCD). 62 FR at 1186. To 

clarify that, in our 1997 final rule, the 

EPA approved the 15% and post-1996 

ROP demonstrations from the Eastern 

Kern APCD for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, we propose to revise 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(205)(i)(A)(1) to explicitly add 

the 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP plans 

to the existing list of approved elements. 

Incorporation by Reference of 

Approved Rules 108 and 417: On April 

22, 2004 (69 FR 21713), the EPA took 

final action to approve certain rules 

adopted by the Eastern Kern APCD, 

including Rules 108 (Stack Sampling) 

and 417 (Agricultural and Prescribed 

Burning). Due to erroneous amendatory 

instructions, the CFR was not updated 

to reflect this final action. More 

specifically, the amendatory 

instructions on page 21715 of the April 

22, 2004 final rule should have added 

paragraph (c)(321)(i)(A) to section 40 

CFR 52.220 instead of paragraph 

(c)(321)(i)(B) because the latter was 

already in use to identify certain rules 

adopted by the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified APCD. We propose to fix this 

error by correcting the amendatory 

instructions. 

El Dorado County AQMD 

Reorganization of the CFR Affecting 

El Dorado County AQMD Rule 101: On 

October 10, 2001 (66 FR 51578), the 

EPA approved revisions to the El 

Dorado County AQMD portion of the 

California SIP. Among the approved 

revisions was El Dorado County AQMD 

Rule 101 (General Provisions and 

Definitions). The final rule codifies the 

approval of Rule 101 in paragraph 40 

CFR 52.220(c)(280)(i)(B), which lists 

approved rules adopted by the El 

Dorado County AQMD, but due to a 

publishing error, the codification of the 

approval of Rule 101 is found in 

paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(280)(i)(C), 

which lists EPA-approved rules adopted 

by the Yolo-Solano AQMD. We propose 

to fix this error accordingly. 

Approval of El Dorado County AQMD 

Rule 1000.1 (Emission Statement 

Waiver): On May 26, 2004 (69 FR 

29880), the EPA approved emissions 

statement rules for seven air districts in 

California, including Rule 1000 

(Emission Statement) submitted for the 

El Dorado County AQMD portion of the 

California SIP. All but one of the 

emissions statement rules that were 

approved on May 26, 2004 include 

language providing a waiver to any class 

or category of stationary sources that 

emit less than 25 tons per year of 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) or 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) if certain 

conditions are met, which is consistent 

with CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii). 

Unlike the rules that provide for the 

waiver as a paragraph within the 

emissions statement rule itself, the El 

Dorado County AQMD provides for the 

exemption in a separate rule, namely, 

Rule 1000.1 (Emission Statement 

Waiver).4 Although Rule 1000.1 was 

submitted along with Rule 1000 on 

November 12, 1992, we only listed the 

latter rule as approved in our May 26, 

2004 final action but should have listed 

both. We propose to add Rule 1000.1 

(Emission Statement Waiver) in 

paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(190)(i)(C)(1) 

to clarify that our May 26, 2004 

approval included both Rule 1000 and 

Rule 1000.1. 

Reorganization of the CFR Affecting 

El Dorado County AQMD Actions Listed 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43584 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

5Since 1997, the EPA has approved newer 

versions of Lake County AQMD Tables I and II, and 

thus, as a practical matter, reinstatement of Tables 

I through IV, as approved in 1978, would only 

reinstate Tables III and IV as part of the current 

applicable SIP for the Lake County AQMD portion 

of the California SIP. 

in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(27)(viii): On July 9, 

2008 (73 FR 39237), the EPA approved 

revisions to the Northern Sierra AQMD 

portion of the California SIP, including 

rescission of certain rules that had been 

adopted by the Nevada County APCD. 

In the July 9, 2008 final rule, we added 

regulatory language to reflect the rule 

rescissions in paragraph 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(27)(vii), which lists rules and 

rule rescissions applicable to the 

Nevada County APCD portion of the 

California SIP, but due to a publisher’s 

error, the regulatory language is found 

in paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(27)(viii), 

which lists rules and rule rescissions 

applicable to the El Dorado County 

AQMD portion of the California SIP. We 

propose to fix this error accordingly. 

Great Basin Unified APCD 

Disapproval of Great Basin Unified 

APCD Rule 401 (Fugitive Dust): On 

August 13, 2009 (74 FR 40750), the EPA 

took final action to disapprove revisions 

to the Great Basin Unified APCD portion 

of the California SIP. Specifically, the 

EPA disapproved Great Basin Unified 

APCD Rule 401 (Fugitive Dust); 

however, we mistakenly added a 

paragraph incorporating this rule by 

reference in 40 CFR 52.220 

(‘‘Identification of plan’’) as if we had 

approved the rule as part of the 

California SIP. To correct this error, we 

propose to remove the corresponding 

paragraph (i.e., 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(350)(i)(A)(2)) from 40 CFR 

52.220. 

