Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0427-0021
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits; New Source Review
Posted Date: 2023-07-03T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42621-42640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13763]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0427; FRL-10165-02-R9]

Air Plan Approval and Limited Approval-Limited Disapproval; 
California; Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District; Stationary 
Source Permits; New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing an 
approval and a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to 
the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD or 
``District'') portion of the California State Implementation Plan 
(SIP). These revisions concern the District's New Source Review (NSR) 
permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution under 
part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). This action 
updates the District's portion of the California SIP with nine revised 
rules. Under the authority of the CAA, this action simultaneously 
approves local rules that regulate emission sources and directs the 
District to correct rule deficiencies.

DATES: This rule is effective August 2, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0427. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form.

[[Page 42622]]

Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability 
information. If you need assistance in a language other than English or 
if you are a person with a disability who needs a reasonable 
accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person identified 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaheerah Kelly, Rules Office (AIR-3-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4156, 
[email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On January 30, 2023 (88 FR 5826), the EPA proposed approval of 
three rules and a limited approval and limited disapproval of six rules 
that were submitted for incorporation into the California SIP. Table 1 
shows the rules in the California SIP that will be removed or 
superseded by this action.

                                 Table 1--SIP Rules To Be Removed or Superseded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Amendment or                     EPA action
             Rule                 Rule title     adoption date  Submittal date       date          FR citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Regulation II (Permits)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 206.....................  Posting of            2/21/1976       4/21/1976       11/9/1978  43 FR 52237.
                                Permit to
                                Operate.
Rule 219.....................  Equipment Not          9/4/1981      10/23/1981        7/6/1982  47 FR 29231.
                                Requiring a
                                Written Permit
                                Pursuant to
                                Regulation II.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Regulation XIII (New Source Review)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1301....................  General........       12/7/1995       8/28/1996       12/4/1996  61 FR 64291.
Rule 1302....................  Definitions....       12/7/1995       8/28/1996       12/4/1996  61 FR 64291.
Rule 1303....................  Requirements...       5/10/1996       8/28/1996       12/4/1996  61 FR 64291.
Rule 1304....................  Exemptions.....       6/14/1996       8/28/1996       12/4/1996  61 FR 64291.
Rule 1306....................  Emission              6/14/1996       8/28/1996       12/4/1996  61 FR 64291.
                                Calculations.
Rule 1309....................  Emission              12/7/1995       8/28/1996       12/4/1996  61 FR 64291.
                                Reduction
                                Credits.
Rule 1309.1..................  Priority              12/7/1995       8/28/1996       12/4/1996  61 FR 64291.
                                Reserve.
Rule 1310....................  Analysis and          12/7/1995       8/28/1996       12/4/1996  61 FR 64291.
                                Reporting.
Rule 1311....................  Power Plants...       2/25/1980        4/3/1980       1/21/1981  46 FR 5965.
Rule 1313....................  Permits to            12/7/1995       8/28/1996       12/4/1996  61 FR 64291.
                                Operate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows the rules that the State submitted for inclusion in 
the California SIP. The submitted rules listed in Table 2 would replace 
the current EPA-approved SIP rules that are listed in Table 1. The rule 
subsections contained in 1302(C)(5) and 1302(C)(7)(c) are not submitted 
for inclusion in the California SIP because they are requirements for 
regulating toxic air contaminants (TAC) and hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) under District Rule 1401, ``New Source Review for Toxic Air 
Contaminants.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subsections 1302(C)(5)(d) and 1302(C)(7)(c)(iii) of Rule 
1302 specifically state that subsections 1302(C)(5) and 
1302(C)(7)(c) are not submitted to the EPA and are not intended to 
be included as part of the California SIP.

                                            Table 2--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Adoption or   Submittal date
                    Rule                                  Rule title              amendment date        \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Regulation II (Permits)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 219...................................  Equipment not Requiring a Permit...       6/15/2021        8/3/2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Regulation XIII (New Source Review)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1300..................................  New Source Review General..........       7/20/2021        8/3/2021
Rule 1301..................................  New Source Review Definitions......       7/20/2021        8/3/2021
Rule 1302 (except 1302(C)(5) and             New Source Review Procedure........       7/20/2021        8/3/2021
 1302(C)(7)(c)).
Rule 1303..................................  New Source Review Requirements.....       7/20/2021        8/3/2021
Rule 1304..................................  New Source Review Emissions               7/20/2021        8/3/2021
                                              Calculations.
Rule 1305..................................  New Source Review Emissions Offsets       7/20/2021        8/3/2021
Rule 1306..................................  New Source Review for Electric            7/20/2021        8/3/2021
                                              Energy Generating Facilities.
Rule 1309..................................  Emission Reduction Credit Banking..       7/20/2021        8/3/2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The submittal for Rules 219, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, and 1309 was transmitted to the EPA
  via a letter from CARB dated August 3, 2021.

[[Page 42623]]

    Table 3 shows the previous versions of Rule 219 and other rules 
under Regulation XIII codified in 40 CFR 52.220 prior to July 1, 1997, 
that will be superseded by the submitted versions of Rule 219 as 
amended on June 15, 2021, and Rules 1300 through 1306 and 1309 as 
amended on July 20, 2021, upon the EPA's approval of these rules into 
the California SIP. The District was officially formed on July 1, 1997, 
as the Antelope Valley APCD (AVAPCD), the agency with jurisdiction over 
the Los Angeles County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin; the 
AVAPCD was changed to the AVAQMD on January 1, 2002. Prior to that 
time, the jurisdiction of the Antelope Valley area was, at different 
points in time, part of the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control 
District (APCD), the Southern California APCD, and the South Coast 
AQMD.

