[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19932-19935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08467]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0082; 9926-15-Region 9]


Revisions to the California SIP, Ventura & Eastern Kern Air 
Pollution Control Districts; Permit Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 
(VCAPCD) and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) 
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 
revisions clarify, update, and revise exemptions from New Source Review 
(NSR) permitting requirements, for various air pollution sources.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-

[[Page 19933]]

OAR-2015-0082, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#affd96cec6dddfcaddc2c6dbdcefcadfce81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c597fca4acb7b5a0b7a8acb1b685a0b5a4eba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 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 www.regulations.gov or email. 
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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 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, 
large maps), 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: Larry Maurin, EPA Region IX, (415) 
972-3943, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bed3dfcbccd7d090d2dfc9ccdbd0dddbfedbcedf90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89e4e8fcfbe0e7a7e5e8fefbece7eaecc9ecf9e8a7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 and rule 
revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. 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 revised by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title          Revision date  Submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VCAPCD................................              23  Exemption from Permit...        11/12/13        05/13/14
EKAPCD................................             202  Permit Exemptions.......        01/13/11        06/21/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 15, 2011 and July 18, 2014, EPA determined that the 
submittal for EKAPCD Rule 202 and VCAPCD Rule 23, respectively, met the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The completeness 
criteria must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved an earlier version of VCAPCD Rule 23 into the SIP on 
December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76567). Since the last approval of Rule 23 into 
the SIP, VCAPCD has adopted revisions on November 11, 2003; April 13, 
2004; October 12, 2004; September 12, 2006; April 8, 2008; and April 
12, 2011.
    EKAPCD Rule 202 was last approved into the SIP on July 6, 1982 (47 
FR 29231). Since the last approval of Rule 202 into the SIP, EKAPCD has 
adopted revisions on April 25, 1983; November 18, 1985; August 22, 
1989; April 30, 1990; August 19, 1991; May 2, 1996; January 8, 1998; 
March 13, 2003; and January 8, 2004.
    All of these revisions were submitted to EPA; however, EPA has not 
taken action on any of these submittals. While we can act on only the 
most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided 
with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and rule revisions?

    Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit 
regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, 
particulate matter and other air pollutants which harm human health and 
the environment. Permitting rules were developed as part of the local 
air district's programs to control these pollutants.
    The purposes of VCAPCD Rule 23 (Exemption from Permit) and EKAPCD 
Rule 202 (Permit Exemptions) are to identify when a new or modified 
source is exempted from the requirement to obtain a permit prior to 
construction. Rule 202 also requires recordkeeping to verify and 
maintain any exemption.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the new and 
existing exemptions in the submitted rules include CAA sections 110(a) 
and 110(l). Section 110(a) requires that SIP rules be enforceable, 
while section 110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions that would 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and 
reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the 
Act. In addition, for satisfying CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), we have 
reviewed the submitted rules for compliance with EPA implementing 
regulations for NSR, including 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR 51.165.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

1. Attainment Status of VCAPCD and EKAPCD
    Ventura County is designated as a serious nonattainment area for 
the 2008 and 1997 federal 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS). It is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for 
all other NAAQS.
    Eastern Kern County is designated as a marginal and moderate 
nonattainment area for the 2008 and 1997 federal 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 
respectively, and as a serious nonattainment area for the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. It is designated as attainment or unclassifiable 
for all other NAAQS.

[[Page 19934]]