Lake County AQMD 

Reinstatement of Lake County AQMD 

Tables I through IV: On June 27, 1997 

(62 FR 34641), the EPA took final action 

to correct certain errors in previous 

actions on SIPs and SIP revisions by 

deleting without replacement the 

affected local rules. With respect to 

certain rules that were adopted by the 

Lake County AQMD, submitted by 

California on February 10, 1977, and 

approved by the EPA on August 4, 1978 

(43 FR 34463), we added a paragraph, 

i.e., (c)(37)(iv)(D), to 40 CFR 52.220 

(Identification of plan) that states: 

‘‘Previously approved on August 4, 1978 

and now deleted without replacement 

Rules . . . , and Tables I to V.’’ 62 FR 

at 34645. First, Lake County AQMD 

Table V (Table of Standards, Applicable 

Statewide) was disapproved on August 

4, 1978 (43 FR 34463), and because it 

was disapproved, it was not part of the 

SIP and need not be deleted. Second, 

Lake County AQMD Table I (Agencies 

Designated to Issue Agricultural 

Burning Permits), Table II (Daily Quota 

of Agricultural Material that May Be 

Burned by Watershed), Table III (Guides 

for Estimating Dry Weights of Several 

California Fuel Types), and Table IV 

(Particulate Matter Emissions Standard 

for Process Units and Process 

Equipment) are substantive provisions 

relied upon by certain prohibitory rules 

and were not approved ‘‘in error.’’ We 

are proposing to reinstate Lake County 

AQMD Tables I through IV by revising 

the regulatory language in 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(37)(iv)(D) accordingly.5

Mojave Desert AQMD 

Rescission of Riverside County APCD 

Regulation V (Orchard or Citrus Grove 

Heaters): Riverside County APCD 

Regulation V includes the following 

rules: Rule 75 (Definitions), Rule 76 

(Exceptions), Rule 77 (Permits 

Required), Rule 78 (Application of 

Permits), Rule 79 (Action on 

Applications), Rule 80 (Standards for 

Granting Permits), Rule 81 (General 

Restrictions and Conditions of Permits), 

Rule 83 (Denial of Applications), Rule 

84 (Appeals), Rule 85 (Classification of 

Orchard, Field Crop or Citrus Grove 

Heaters), and Rule 86 (Prohibitions). 

California submitted Riverside County 

APCD Regulation V on February 21, 

1972 as part of the original California 

SIP, and the EPA approved it on May 

31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). 

Regulation V was rescinded in the 

Southeast Desert portion of Riverside 

County at 43 FR 40011 (September 8, 

1978), but was reinstated throughout 

Riverside County when the EPA 

approved a SIP revision extending the 

jurisdiction of the South Coast AQMD to 

the Southeast Desert portion of the 

county and replacing the SIP rules that 

had been in effect for the Southeast 

Desert portion of Riverside County with 

those that applied in the South Coast 

AQMD. See 47 FR 25013 (June 9, 1982). 

At that time, the applicable SIP for the 

South Coast AQMD included Regulation 

V because the EPA inadvertently failed 

to codify the rescission of the rules in 

an action affecting the South Coast 

AQMD portion of Riverside County 

published at 43 FR 25684 (June 14, 

1978). In the June 14, 1978, final action, 

the EPA indicated: ‘‘The changes to 

Regulation VI, Orchard Grove Heaters, 

contained in the above mentioned 

submittals and being acted upon by this 

notice include total replacement of 

county rules by California Health and 

Safety Code sections covering Orchard 

Heaters.’’ 43 FR at 25685. However, the 

regulatory text deleting Regulation V 

without replacement was not included 

in the final rule, and thus, Regulation V 

became part of the legacy SIP inherited 

by the Mojave Desert AQMD when the 

Palo Verde Valley portion of Riverside 

County joined the Mojave Desert AQMD 

in 1994. In this action, we are proposing 

to add regulatory text deleting 

Regulation V consistent with our action 

as described in the preamble to the June 

14, 1978 final rule and to delete 

Riverside County APCD Regulation V 

from the South Coast AQMD portion of 

the California SIP and to thereby delete 

Riverside County APCD Regulation V 

from the Mojave Desert AQMD portion 

of the California SIP. 

Monterey Bay Air Resources District 

Disapproval of Monterey Bay Air 

Resources District Rule 200 (Permits 

Required): On March 26, 2015 (80 FR 

15899), the EPA took final action to 

approve or disapprove certain revisions 

to the Monterey Bay Air Resources 

District portion of the California SIP. 