                         Table 3--Codified Rules in 40 CFR 52.220 Prior to July 1, 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         EPA approval date (FR
                  Rule                         Submittal agency       Submittal date           citation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Regulation II (Permits)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 11 (Exemptions)....................  Los Angeles County APCD...       6/30/1972  9/22/1972 (37 FR 19812).
Rule 219................................  Southern California APCD..       4/21/1976  11/9/1978 (43 FR 52237).
Rule 219................................  Southern California APCD..        8/2/1976  11/9/1978 (43 FR 52237).
Rule 219................................  Los Angeles County APCD...        6/6/1977  11/9/1978 (43 FR 52237).
Rule 219................................  South Coast AQMD..........      10/23/1981  7/6/1982 (47 FR 29231).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Regulation XIII (New Source Review)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules 1301, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306,       South Coast AQMD..........        4/3/1980  1/21/1981 (46 FR 5965).
 1307, 1310, 1311, and 1313.
Rules 1302 and 1308.....................  South Coast AQMD..........       8/15/1980  1/21/1981 (46 FR 5965).
Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305,       Los Angeles County APCD...        9/5/1980  6/9/1982 (47 FR 25013).
 1306, 1307, 1308, 1310, 1311, and 1313.
Rules 1301, 1302, 1309, 1309.1, 1310,     South Coast AQMD..........       8/28/1996  12/4/1996 (61 FR 64291).
 and 1313, adopted on 12/7/1995; Rule
 1303 adopted on 5/10/1996; and Rules
 1304 and 1306 adopted on 6/14/1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposal, we proposed approval of Rules 219, 1300, and 1306 
as authorized under section 110(k)(3) of the Act. As authorized in 
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act,\2\ we proposed a limited 
approval and limited disapproval of Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 
and 1309 because although they fulfill most of the relevant CAA 
requirements and strengthen the SIP, they also contain the following 
deficiencies, summarized below, that do not fully satisfy the relevant 
requirements for preconstruction review and permitting under section 
110 and part D of the Act:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If a portion of a plan revision meets all the applicable CAA 
requirements, CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) authorize the EPA to 
approve the plan revision in part and disapprove the plan revision 
in part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) allows Simultaneous Emission Reductions 
(SERs), which are emission reductions that are proposed to occur in 
conjunction with emission increases from a proposed project, to be 
calculated using a potential-to-emit (PTE)-to-PTE calculation method 
rather than an actuals-to-PTE calculation method for determining (1) 
applicability of NNSR or quantity of offsets required for a new Major 
Facility or a Major Modification, and (2) the amount of offsets 
required at a Major Facility or Modified Facility. These SERs are 
inconsistent with 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(E)(1) and 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J), and, when used as offsets, may not be real 
reductions in actual emissions as required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i) 
and CAA section 173(c)(1). These deficiencies make portions of Rules 
1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305 not fully approvable.
    2. Rule 1304(E)(2), which defines the calculation method for 
determining Historical Actual Emissions (HAE), contains a typographical 
error making the provision deficient.
    3. Rules 1302(D)(6)(a)(iii), 1304(C)(4)(c), 1309(D)(3)(c), and 
1309(E)(6) allow the use of contracts, but neither the District's NSR 
rules submitted for approval nor any of the District's other SIP-
approved NSR rules define the term ``contract'' or provide requirements 
for how a contract is an enforceable mechanism that may be used in the 
same way as an ATC or PTO.
    4. Rule 1305(C)(6) allows interprecursor trading (IPT) between 
ozone precursors on a case-by-case basis, which is no longer 
permissible.
    5. The District's rules do not contain the de minimis plan 
requirements contained in CAA section 182(c)(6) that apply to areas 
classified as Severe nonattainment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAA Section 182(d), which was added by the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, details plan submission requirements for Severe 
nonattainment areas and includes all the provisions under section 
182(c) for Serious nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposal also discussed that this action would result in a more 
stringent SIP and is consistent with the additional substantive 
requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and 193, while not relaxing any 
existing provision contained in the SIP; and will not interfere with 
any applicable attainment and reasonable further progress requirements; 
or any other applicable CAA requirement. We also proposed that our 
action would not relax any pre-November 15, 1990 requirement in the 
SIP, and therefore changes to the SIP resulting from this proposed 
action would ensure greater or equivalent emission reductions of ozone 
and its precursors in the District.
    Finally, our proposed action included our proposed determination to 
approve, under 40 CFR 51.307, the District's visibility provisions for 
sources subject to the District's nonattainment new source review 
(NNSR) program. Accordingly, we also proposed to revise 40 CFR 
52.281(d) to remove the visibility Federal Implementation Plan

[[Page 42624]]

(FIP) at 40 CFR 52.28 as it pertains to California to clarify that the 
FIP does not apply to the District.
    The EPA's proposal and technical support document (TSD), which can 
be found in the docket for this action, contain more a detailed 
discussion of the rule deficiencies as well as a complete analysis of 
the District's submitted rules that form the basis for our proposed 
action.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The public comment period on the proposal opened on January 30, 
2023, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed 
on March 1, 2023. During this period, the EPA received comment letters 
submitted by the AVAQMD, City of Lancaster, City of Palmdale, U.S. 
Department of Defense, Northrop Grumman Corporation, and Lockheed 
Martin Aeronautics Company. These comments are included in the docket 
for this action and are accessible at www.regulations.gov. In this 
section, we provide a summary of and response to each of these 
comments.

A. Comments From AVAQMD

    Comment #1: The District states that portions of the EPA's proposed 
action are inopportune. The District states that, despite the EPA's 
extensive involvement in the rule development process for both the 
District and the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District 
(``MDAQMD''), it took over a year from the time of official submission 
for the EPA to formulate and publish the proposed action. The District 
states that during this period there was no substantive communication 
from the EPA regarding potential additional deficiencies that had not 
been identified during the development phase. The District states that 
the only communications received from the EPA regarding the District 
NSR program after the adoption of the rule amendments were requests for 
copies of the SIP approved versions of various SIP rules and 
accompanying information, most of which the District had previously 
provided to the EPA in the rule development process. The District 
states that the EPA could have communicated trivial deficiencies to the 
District prior to publishing the proposed action, which would have 
allowed the District to provide commitments to amend its rules and that 
such a process would have allowed issues to be narrowed to those that 
truly require interpretation or judicial review.
    Response to Comment #1: The EPA does not read this comment as 
asserting that our proposed action on the submitted rules was legally 
or technically deficient; rather, we understand the comment to express 
dissatisfaction with the EPA's communication after CARB's submittal of 
the revised rules on August 3, 2021.
    The EPA values its relationships with state, local, and tribal air 
agencies and strives to maintain open and transparent communications 
with them. Prior to our receipt of the District's submittal, the EPA, 
the District, and CARB committed significant resources to meeting on a 
bi-weekly basis, from approximately March 2020 to June 2021, for 
detailed discussions of the NSR program deficiencies we identified in a 
letter to the District dated December 19, 2019, which applied to both 
the District and to the MDAQMD.\4\ After the conclusion of this process 
and following CARB's submission of the District's revised rules, the 
EPA identified a few additional issues not identified in our December 
19, 2019 letter. EPA staff are available to continue to work with the 
District to address questions and concerns with revisions necessary to 
correct the deficiencies, with the goal of full approval of revisions 
to the District's rules and a fully approved NSR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Letter from Lisa Beckham to Brad Poiriez, which the District 
identifies in footnote 18 of its comment letter. In March 2020, the 
EPA began holding bi-weekly meetings with the CARB and MDAQMD staff 
to discuss and resolve issues identified in the letter. In March 
2021, we began to focus our efforts on the same issues contained in 
the AVAQMD rules, which were nearly identical to the MDAQMD's. We 
continued to meet until June 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we understand the District's reference to 
``commitments'' to suggest that the EPA could have proposed a 
conditional approval under CAA section 110(k)(4) rather than proposing 
a limited approval and limited disapproval. As authorized under CAA 
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a), we are taking action to finalize a 
limited approval and limited disapproval of the submitted rules that 
contain the deficient provisions we identified in our proposed action.
    Comments #2 and #2a: The District states that the EPA's proposed 
rulemaking does not fully identify its existing NSR program. The 
District states that Table 1 in the proposed action and Table 2-2 in 
the accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) are incomplete 
because they fail to mention SIP-approved Rules 201, ``Permit to 
Construct,'' 202, ``Temporary Permit to Operate,'' 203, ``Permit to 
Operate,'' and 204, ``Permit Conditions.'' The District points out that 
Rules 201, 202, 203, and 204 are currently in the SIP, and that they 
should have been listed in the proposed action because they are 
important for understanding portions of the District's NSR program. The 
District then requests the EPA to officially acknowledge that Rules 
201, 202, 203, and 204 are part of District's NSR Program. The District 
also asserts that Table 2-2 in the TSD is inaccurate.
    Response to Comments #2 and #2a: The purpose of Table 1--Current 
SIP Rules in our proposed action is to present the current SIP-approved 
versions of the submitted rules that we were proposing to act upon, not 
to present all the NSR rules in the SIP. To the extent the title for 
Table 1 created confusion, we apologize. We note that TSD Table 2-2: 
District's NSR Rules in the Current California SIP includes the four 
rules identified in the District's comment regarding Table 1 (Rules 
201, 202, 203, and 204). The EPA responds below to the District's 
specific comments regarding TSD Table 2-2 in its responses to District 
Comments 2b, 2c, and 2d.
    Comment #2b: The District states that Rules 208, 218, 218.1, 221, 
and 226 should not be listed in the TSD because they are not part of 
the District's NSR program and requests that the EPA revise TSD Table 
2-2 to remove those rules that are not directly related to NSR.
    Comment #2c: The District states that Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2 
should not be listed in the TSD because they are not applicable to the 
current NSR program. The District states that it would appreciate a 
clarification by the EPA, either in Table 2-2 of the TSD or elsewhere, 
that Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2 are not a part of its NSR program 
because their terms were superseded by the version of Rule 1301 that 
the EPA approved into the SIP in 1983.
    Response to Comments #2b and #2c: EPA's proposed action concerns 
only the rules identified in Table 2--Submitted Rules and Table 3--
Rescinded Rules.\5\ TSD Table 2-2 was provided primarily for context 
and background. We note that the District does not assert that the 
clarifications in its comment letter relate to the submitted rules or 
to the rules identified for rescission. We do not believe that the 
District's clarifications relate to the EPA's evaluation of 
California's requested SIP revisions. Nevertheless, we appreciate the 
additional