2. Minor NSR Permitting Requirements and Analysis
    The revised VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules affect the minor source NSR 
programs by revising existing exemptions, adding new exemptions, and 
exempting minor agricultural sources with emissions less than 50 
percent of the major source thresholds.
    The requirements in 40 CFR 51.160, subsections (a) through (e), 
provide the basis for evaluating exemptions from NSR permitting. The 
basic purpose of NSR permitting is set forth in 40 CFR 51.160(a), 
requiring NSR SIPs to set forth legally enforceable procedures that 
enable the State or local agency to determine whether the construction 
or modification of a stationary source would result in a violation of 
applicable portions of the control strategy, or would interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. Section 51.160(e) provides that 
the procedures must identify types and sizes of stationary sources that 
will be subject to NSR permitting review. We view this provision as 
allowing a State to exempt certain types and sizes of stationary 
sources so long as the program continues to serve the purposes outlined 
in 40 CFR 51.160(a). Thus, the revised and new exemptions discussed in 
detail in the TSDs, and the exemptions for non-major agricultural 
sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive emissions) are less 
than 50 percent of the major source thresholds are approvable so long 
as the minor source permitting programs (i.e. including the exemptions) 
continue to provide the necessary information to allow the Districts to 
determine whether construction of new or modified stationary sources 
would result in a violation of applicable portions of the control 
strategies or would result in interference with attainment or 
maintenance of a NAAQS.
    Under 40 CFR 51.160, the Districts have discretion in conducting 
the minor sources permitting programs to exempt certain small or de 
minimus sources. Congress directed the States and Districts to exercise 
the primary responsibility under the CAA to tailor air quality control 
measures, including minor source permitting programs, to the State's 
needs. See Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975) (States make the 
primary decisions over how to achieve CAA requirements); Union Electric 
Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976); Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527 (6th 
Cir. 2006).
    EPA has reviewed the submitted VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules in 
accordance with CAA Section 110(a) and 40 CFR 51.160 as described 
above. In our evaluation, EPA has determined that the emissions which 
may result from the revised and new exemptions set forth in the 
submitted VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules meet acceptable de minimus criteria 
as allowed in 40 CFR 51.160(e). See the attached TSDs for each district 
for more information on these revised and new exemptions.
    The submitted rules also add a new exemption for new or modified 
minor agricultural sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive 
PM<INF>10</INF>) would be less than 50% of the applicable major source 
thresholds. With respect to such minor agricultural sources, we 
conclude that this exemption is approvable because, as discussed in 
more detail below in addressing CAA Section 110(l), the exemption will 
not result in a violation of applicable portions of the control 
strategies and would not result in interference with attainment or 
maintenance of a NAAQS.
    EPA has also evaluated the revised VCAPCD Rule 23 and EKAPCD Rule 
202 for consistency with CAA Section 110(l) requirements. As noted 
above, the new exemptions in Rule 23, would result in de minimus 
increases in emissions. For the new exemption for new or modified minor 
agricultural sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive 
PM<INF>10</INF>) would be less than 50% of the applicable major source 
thresholds, EPA has determined that this exemption would not interfere 
with reasonable further progress and attainment of any of the NAAQS in 
Ventura County or any other applicable requirement of the CAA and thus 
is approvable under sections 110(l) because of (1) the limited nature 
of all new exemptions, (2) the presence of other regulatory controls 
for exempt agricultural sources, (3) the low background concentrations 
for the NAAQS pollutants in Ventura County other than ozone, and (4) 
the fact that the submitted ozone plan for Ventura County does not rely 
on NSR controls for minor agricultural sources and shows that the 
downward trend in ozone precursor emissions in Ventura County is 
predicted to continue well into the future.
    The new exemptions in EKAPCD Rule 202 will result in de minimus 
increases in emissions and would result in a strengthening of the SIP. 
For the new exemption for new or modified minor agricultural sources 
whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive PM<INF>10</INF>) would be 
less than 50% of the applicable major source thresholds, EPA has 
determined that this exemption would not interfere with reasonable 
further progress and attainment of any of the NAAQS in the EKAPCD or 
any other applicable requirement of the CAA and thus is approvable 
under CAA Section 110(l). Similar to Ventura County, these revisions 
are approvable for EKAPCD under section 110(l) of the Act because of 
(1) the limited nature of all new exemptions, (2) the narrowing of 
several existing exemptions, (3) the presence of other regulatory 
controls for exempt agricultural sources, (4) the low ambient 
concentrations for the NAAQS pollutants in EKAPCD other than ozone, and 
(5) emissions projections that assume no NSR controls for minor 
agricultural sources yet the emissions projections decline or hold 
steady well into the future for PM<INF>10</INF> and the ozone 
precursors.
    The TSDs for each District rule have more information on our 
evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for 
the next time the local agencies modify the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA considers the submitted rules to fulfill all relevant 
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in 
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public 
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new 
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final 
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally 
enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions 
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules regarding exemptions from permit 
requirements discussed in section I.A of this preamble. The EPA has 
made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available 
electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the 
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 
more information).

[[Page 19935]]

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 action 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Particulate matter, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 20, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-08467 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>