One of the actions finalized on March 

26, 2015 was the disapproval of an 

amended version of Rule 200 (Permits 

Required) that had been submitted on 

May 8, 2001. Although we disapproved 

Rule 200, we mistakenly added a 

paragraph incorporating this rule by 

reference in 40 CFR 52.220 

(‘‘Identification of plan’’) as if we had 

approved the rule as part of the 

California SIP. See 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(284)(i)(A)(5). To correct this 

error, we propose to remove the 

corresponding paragraph (i.e., 

(c)(284)(i)(A)(5)) from section 52.220 

(Identification of plan). 

Rescission of Monterey Bay Air 

Resources District Rule 208 (Standards 

for Granting Permits to Operate): In that 

same March 26, 2015, final rule (80 FR 

15899), we approved the rescission of 

Monterey Bay District Rule 208 

(Standards for Granting Permits to 

Operate), which had been submitted on 

February 6, 1985 and approved on July 

13, 1987 (52 FR 26148), but we did not 

add corresponding regulatory language 

to remove the rule from the SIP. We 

propose to add a paragraph to 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(159)(iii) to indicate that 

Monterey Bay District Rule 208 has been 

deleted without replacement. 

North Coast Unified AQMD 

Erroneous Amendatory Instruction for 

Disapproval of Certain Open Burning 

Rules: On May 18, 1981 (46 FR 27116), 

the EPA disapproved certain open 

burning rules adopted by the Santa 

Barbara County APCD, but the 

amendatory instructions erroneously 

listed the disapproved rules in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43585 

subparagraph (6) of 40 CFR 52.273(a), 

which lists disapproved rules adopted 

by the Humboldt County APCD. The 

correct listing should have been in 

subparagraph (19), which lists 

disapproved rules adopted by the Santa 

Barbara County APCD. The erroneous 

amendatory instructions were based on 

the previous format of 40 CFR 52.273 

and failed to account for the complete 

re-organization of 40 CFR 52.273 that 

the EPA published that same year at 46 

FR 3883 (January 16, 1981). We are 

proposing to revise paragraph 40 CFR 

52.273 to accurately reflect the 1981 

disapproval of the Santa Barbara County 

open burning rules. 

Northern Sierra AQMD 

Codification of Approval of Northern 

Sierra AQMD Rules 212 and 213: On 

September 16, 1997 (62 FR 48480), the 

EPA took direct final action to approve 

certain revisions to the Northern Sierra 

AQMD portion of the California SIP. In 

the direct final rule, we indicated that 

we were approving Northern Sierra 

AQMD Rules 212 (Process Weight 

Table) and 213 (Storage of Gasoline 

Products) along with many other district 

rules, see 62 FR 48481/column 1 and 62 

FR at 48482/column 2; however, in the 

regulatory portion of the direct final 

rule, we failed to include Rules 212 and 

213 in the list of approved rules. We are 

proposing to add Rules 212 and 213 to 

the list of approved rules in 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(246)(i)(A)(1). 

Reinstatement of Nevada County 

APCD Rule 404 (Excluding Paragraph 

(D)): On June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34641), 

the EPA took final action to correct 

certain errors in previous actions on 

SIPs and SIP revisions by deleting 

without replacement the affected local 

rules. With respect to a rule that was 

adopted by the Nevada County APCD, 

submitted by California on October 15, 

1979, and approved by the EPA on May 

18, 1981 (46 FR 27115), we added a 

paragraph, i.e., (c)(52)(xii)(B), to 40 CFR 

52.220 (Identification of plan) that 

states: ‘‘Previously approved on May 18, 

1981 and now deleted without 

replacement Rule 404.’’ 62 FR at 34646. 

In our proposed error correction, 61 FR 

38664 (July 25, 1996), we indicated that 

the rule we intended to delete was Rule 

404 (‘‘Emergency Variance 

Procedures’’), but the correct title of 

Rule 404 is ‘‘Upset Conditions, 

Breakdown or Scheduled Maintenance,’’ 

and ‘‘Emergency Variance Procedures’’ 

is the title of paragraph (D) of Rule 404. 

Thus, we intended to delete only 

paragraph (D) of Rule 404 but 

erroneously indicated in the final rule 

that we were deleting without 

replacement the entire rule. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

paragraph (c)(52)(xii)(B) to refer only to 

paragraph (D) of Rule 404. 

V. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

The EPA has reviewed the rules listed 

in Table 1 above and determined that 

they were previously approved into the 

applicable California SIP in error. 