[[Page 42625]]

information in the District's letter, which is included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The information in Tables 2 and 3 of the Federal Register 
notice for our proposed action is repeated in TSD Table 3-1: 
AVAQMD's Submitted Rules and TSD Table 3-2: AVAQMD's Rules Requested 
to be Rescinded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #2d: The District states that the TSD does not sufficiently 
discuss the SIP history and thus perpetuates inaccuracies and 
inconsistencies. The District states that Table 2-2 in the TSD contains 
inaccuracies regarding the SIP history of a variety of the listed 
rules, especially those found in Regulation II. The District then 
provides an historical overview of air quality regulation in its 
jurisdiction. The District states that any South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD) rule actions submitted and approved as of 
October 15, 1982, became SIP rules for the areas outside of the South 
Coast Air Basin (the ``non-SCAB portions'') of Los Angeles County on 
November 18, 1983. The District states that there are four rules in 
Table 2-2 of the TSD that fall into this category (although it lists 
six: Rules 202, 206, 207, 213, 213.1, and 213.2). The District states 
that these rules were approved into the California SIP for SCAQMD in 
1978, and that the amended regulations at 40 CFR 52.220(c) do not 
specify SCAQMD. The District also provides a history of the AVAQMD and 
amendments and rescissions of rules. The District then requests that 
the EPA acknowledge the SIP history detailed in Comment 2d and update 
the TSD for AVAQMD NSR with that information.
    Response to Comment #2d: Section 2 of the EPA's TSD provides 
information regarding the formation of the AVAPCD, its current 
boundaries, air quality and current SIP-approved rules. We provided 
this information for context and background as relevant to our review, 
approval, and rescission of the identified rules in our rulemaking 
action. We appreciate the additional information in the District's 
letter, which provides an historical overview of its predecessor 
agencies and SIP-approved rules and is included in the docket.
    Although we have noted that TSD Table 2-2 is provided for context 
and background, and that our action concerns only the rules identified 
in Tables 2 and 3 of the Federal Register notice for our proposed 
action, we would like to address the District's comment relating to 
Table 2-2 and Rules 202, 206, 207, 213, 213.1, and 213.2 and its 
comment that 40 CFR 52.220(c) does not specify SCAQMD. To the extent 
that the District is asserting that these rules are not part of the 
District's portion of the SIP and should not be reflected in Table 2-2 
of the TSD, the EPA disagrees. The EPA's proposed action incorporating 
these rules into the SIP states that the rules, which had been adopted 
by the Southern California Air Pollution Control District (SoCalAPCD), 
applied to the (at the time) newly created SCAQMD.\6\ As the EPA 
explained in that proposed action, California split the SoCalAPCD into 
four districts after it submitted the SoCalAPCD rules for SIP 
inclusion: SCAQMD, Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District 
(APCD), Riverside County APCD, and San Bernardino APCD.\7\ EPA approved 
the submittals for Rules 202, 206, 207, 213, 213.1, and 213.2 at 43 FR 
52237 (November 9, 1978), although that approval did not apply within 
Antelope Valley because the desert portion of Los Angeles County had 
already been split from SCAQMD and the approval of SoCalAPCD rules was 
to apply only within the new SCAQMD portion of the former SoCalAPCD.\8\ 
However, the SCAQMD portion of the SIP (with certain exceptions) was 
extended to AVAQMD in 1982 when SCAQMD's jurisdiction was extended to 
include the Southeast Desert portion of Los Angeles County.\9\ 
Regarding Rule 202, EPA approved two submittals in the rulemaking at 43 
FR 52237: Rule 202(a) and (b), adopted on January 9, 1976, and 
submitted to the EPA on April 21, 1976; and Rule 202(c), which was 
adopted as an amendment on May 7, 1976, and submitted to the EPA on 
August 2, 1976. Thus, Rules 202, 206, 207, 213, 213.1, and 213.2 
applied to the SCAQMD following EPA approval at 43 FR 52237, and the 
rules were extended to apply in AVAQMD when the SCAQMD's jurisdiction 
expanded in 1982. Except for Rule 206, which this rulemaking removes, 
the rules remain in the District's portion of the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 43 FR 52237 (November 9, 1978). The notice explains that the 
rules that CARB submitted for the SoCalAPCD SIP apply to the SCAQMD: 
``On April 21, August 2, and November 19, 1976 the State of 
California submitted to the Regional Administrator, Region IX, 
revisions of the Southern California Air Pollution Control District 
. . . regulations. On February 1, 1977 the State split the Southern 
California Air Pollution Control District into the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District in the western region and three separate 
APCDs formed out of the remaining parts of Los Angeles, Riverside, 
and San Bernardino counties in the eastern desert areas . . . The 
State of California resubmitted rules for these eastern areas on 
June 6, 1977, merely to reflect this split . . . South Coast Air 
Quality Management District and Los Angeles, Riverside, and San 
Bernardino Air Pollution Control Districts (Southeast Desert 
Portions) regulation II . . . will provide [the requirements to 
obtain a permit].''
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ 43 FR 25684, 25685 (June 14, 1978).
    \9\ 48 FR 52451 (November 18, 1983). The Southeast Desert 
portion of Los Angeles County was added to the SCAQMD on July 9, 
1982. On October 15, 1982, the SCAQMD adopted the existing rules and 
regulations of the SCAQMD for the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion 
of Los Angeles County, with the exception of Rules 1102, 1102.1, 
461, and Regulation III, and rescinded the existing rules and 
regulations of the Los Angeles County APCD, with the exception of 
Regulation III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #3: The District states that the TSD does not completely 
identify provisions of 40 CFR 52.220(c) that need to be changed. The 
District states that Section 3.1 of the TSD attempts to identify 
specific codifications contained in 40 CFR 52.220(c) that need to be 
changed to properly reflect the condition of the District SIP rules in 
relation to NSR. The District states that while the EPA identified a 
number of potential changes to 40 CFR 52.220(c) in TSD Table 3-3, the 
proposed changes are not complete or comprehensive to update the SIP. 
The District references a list of CFR citations in Table C of its 
comment letter, which is titled, ``CFR Citations Which May Require 
Clarification.'' The District states that the citations presented in 
Table C may or may not require additional clarifications to 
appropriately identify the applicable SIP for the referenced rules. The 
District then requests that the EPA identify all provisions in 40 CFR 
52.220(c) and elsewhere that need clarification and list them in an 
update to the TSD and in the final rulemaking action.
    Response to Comment #3: The EPA disagrees with the District's 
characterization of Section 3.1 of the TSD that ``USEPA attempts to 
identify specific codifications contained in 40 CFR 52.220(c) which 
need to be changed to properly reflect the condition of the AVAQMD SIP 
rules in relation to NSR.'' In fact, Section 3.1 of the TSD explains 
our proposal to act on CARB's specific requests to revise the 
California SIP in submittals dated October 30, 2001, April 22, 2020, 
and August 3, 2021. The EPA did not independently identify parts of the 
SIP that needed to be updated; rather, we proposed to take action 
according to CARB's requests.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CARB is the governor's designee for submitting official 
revisions to the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge the District's request for the EPA to review Table C 
of its comment letter (titled, ``CFR Citations Which May Require 
Clarification'') and independently ``identify all provisions in 40 CFR 
52.220(c) and elsewhere which need clarification.'' This request 
appears to be a request to revise the CFR and, hence, the SIP. A public 
comment to a proposed rulemaking is not the correct mechanism for 
requesting a revision to the SIP; such a request must meet the criteria 
for SIP submittals, including public notice and submittal

