```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10589-10591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03249]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0064; FRL-9777-7]

Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; 
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; Stationary 
Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to fully approve two permitting rules 
submitted by California as a revision to the Sacramento Metropolitan 
Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD or District) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules were adopted by 
the SMAQMD to regulate the construction and modification of stationary 
sources of air pollution within Sacramento County. EPA is proposing to 
approve this SIP revision based on the Agency's conclusion that the 
rules are consistent with applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, 
policies and guidance. Final approval of these rules would make the 
rules federally enforceable and correct program deficiencies identified 
in a previous EPA rulemaking on July 20, 2011.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by March 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0064, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov.

[[Page 10590]]

    3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://www.regulations.gov is an 
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under EPA-R09-
OAR-2013-0064. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 
all documents are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some 
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and 
some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To 
inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during 
normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 
972-3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Proposed action and request for public comment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the 
dates they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency              Rule No.       Rule title             Amended/Adopted            Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMAQMD..........................          214  Federal New Source  Amended 8/23/12..............         9/26/12
                                                Review.
SMAQMD..........................          217  Public Notice       Adopted 8/23/12..............         9/26/12
                                                Requirements for
                                                Permits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's SIP submittal includes evidence of public notice and 
adoption of these regulations. We find that the submittals for SMAQMD 
Rules 214 and 217 meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    EPA approved a previous version of Rule 214 into the SIP on July 
20, 2011 (76 FR 43183). There are no previous versions of Rule 217 in 
the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP include, among 
other things, a preconstruction permit program to provide for 
regulation of the construction and modification of stationary sources 
within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are achieved, including 
a permit program as required in parts C and D of title I of the CAA. 
For areas designated as nonattainment for one or more NAAQS, the SIP 
must include preconstruction permit requirements for new or modified 
major stationary sources of such nonattainment pollutant(s), commonly 
referred to as ``Nonattainment New Source Review'' or ``NSR.'' CAA 
172(c)(5).
    Sacramento County is currently designated and classified as severe 
nonattainment for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and moderate 
nonattainment for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The area is also 
designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 
See 40 CFR 81.305. Therefore, California is required under part D of 
title I of the Act to adopt and implement a SIP-approved NSR program 
for the Sacramento area that applies, at minimum, to new or modified 
major stationary sources of the following pollutants: volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter 
of 10 microns of less (PM10), particular matter of 2.5 
microns or less (PM2.5) and sulfur oxides 
(SOX).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ VOCs and NOX are subject to NSR as precursors to 
ozone, and NOX and SOX are subject to NSR as 
precursors to PM2.5 in Sacramento County. See 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 214 (Federal New Source Review) implements the NSR 
requirements under part D of title I of the CAA for new or modified 
major stationary sources of these nonattainment pollutants within 
Sacramento County. Rule 217 (Public Notice Requirements for Permits) 
contains the public notice and other procedural requirements for 
issuance of permits to all minor sources and to new or modified major 
sources of nonattainment pollutants in the County.\2\ The SMAQMD 
amended Rule 214 and adopted Rule 217 to correct program deficiencies 
identified by EPA on July 20, 2011 (76 FR 43183).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ New or modified major stationary sources of air pollutants 
for which Sacramento County is designated attainment or 
unclassifiable are subject to separate permitting procedures and 
requirements under Rule 203 (Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration), which EPA fully approved into the California SIP on 
July 20, 2011. See 76 FR 43183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    EPA has reviewed the submitted permitting rules for compliance with 
the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA's 
regulations for stationary source permit programs in 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart I (``Review of New Sources and Modifications''), and the CAA

[[Page 10591]]

requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l).\3\ As explained 
below, EPA is proposing to fully approve the submitted rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 110(l) of the CAA requires SIP revisions to be 
subject to reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption 
and submittal by states to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any 
SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other 
applicable requirement of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require 
that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice 
and public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural 
requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These 
requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement 
in the relevant geographic area, of a public hearing on the proposed 
revisions, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an 
opportunity for a public hearing.
    Based on our review of the public process documentation included in 
the SMAQMD's September 26, 2012 rule submittals, we find that the State 
has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for 
comment and public hearings prior to adoption and submittal of these 
rules to EPA.
    With respect to substantive requirements, EPA has reviewed the 
submitted rules in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements 
that apply to NSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act 
and the general public notice requirements for stationary source 
permits in 40 CFR section 51.161. Based on our evaluation of these 
rules, we are proposing to fully approve Rule 214 as satisfying the CAA 
and regulatory requirements for NSR permit programs in part D of title 
I of the Act and EPA's NSR implementing regulations in 40 CFR section 
51.165 for new or modified major stationary sources proposing to locate 
in Sacramento County. Additionally, we are proposing to fully approve 
Rule 217 as satisfying the general public notice requirements in 40 CFR 
51.161 for both minor source permits and major source NSR permits 
issued in Sacramento County. Final approval of Rule 214 and Rule 217 
would correct all deficiencies in SMAQMD's permit programs identified 
in our July 20, 2011 final rule. See 76 FR 43183. The Technical Support 
Document (TSD) for this action contains a more detailed discussion of 
our evaluation.

C. Proposed action and request for public comment

    For the reasons given above and described more fully in the TSD for 
this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to fully approve Rule 214 and Rule 
217 into the California SIP pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3). We will 
accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve State law as 
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 29, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-03249 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```