Deletion of these rules will not relax the 

applicable SIP and is consistent with 

the Act. Therefore, under section 

110(k)(6) of the CAA, the EPA is 

proposing to delete the rules listed in 

Table 1 above and any earlier versions 

of these rules from the corresponding air 

pollution control district portions of the 

California SIP. These rules include 

general nuisance provisions, federal 

NSPS or NESHAP requirements, hearing 

board procedures, variance provisions, 

and local fee provisions. We are also 

proposing to make certain other 

corrections to fix errors in previous 

rulemakings on California SIP revisions 

as described in section IV above. We 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal until September 26, 

2018. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, for the most part, the 

EPA is proposing to delete rules that 

were previously incorporated by 

reference from the applicable California 

SIP. However, we are also proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that reinstates incorporation by 

reference of certain rules that were 

previously incorporated by reference 

but deleted in error, and regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by reference 

of rules not previously incorporated. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to reinstate 

incorporation by reference Lake County 

AQMD Table I (Agencies Designated to 

Issue Agricultural Burning Permits), 

Table II (Daily Quota of Agricultural 

Material that May Be Burned by 

Watershed), Table III (Guides for 

Estimating Dry Weights of Several 

California Fuel Types), and Table IV 

(Particulate Matter Emissions Standard 

for Process Units and Process 

Equipment) and Nevada County APCD 

Rule 404 (Upset Conditions, Breakdown 

or Scheduled Maintenance) (excluding 

paragraph (D)) and to incorporate by 

reference Eastern Kern APCD Rules 108 

(Stack Sampling) and 417 (Agricultural 

and Prescribed Burning), El Dorado 

County AQMD Rule 1000.1 (Emission 

Statement Waiver) and Northern Sierra 

AQMD Rules 212 (Process Weight 

Table) and 213 (Storage of Gasoline 

Products), as described in section IV of 

this preamble. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these materials 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and at the EPA Region IX Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely corrects errors in previous 

rulemakings and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43586 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 8, 2018. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18408 Filed 8–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0611; FRL–9982– 

50—Region 6] 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; State of Texas; 

Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility 

Transport Federal Implementation 

Plan: Proposal of Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) and 

Interstate Transport Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On October 17, 2017, the EPA 

published a final rule partially 

approving the 2009 Texas Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission and promulgated a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Texas to 

address certain outstanding Clean Air 

Act (CAA) regional haze requirements. 

Because the EPA believes that certain 

aspects of the final rule could benefit 

from additional public input, we are 

proposing to affirm our October 2017 

SIP approval and FIP promulgation and 

to provide the public with an 

opportunity to comment on relevant 

aspects, as well as other specified 

related issues. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 26, 2018. 

Public Hearing: 

We are holding an information 

session, for the purpose of providing 

additional information and informal 

discussion for our proposal. We are also 

holding a public hearing to accept oral 

comments into the record: 

Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 

Time: Information Session: 1:30 p.m.– 

3:30 p.m. 

Public hearing: 4:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m. 

(including a short break) 

Location: Joe C. Thompson Conference 

Center (on the University of Texas 

(UT) Campus), Room 1.110, 2405 

Robert Dedman Drive, Austin, Texas 

78712. 

For additional logistical information 

regarding the public hearing please see 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this action. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2016–0611, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to R6_

TX-BART@epa.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 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 at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

The Texas regional haze SIP is also 

available online at: https://

www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/bart/ 

haze_sip.html. It is also available for 

public inspection during official 

business hours, by appointment, at the 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 

Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Huser, Air Planning Section 

(6MM–AA), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–7347; email address 

Huser.Jennifer@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Joe C. Thompson Conference Center 

parking is adjacent to the building in 

Lot 40, located at the intersection of East 

Dean Keeton Street and Red River 

Street. Additional parking is available at 

the Manor Garage, located at the 

intersection of Clyde Littlefield Drive 

and Robert Dedman Drive. If arranged in 

advance, the UT Parking Office will 

allow buses to park along Dedman Drive 

near the Manor Garage for a fee. 

The public hearing will provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present information and opinions to us 

concerning our proposal. Interested 

parties may also submit written 

comments, as discussed in the proposal. 

Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as any oral 

comments and supporting information 

presented at the public hearing. We will 

not respond to comments during the 

public hearing. When we publish our 

final action, we will provide written 

responses to all significant oral and 

written comments received on our 

proposal. To provide opportunities for 

questions and discussion, we will hold 

an information session prior to the 

public hearing. During the information 

session, EPA staff will be available to 

informally answer questions on our 

proposed action. Any comments made 

to EPA staff during an information 

session must still be provided orally 

during the public hearing, or formally in 

writing within 30 days after completion 

of the hearings, in order to be 

considered in the record. 

At the public hearing, the hearing 

officer may limit the time available for 

each commenter to address the proposal 

to three minutes or less if the hearing 

officer determines it to be appropriate. 

We will not be providing equipment for 

commenters to show overhead slides or 

make computerized slide presentations. 

Any person may provide written or oral 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1