[[Page 42626]]

from CARB to the EPA.\11\ We are available, however, to work with the 
District outside of this rulemaking to address these concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., 40 CFR part 51, App. V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #4: The District states that the EPA's proposed rulemaking 
identifies deficiencies that are present in the current SIP-approved 
rules and does not explain why these previously approved provisions are 
no longer approvable. The District states that it would appreciate a 
more detailed explanation of the underlying provisions of the CAA that 
have changed to make the previously approved SIP provisions, which were 
adequate for SIP approval in 1996, not approvable now. The District 
states that it is not aware of any amendments to the CAA since 1990, 
therefore it requests an updated, specific analysis with appropriate 
citations, documentation, and rationale for the changes to EPA's 
interpretations that render previously approved NSR program provisions 
not approvable. The District states that it would appreciate a more 
detailed analysis--not mere citations of current regulations--regarding 
the specific changes in the EPA regulations and policy that now render 
previously approved provisions deficient. The District states that the 
TSD associated with the EPA's proposed action does not provide a 
sufficient explanation of the EPA's interpretation of the CAA 
requirements.
    Response to Comment #4: We disagree with the District's comment 
that our proposed action does not provide sufficient explanation or 
analysis of the deficiencies identified. The EPA provided its rationale 
as to why the submitted revisions to the SIP-approved rules, while 
deficient, represent an overall strengthening of the SIP.\12\ The EPA's 
citations in our proposed rulemaking and the TSD to specific provisions 
in the Act and its implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 51 are the 
basis for the EPA's disapproval of certain specified provisions in the 
District's revised NSR rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 88 FR 5826, 5829; TSD Sections 5-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the District notes, the EPA last approved the District's 
Regulation XIII into the SIP in 1996. In 2002, the EPA revised its NSR 
regulations at 40 CFR 51.165.\13\ These revisions included the addition 
of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J). As we discussed in our proposed action 
and accompanying TSD, the District's submitted rules are inconsistent 
with the requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) and are therefore 
deficient.\14\ In particular, our proposed action explains that 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) requires offsets for each major modification at a 
major source in an amount equal to the difference between pre-
modification actual emissions and post-modification PTE.\15\ Our 
responses to Comments 6 and 6a provide additional explanation of this 
issue. The EPA's interpretation of this provision is reasonable and 
consistent with our actions regarding other submittals of NSR rules for 
SIP approval.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 67 FR 80185 (December 31, 2002).
    \14\ In our 2002 rulemaking, we added the requirement in 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(2)(ii), which states that deviations from federal 
definitions and requirements are generally approvable only if a 
state specifically demonstrates that the submitted provisions are 
more stringent, or at least as stringent, in all respects as the 
corresponding federal provisions and definitions. To date, the 
District has not made such a demonstration.
    \15\ 88 FR 5826, 5831.
    \16\ See, e.g., 81 FR 50339 (August 1, 2016), in which we 
finalized a limited approval/limited disapproval action on the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District's NSR program. The Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District subsequently revised and resubmitted its 
rules, which the EPA approved in the rulemaking titled: ``Revisions 
to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District; Stationary Sources; New Source Review,'' 83 FR 
8822 (March 1, 2018). See also ``Revision of Air Quality 
Implementation Plan; California; Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 
Management District; Stationary Source Permits,'' 78 FR 53270 
(August 29, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #5: The District states that neither the proposed 
rulemaking nor the TSD specifically discusses the interrelationship 
between the main portion of the District's NSR rules in Regulation XIII 
and Rule 219. The District states that while this is not generally 
identified as a deficiency, historically the EPA has asserted that Rule 
219 somehow provides an ``exemption'' from NSR requirements. The 
District describes its permitting program as emissions unit-based, and 
distinguishes it from the federal regulatory scheme, which the District 
describes as facility-based. The District states that the ``net 
result'' is that while a specific emissions unit may be exempt from 
permitting requirements, it ``will still undergo the NSR process.'' The 
District cites Rules 1301 and 1304 to support its position that its NSR 
program requires emissions changes to be determined both on an 
emissions unit by emissions unit basis and in regard to the facility as 
a whole, and it cites to Rule 219(B)(5) to support its position that 
Rule 219 requires emissions from exempt equipment to be included in NSR 
calculations. The District also states that while Rule 219 only exempts 
certain emissions units from obtaining ``paper'' permits, it does not 
exempt emissions units or an entire facility containing such units from 
other requirements in the District's Rulebook.
    The District states that ``USEPA has expressed concerns in the 
past'' that a facility could escape NSR review if it were composed 
entirely of exempt equipment and explains that there are several 
backstops that prevent facilities that consist solely of equipment that 
is potentially exempt under Rule 219 from escaping review, such as 
actions undertaken by enforcement personnel and local land use agencies 
pursuant to state law. The District requests that the notation 
regarding the nature and effect of Rule 219 as part of its NSR program 
be corrected or clarified in the EPA's TSD.
    Response to Comment #5: The EPA proposed to fully approve into the 
SIP the revised version of Rule 219 as amended on June 15, 2021, 
because we have determined that it satisfies all relevant CAA 
requirements. We do not interpret the District's comment as an 
assertion that our proposed action to fully approve Rule 219 is 
incorrect. Section 8 and Attachment 6 of the TSD contain the EPA's 
evaluation of Rule 219 with respect to CAA 110(l), and Attachment 1 of 
the TSD contains EPA's evaluation with respect to the requirements 
under 40 CFR 51.160-164.\17\ In Section 8 of the TSD, we wrote that the 
submitted version of Rule 219 ``will result in a more stringent SIP and 
will not interfere with any applicable attainment, reasonable further 
progress goals, or any other applicable CAA requirement. Therefore, we 
can approve the submitted rules into the AVAQMD portion of the 
California SIP as proposed in this action under section 110(l) of the 
Act.'' \18\ The information the District provided in its comment letter 
does not change our proposal to fully approve Rule 219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Specifically, as we indicated in Attachment 1 of the TSD, 
Rule 219 is consistent with 40 CFR 51.160(e), which allows states to 
exclude some sources from NSR requirements (i.e., LAER and offsets), 
as well as public notice, by not requiring those sources to obtain a 
permit. There is a distinction between sources subject to NSR 
requirements and sources that are simply part of the District's NSR 
program. Even emissions from equipment that is exempt from 
permitting requirements must be included when making a major source 
determination. Rules 201 and 203 require that essentially all 
sources must obtain an authority to construct and a permit to 
operate, but Rule 219 specifies which sources do not need to obtain 
a permit, and therefore do not need to undergo NSR review, even if 
their emissions are included in determining if a source is major.
    \18\ 88 FR 5826; TSD, p. 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's comment alludes to concerns that the EPA has 
expressed ``in the past.'' Although the EPA may have expressed concerns 
with a previous version of Rule 219, our review of the

