```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12267-12269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04000]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0094; FRL-9783-2]

Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Placer 
County Air Pollution Control District and Feather River Air Quality 
Management District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
permitting rules submitted by California as a revision to the Placer 
County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Feather River Air 
Quality Management District (FRAQMD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules were adopted by the PCAPCD and 
FRAQMD to regulate the construction and modification of stationary 
sources of air pollution within each District. EPA is proposing to 
approve these SIP revisions 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 (76 FR 44809, July 27, 2011).

DATES: Any comments must arrive by March 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0094, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions.
    2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov.
    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:[sol][sol]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:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or email. 
http:[sol][sol]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-2013-0094. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California. While all documents are listed at http:[sol][sol]

[[Page 12268]]

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        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAPCD...............................            502    New Source Review.......        10/31/11        11/18/11
FRAQMD...............................             10.1  New Source Review.......          2/7/12         9/21/12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's SIP submittal includes evidence of public notice and 
adoption of these regulations. We find that the submittals for PCAPCD 
and FRAQMD Rules 502 and 10.1, respectively, 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 Rules 502 and 10.1, into the SIP 
on July 27, 2011 (76 FR 44809).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In our previous action, we stated that Rule 502, New Source 
Review would replace existing SIP approved Rule 508, New Source 
Review. However, in our final action, we did not include the proper 
regulatory text to remove Rule 508 from the SIP. As part of this 
action, we will include the necessary regulatory text to remove Rule 
508 from the SIP, since it has already been replaced by Rule 502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
    The Sacramento Valley Air Basin and Mountain Counties Air Basin 
portions of Placer County are currently designated and classified as 
severe nonattainment for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 
Sacramento Valley Air Basin portion of Placer County is currently 
designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 
See 40 CFR 81.305.
    The FRAQMD contains all or parts of the Sacramento Valley (Sutter 
County portion), the Yuba City-Marysville (all of Sutter County and a 
portion of Yuba County) and the Sutter Buttes (Sutter County portion) 
Air Basins. The Sacramento Valley portion is currently designated and 
classified as severe nonattainment for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The Sutter Buttes portion is currently 
designated and classified as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The Yuba City-Marysville portion is currently 
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 
nonattainment portions of each District that applies, at a minimum, to 
new or modified major stationary sources of the following pollutants: 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), 
particular matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) and sulfur 
oxides (SOX).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 both Districts. See 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 502 (New Source Review) and Rule 10.1 (New Source Review) 
implement the NSR requirements under part D of title I of the CAA for 
new or modified major stationary sources of these nonattainment 
pollutants within each District. The PCAPCD and FRAQMD amended Rules 
502 and 10.1, respectively, to correct program deficiencies identified 
by EPA on July 27, 2011 (76 FR 44809).

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 
requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l).\3\ As explained 
below, EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval for 
each of 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

[[Page 12269]]

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 PCAPCD's November 18, 2011 and FRAQMD's September 21, 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. 
Based on our evaluation of these rules, except for the deficiencies 
noted in the TSDs and summarized in the Proposed Action section of this 
notice, we are proposing to find that the rules meet 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 within 
each District. Final approval of Rule 502 and Rule 10.1 would correct 
all deficiencies in PCAPCD's and FRAQMD's permit programs identified in 
our July 27, 2011 final rule. See 76 FR 44809. The Technical Support 
Documents (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, under CAA section 110(k)(3) and 
301(a), we are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
Rule 502 and Rule 10.1 because, although each rule would strengthen the 
SIP and they meet the applicable requirements for SIPs in general, they 
contain certain deficiencies related to NSR SIPs in particular that 
prevent our full approval. The primary deficiencies for Rule 502 
pertain to an inadequate definition of the term ``Regulated NSR 
Pollutant'' and a missing justification for the stated PM2.5 
interpollutant offset ratios. The primary deficiencies for Rule 10.1 
pertain to an inadequate definition of the term ``Regulated NSR 
Pollutant'' and certain language in new Sections B.4 and B.5 which 
exempts pollutants which are designated nonattainment when EPA approves 
a redesignation to attainment for that pollutant. As worded, the 
provision is too broad, in that it exempts such pollutants from all the 
requirements of Section E of the rule, rather than just those 
provisions which apply to major sources of nonattainment pollutants. 
Please refer to the TSD for this action for additional information. The 
deficiencies can be remedied by each District by revising their rule to 
update the definition of ``Regulated Air Pollutant'' and correcting the 
rule language cited above. If EPA finalizes the limited approval and 
limited disapproval action, as proposed, then a sanctions clock, and 
EPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal implementation plan, would be 
triggered because the revisions to the District rule for which a 
limited approval and limited disapproval is proposed is required under 
the 8-hour ozone standard and 24-hr PM2.5 standard.
    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: February 12, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-04000 Filed 2-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```