[[Page 42627]]

submitted version of Rule 219 did not identify any remaining concerns 
and found that the rule is approvable.\19\ Therefore, we do not find it 
necessary to address the merits of the ``backstops'' involving District 
enforcement and state laws that the District asserts would mitigate 
such a problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As we discussed in section 8 of the TSD and in TSD 
Attachment 6, we found that the District's revisions to Rule 219 
ensured consistency with CAA requirements, forming the basis for our 
proposal to fully approve the revised rule. The EPA expressed the 
concerns stated in docket item D.20, ``EPA Email Comments to MDAQMD 
re MDAQMD Rule 219,'' (dated 3/28/2019), in reference to the 
previous, locally adopted version of MDAQMD Rule 219, which also 
applied to AVAQMD Rule 219. The District took adequate action when 
it revised the rule in 2021, which is the version EPA proposed to 
fully approve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #6: The District states that the EPA partially 
mischaracterizes Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) as a ``potential to emit to new 
potential to emit after modification'' calculation. According to the 
District, this provision is more correctly characterized as ``current 
fully offset allowable emissions'' to ``potential new emissions.'' The 
District also asserts that such fully offset allowable emissions are 
reflected as ``fully Federally enforceable emissions limitations'' on 
the permits for each piece of affected equipment and for the facility 
as a whole. The District states that the EPA is objecting to the use of 
SERs, which are created as part of an NSR action at a Major Facility 
to, in effect, ``self-fund'' the necessary offsetting emissions 
reductions by reducing emissions elsewhere in the Major Facility.
    Comment #6a: The District states that the provisions of Rule 
1304(C)(2)(d) are a clarified restatement of provisions that are 
currently SIP approved and have been in use since at least 1995. It 
then provides a historical overview of how the current language in the 
submitted Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) is derived from the rule provisions that 
the EPA approved in 1996, and that the only way to obtain a ``Federally 
enforceable permit condition'' would be via a prior NSR permitting 
action.
    The District explains that its primary purpose for the 2021 NSR 
amendments was to address EPA's concerns, and that the amendments 
further clarified that SERs created from currently existing fully 
offset Permit Units at an existing Major Facility can only be used for 
changes within the same facility and cannot be banked. The District 
states that the ``procedural flow'' found in Rule 1302 and a specific 
limitation of Rule 1303(A)(4) ensures that such SERs would not be used 
to determine either BACT applicability, Major Facility status, or Major 
Modification status, therefore limiting the use of SERs and ensuring 
that there is no net increase in the amount of total emissions 
allowable from a particular facility that utilizes these provisions. 
The District states that its rules contrast with the potential use of 
the ``De Minimis'' provisions, which would result in an increase of 
allowable emissions of 25 tons per year (tpy) over a rolling five-year 
period.
    The District states that it assumes the EPA approved rule language 
is similar to that which the EPA now finds deficient pursuant to CAA 
section 116, and that it is unclear why the current submission cannot 
be approved considering the current SIP-approved language uses broader, 
more inclusive language with fewer safeguards. The District therefore 
requests that the EPA provide a detailed analysis of why the current 
submission cannot be approved as equivalent to or more stringent than 
the CAA requirements. In addition, the District requests guidance on 
exactly what type and nature of evidence the EPA considers necessary 
for approval.
    Response to Comments #6 and #6a: The EPA does not agree with the 
District's statements in Comments 6 and 6a. Preliminarily, the EPA 
notes that Rule 1303(B) imposes offset obligations for new or modified 
facilities that emit or have the potential to emit above specified 
thresholds ``as calculated pursuant to Rule 1304.'' \20\ Rule 1304, 
``New Source Review Emission Calculations,'' sets forth ``the 
procedures and formulas to calculate increases and decreases in 
emissions'' to determine applicability of offset obligations and to 
calculate SERs, which are ``reductions generated within the same 
facility.'' \21\ Rule 1304(B)(1) specifies ``General emission change 
calculations,'' and Rule 1304(B)(2) specifies ``Net Emissions Increase 
Calculations.'' Notably, Rule 1304(B)(2)(c) provides that the net 
emissions increase calculation must subtract SERs ``as calculated and 
verified pursuant to Section C below.'' Rule 1304(C) specifies the 
calculation of SERs. The EPA proposed to disapprove Rule 1304(C)(2)(d). 
This provision applies to modification projects at existing major 
sources that involve emissions units that ``have been previously offset 
in a documented prior permitting action.'' Thus, Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) 
relates to the calculation of a net emissions increase to establish 
offset obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Rule 1303(B)(1). See also, EPA TSD, p. 18. Rule 1303(A) 
specifies control obligations, i.e., Best Available Control 
Technology.
    \21\ Rule 1304(A). In addition, District Rule 1304 sets forth 
``procedures and formulas'' to calculate BACT obligations. See, 
District Rule 1304(A)(1)(a)(i). See also, EPA TSD, pp. 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's proposed action explains that Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) is 
deficient because, for certain projects, it allows the amount of 
required offsets to be calculated using a pre-project baseline using 
potential emissions (generally, the emissions allowed by a permit),\22\ 
whereas the CAA requires a pre-project baseline based on actual 
emissions.\23\ As the EPA explained, CAA section 173(c)(1) requires the 
SIP to contain provisions to ensure that emission increases from new or 
modified major stationary sources are offset by real reductions in 
actual emissions. In addition, 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) requires 
that, for major modifications, the total quantity of increased 
emissions that must be offset shall be determined by summing the 
difference between the allowable emissions after the modification and 
the actual emissions before the modification for each emissions unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Rule 1304(C)(2)(d)(i) states that the PTE for an emissions 
unit is specified in a federally enforceable emissions limitation. 
Therefore, in the context of this rulemaking action regarding the 
District's NSR program, the terms ``allowable'' and ``potential'' 
seem generally interchangeable.
    \23\ We note that District's comment includes the following 
incorrect statement, ``In short, USEPA is objecting to the use of 
Simultaneous Emissions Reductions (SERs) which are created as part 
and parcel of an NSR action at a Major Facility to in effect `self-
fund' the necessary offsetting emissions reductions by reducing 
emissions elsewhere in the Major Facility.'' The deficiency 
identified by the EPA is the District's calculation methodology to 
determine the quantity of offsets required, which inappropriately 
allows for the use of reductions that occurred in the past and are 
not necessarily ``simultaneous.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) is not consistent with statutory and regulatory 
requirements that the pre-project baseline utilize actual emissions to 
calculate offset obligations. Instead, for emissions from units that 
have been ``previously offset in a documented prior permitting 
action,'' Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) allows the pre-project baseline to use the 
unit's potential to emit (the unit's allowable emissions) as reflected 
in a permit:

    [Historic Actual Emissions] for a specific Emission Unit(s) may 
be equal to the Potential to Emit for that Emission Unit(s), [if] 
the particular Emissions Unit have [sic] been previously offset in a 
documented prior permitting action so long as: (i) The PTE for the 
specific Emissions Unit is specified in a Federally Enforceable 
Emissions Limitation; and (ii) The resulting Emissions Change from a 
calculation using this provision is a decrease or not an increase in 
emissions from the Emissions Unit(s) and (iii) Any excess SERs 
generated from a calculation using this provision are not eligible 
for banking pursuant to the provision [sic] of District Regulation 
XIV.

[[Page 42628]]

    The District states that the EPA partially mischaracterizes Rule 
1304(C)(2)(d) as allowing the use of the potential-to-potential test 
because the provision is more correctly characterized as ``current 
fully offset allowable emissions'' to ``potential new emissions.'' It 
is true that Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) allows the use of a pre-project 
baseline based on currently fully offset allowable emissions, because 
it is clear that the rule equates allowable emissions and potential to 
emit. However, the District's statements regarding the use of allowable 
emissions or potential emissions as the pre-project baseline are not 
relevant to the point presented in our proposed action that Rule 1304 
is not consistent with federal requirements because it does not require 
the use of actual emissions as the pre-project baseline, rather than 
allowable emissions.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) (requiring offsets 
for each major modification at a major source in an amount equal to 
the difference between pre-modification actual emissions, not 
allowable (i.e., potential) emissions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Allowable emissions are generally set higher than anticipated 
actual emissions to allow for normal fluctuations in emissions to occur 
without violating the permit conditions. The use of allowable emissions 
as the pre-project baseline means that the difference between pre-
project and post-project emissions will be smaller than a calculation 
applying the EPA's requirement to use actual emissions as the pre-
project baseline. Therefore, the District's rule, when using this 
provision, is likely to under-calculate the quantity of offsets 
required.
    The fact that under the District's rule only units that are already 
fully offset can use the allowable-to-potential offset quantification 
method does not remedy this deficiency, as fully offset units are still 
likely to have allowable emission limits above their actual emissions. 
Furthermore, the District's assertion that the allowable-to-potential 
methodology is only available to generate ``self-funded'' reductions 
for use as offsets also fails to remedy this problem, since federal 
requirements require actual emissions to be used as the baseline for 
offsets calculations in all instances, including those in which a 
facility internally generates its own emissions reductions to satisfy 
its offset obligations.
    Similarly, the District's statement that its rule does not allow an 
increase in allowable emissions is irrelevant. CAA 173(c)(1) and 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) require that the quantity of offsets must be based 
on allowable increases above actual emissions.
    Regarding the District's statement that ``USEPA is objecting to the 
use of Simultaneous Emissions Reductions (SERs) which are created as 
part and parcel of an NSR action at a Major Facility to in effect 
`self-fund' the necessary offsetting emissions reductions by reducing 
emissions elsewhere in the Major Facility,'' the EPA disagrees. This 
statement is inaccurate because the EPA did not categorically reject 
the District's use of SERs; rather, we identified the District's SERs 
calculation methodology as inconsistent with federal requirements.\25\ 
As has been noted, the EPA identified as a deficiency Rule 
1304(C)(2)(d), which provides that the pre-project baseline can be 
equal to allowable (i.e., potential to emit, or potential emissions) if 
the emissions unit has been ``previously offset in a documented prior 
permitting action.'' Thus, the deficiency that the EPA identified is 
the District's use of SERs as a means to deviate from the federal 
requirement to use actual emissions for the pre-project baseline. 
Instead, Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) uses a pre-project baseline using allowable 
(i.e., potential) emissions for units with previously offset emissions. 
Moreover, the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) plainly 
apply to each proposed major modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 88 FR 5826, 5830. We identified several District rules as 
not fully approvable because they do not assure compliance with 
federal regulations for calculation of required offsets, stemming 
from cross-references to Rule 1304(C)(2)(d). See, e.g., 1305(C)(2), 
1303(B)(1), 1302(C)(3); and various definitions in Rule 1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also states that SERs created from currently existing 
fully offset permit units at an existing major facility can only be 
used for changes at the same facility and cannot be banked. The fact 
that SERs cannot be bought and sold between facilities does not address 
the deficiency identified by the EPA that Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) allows the 
calculation of required offsets to use a baseline of allowable (i.e., 
potential) emissions, not the federally required baseline of actual 
emissions.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Arguably, the District allows facilities to ``bank'' 
emission reductions for their own internal future use, even if the 
District prohibits use of banked emission reductions between 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District provides no support for its assumption that the EPA 
approved similarly deficient provisions to submitted Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) 
into the SIP in 1996 under CAA section 116. The EPA's 1996 rulemaking 
approved the rules to which the District refers on the basis of CAA 
section 110, not section 116.\27\ The District's point that the EPA 
approved rules with similar language over a quarter century ago does 
not address the EPA's analysis and finding in our current rulemaking 
that Rule 1302(C)(2)(d) is inconsistent with CAA 173(c)(1), the 
definition of ``net emissions increase'' in 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(1)(vi)(E)(1) and with the calculation methodology in 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J). For the EPA to approve a provision that deviates 
from federal requirements, the District must demonstrate how the 
provision is more stringent than or at least as stringent as the 
corresponding federal requirements.\28\ The District, to date, has not 
provided such a demonstration; we address this point further in our 
response to the District's Comment 6b. We respond to the District's 
comment on the use of SERs for BACT or general applicability purposes 
in our response to District Comment 6c.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 61 FR 64291 (December 4, 1996).
    \28\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(ii).
    \29\ Likewise, we respond to the District's assertion regarding 
the De Minimis rule at CAA section 182(c)(6) in our response to the 
District's Comments 9b and 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #6b: The District argues that the EPA's statement that SERs 
[as defined in Rule 1302] used as offsets may not be based on real or 
actual emission reductions as required by CAA section 173(c)(1) does 
not consider that the actual reduction in emissions have already 
occurred as part of a previously offset action and that the use of SERs 
derived from such action ensures the allowable emissions from a 
particular facility would not increase without additional offsets being 
required. The District states that that the EPA also ignores the 
overall structure of its NSR program, which is specifically designed to 
obtain BACT on more equipment and offsets in more situations than is 
required under the CAA.
    The District argues that the EPA's interpretation of the offset 
requirement is an issue of fundamental fairness in implementation 
because a facility would in effect be required to offset the exact same 
amount of allowable emissions each time it needed to upgrade, replace, 
or otherwise modify its equipment processes. The District provides a 
hypothetical example to demonstrate that a facility that had previously 
offset emissions would never have the ability to use those actual 
reductions that it previously obtained and purchased under the EPA's 
interpretation of offsets requirements. The District also states that 
the facility would have to provide extra offsetting emissions 
reductions to regain its previously allowed and permitted emissions.

[[Page 42629]]

    The District then states that regardless of whether past emissions 
reductions are technically ``paper reductions,'' the District and its 
predecessor agencies have been using the formulation in the SIP 
approved NSR rules in one form or another since at least 1995, although 
more likely since the early 1980s. The District states that over that 
period of time the number of NAAQS exceedances has declined and so has 
the amount of Major Facility and overall stationary source emissions, 
despite significant increases in both economic activity and District 
population. The District argues that such a decrease would not have 
occurred if the NSR program was based on paper reductions.
    The District requests that the EPA discuss why it considers the 
taking of previously obtained and purchased allowable emissions limits 
without additional compensation to be allowable under the CAA and a 
discussion as to whether such an effective taking is Constitutional. 
The District states that it would appreciate additional discussion on 
why the EPA considers actual decreases in the emissions inventory to be 
inadequate to show that the District's NSR program is not based upon 
``paper reductions.''
    Response to Comment #6b: The EPA disagrees with the District's 
comment. The District first argues that actual emissions reductions 
occur ``as part of the previously offset action and that the use of 
SERs derived from such action ensures that the allowable emissions from 
a particular facility would not increase without additional offsets 
being required.'' As we explained in our response to District Comments 
6 and 6a, the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) apply to 
each proposed major modification. The fact that certain past emissions 
increases were offset does not justify not requiring offsets for 
emissions increases from the new project. In addition, the District's 
comment appears to assert that offsets used for a previous permitting 
action are available for offsetting increases in actual emissions 
associated with future modifications. The Clean Air Act \30\ and EPA's 
NSR regulations do not allow facilities to use the same emissions 
reductions more than once; after a facility relies upon specific 
emissions reductions for an NNSR permit action, the reductions are no 
longer surplus and cannot be used again in a future NNSR permit 
action.\31\ Also, the District's use of allowable emissions as the 
metric for whether there has been an emissions increase is inconsistent 
with federal requirements. Typically, allowable emissions limits are 
set higher than anticipated actual emissions to allow for normal 
variations in a facility's actual emissions without violating the 
emissions limit in the permit. While a proposed project may not result 
in a change to a facility's allowable emissions limit, it may increase 
actual emissions. An increase in actual emissions must be offset, as 
required under CAA section 173(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ CAA 173(a)(1)(A) and 173(c).
    \31\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District asserts that ``the overall structure of the AVAQMD NSR 
program . . . is specifically designed to obtain BACT on more equipment 
as well as offsets in more situations than is required by the [federal] 
CAA.'' The District, however, provides no demonstration to support this 
claim, nor does it provide any basis on which the EPA could find that 
its NSR program ensures equivalency with federal offset 
requirements.\32\ Similarly, the references in the District's comment 
letter to its Staff Report are not sufficient to demonstrate that its 
NSR program offsets emission increases in a manner that is at least as 
stringent as federal requirements. For example, Table 4 of the Staff 
Report compares BACT and offset requirements, but the Table does not 
demonstrate how implementation of the District's NSR program is 
imposing an equivalent quantity of offsets.\33\ In addition, the last 
row of Table 4 states that offsets are required for significant 
modifications at existing major facilities, but it does not address the 
difference between the District's program and the federal regulations 
in calculating the necessary quantity of offsets for such projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1), 51.165(a)(2)(ii).
    \33\ AVAQMD Staff Report pp. 40-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District provides a hypothetical example referencing a scenario 
in its NSR Final Staff Report to explain the difference in the 
quantities of offsets required under its program compared to the 
federal program. The District's example, however, does not include key 
components of the federal program--for example, whether the project 
constitutes a major modification under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(A). Under 
the federal requirements, after determining that a project is a major 
modification, the facility would need to provide offsets for the 
difference between the pre-modification actual emissions and the post-
modification potential emissions, as those terms are defined in 40 CFR 
51.165. Because the District's hypothetical example only discusses 
quantities of allowable emissions, it is not possible to determine the 
quantity of emissions offsets the facility would need to provide. As 
noted above, however, the District's example reveals the 
inconsistencies of its approach and federal NSR requirements: (i) 
offsets of past emissions increases do not satisfy the offset 
obligations for increases in actual emissions for a new project; and 
(ii) reductions used to offset emissions increases in the past cannot 
be re-used to offset increases in actual emissions in future permitting 
actions.
    A real-world example that illustrates how the District's rules are 
less stringent than federal requirements involves a permit application 
submitted to the MDAQMD to upgrade three existing natural gas-fired 
combustion turbines at a power plant. Although this example occurred in 
the MDAQMD, the implicated MDAQMD rules are identical to the District's 
and therefore this example is helpful to explain how the District's 
rules could result in a less stringent outcome than federal law 
requires.\34\ MDAQMD's analysis of the project presents the facility's 
actual emissions of NOX in the five-year period from 2016 to 
2020 as ranging from 83.6 tpy to 103.9 tpy.\35\ MDAQMD's analysis also 
presents the ``pre-modification PTE'' of NOX as 205 tpy. 
MDAQMD's analysis states that the ``post-modification PTE'' of 
NOX is 204.5 tpy.\36\ Per the EPA's requirements, the 
required quantity of offsets for this project would be approximately 
131 tpy (204.5 tpy minus the highest actual emissions rate of 103.9 
tpy, multiplied by the offset ratio of 1.3 for Severe nonattainment 
areas, as required under CAA section 182(d)(2)). MDAQMD, however, only 
compared pre- and post-project allowable (i.e., potential) emissions; 
therefore, it determined that no offsets were required for the project 
because its analysis indicated that the project would result in a 0.55 
tpy decrease in emissions.\37\ As the

[[Page 42630]]

AVAQMD regulations also provide for comparing only pre- and post-
project allowable (i.e., potential) emissions, they also would lead to 
a similar result--that no offsets would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ It is also the EPA's understanding that there is an overlap 
in the administration and management of AVAQMD and MDAQMD, which 
increases the likelihood that the Districts would share the same 
interpretation of identical rule text.
    \35\ MDAQMD, ``Preliminary Determination/Decision--Statement of 
Basis for Minor Modification to and Renewal of FOP Number: 104701849 
For: High Desert Power Project, LLC.'' December 21, 2022, p. A-52 
(PDF p. 72), Table 9.
    \36\ MDAQMD, ``Preliminary Determination/Decision--Statement of 
Basis for Minor Modification to and Renewal of FOP Number: 104701849 
For: High Desert Power Project, LLC.'' December 21, 2022, p. A-54 
(PDF p. 74), Table 14.
    \37\ See also, Letter dated June 16, 2022, from Jon Boyer, 
Director, Environmental, Health, and Safety, Middle River Power, to 
Lisa Beckham, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) Applicability Analysis for Turbine Upgrades at 
the High Desert Power Project (Revised),'' (``HDPP PSD Analysis''). 
The same modification was analyzed under the federal PSD program, 
which uses baseline actual emissions to projected actual emissions 
methodology for determining applicability of the federal NNSR 
program. The submitted PSD analysis shows that the project will 
result in an increase in actual emissions. For NO2, 
projected actual emissions would be 35.25 tpy greater than baseline 
actual emissions. HDPP PSD Analysis, Table 7, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also asserts that the EPA previously approved the 
provision we are now finding to be deficient and that, since 1995, when 
this provision came into active use, the number and extent of NAAQS 
exceedances has declined. The District also asserts that the decline in 
emissions could not have occurred if its NSR program was not achieving 
reductions at least equivalent to those that would occur if the 
District followed the requirements of the CAA. We do not agree with 
this comment. NSR programs primarily regulate construction and 
modification of stationary sources, and improvements in air quality can 
and do result from regulation of existing stationary sources (e.g., 
RACT, RACM and BACM requirements) as well as from regulation of mobile 
sources such as passenger vehicles and trucks, and non-road engines 
such as diesel engines used in agriculture and construction. The EPA 
also notes that because the District is currently classified as Severe 
nonattainment for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, the CAA requires the 
District to implement rules consistent with the federal nonattainment 
NSR requirements at CAA section 173 and 40 CFR 51.165.
    Comment #6c: The District states that the EPA's identification of 
Rules 1301(MM), 1301(UU), 1301(RR), 1301(TT), and 1304(B)(2) reflects a 
misunderstanding of the overall structure of the District's NSR 
regulation. The District states that the EPA assumes that the 
District's use of previously offset SERs could potentially allow a new 
or modified facility to escape being categorized as a ``Major 
Facility'' or a ``Major Modification.''
    The District states that the EPA ignores the existence of Rule 
1302, which ``very clearly sets out a flow for analysis in which one 
step occurs after another in sequence as indicated in the Final NSR 
Staff Report.'' The District explains that the first step in the 
sequence is to determine the ``Emissions Change'' under Rule 1302(C)(1) 
on both an emissions unit and facility wide basis using Rule 
1304(B)(1), noting no SERs are used in that calculation. The District 
states that the next steps involve the determination of whether a 
particular change is indeed a ``Modification.'' The District states 
that the EPA also conveniently ignores the provisions of Rule 
1303(A)(4), which excludes the use of SERs in determining emissions 
increases for the purpose of applying BACT.
    The District admits that Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) could be interpreted 
incorrectly ``without the procedural sequence that Rule 1302 sets 
forth.'' The District asserts that these provisions at issue have been 
in active use since 1996 with demonstrable results in overall air 
quality. The District states that, despite its assertion of the 
adequacy of the submitted provisions, it would appreciate guidance from 
the EPA regarding methods to clarify that SERs derived from previously 
fully offset activities can be used only to reduce the amount of 
offsets required and not for any other purpose.
    Response to Comment #6c: The EPA disagrees with the District's 
assertions that the EPA's proposed disapproval of Rule 1301's 
definitions for ``Major Modification,'' ``Modification (Modified),'' 
``Net Emissions Increase,'' and ``Significant'' is incorrect. We note 
that Rule 1301 defines the terms ``Major Modification'' and 
``Modification (Modified)'' using the term ``Net Emissions Increase,'' 
and, as explained in our proposed action, Rule 1301(UU) defines the 
term ``Net Emissions Increase'' as an emission increase calculated per 
Rule 1304(B)(2) that exceeds zero.\38\ Rule 1304(B)(2) prescribes the 
calculation methodologies for net emissions increases, and provides 
that net emissions increases must subtract SERs ``as calculated and 
verified pursuant to Section C below.'' \39\ As noted in our proposed 
action and in our response to Comments 6 and 6a, Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) 
allows permit applicants to calculate a net emissions increase using 
allowable (i.e., potential) emissions as the pre-project baseline, 
rather than actual emissions, as required by the EPA's regulations.\40\ 
As we have explained in our response to Comments 6 and 6a, the 
District's approach is less stringent than federal requirements because 
actual emissions are almost always lower than allowable (i.e., 
potential) emissions. Therefore, an evaluation of a net emissions 
increase (which is essentially a comparison of pre-project and post-
project emissions) that uses actual emissions (as required by the EPA's 
regulations) will show a higher net emissions increase than a 
calculation that uses allowable (i.e., potential) emissions as the pre-
project baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 88 FR 5826, 5830.
    \39\ Rule 1304(B)(2)(c).
    \40\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We further note that Rule 1303, ``New Source Review Requirements,'' 
sets forth Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements \41\ 
at subsection (A), and subsections (A)(2) and (A)(3) impose BACT 
requirements through the use of the term ``Modification (Modified),'' 
defined at Rule 1301(RR).\42\ As we explained in our proposed action, 
Rule 1301(RR) defines ``Modified'' in terms of whether a project will 
``result in a Net Emission Increase [sic].'' \43\ As a result, a 
project that does not result in a ``Net Emission Increase'' will not 
meet the criteria for ``Modified.'' Therefore, projects can potentially 
avoid the applicability of the BACT requirement because Rule 1303 uses 
the term ``Modified'' and, indirectly, the term ``Net Emission 
Increase,'' to impose this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The District's definition of Best Available Control 
Technology in Rule 1301(K) is consistent with the federal definition 
of ``lowest achievable emission rate'' in CAA section 171(3) and 40 
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xiii).
    \42\ Rule 1303(A)(2) and (A)(3) use the term ``Modified Permit 
Unit,'' Rule 1301 separately defines the terms ``Modification 
(Modified)'' at subsection (RR) and ``Permit Unit'' at subsection 
(DDD).
    \43\ 88 FR 5826, 5830.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Rule 1303(B)(2) imposes offset requirements using the 
term ``Major Modification,'' which is defined at Rule 1301(MM). Rule 
1301(MM) defines ``Major Modification'' using the term ``Net Emissions 
Increase.'' \44\ As a result, a project that does not result in a ``Net 
Emissions Increase'' will not meet the criteria for a ``Major 
Modification'' and therefore can potentially avoid the applicability of 
offset requirements because Rule 1303 uses the term ``Major 
Modification'' and, indirectly, the term ``Net Emissions Increase,'' to 
impose this obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Rule 1301(MM) refers to a ``Significant Net Emissions 
Increase''; Rule 1301 separately defines ``Significant'' at 
1301(TTT) and ``Net Emissions Increase'' at 1301(UU).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District states, ``the existence of Rule 1302 . . . very 
clearly sets out a flow for analysis in which one step occurs after 
another in sequence . . . first you determine `Emissions Change' under 
1302(C)(1) on both an emissions unit and facility wide basis using 
1304(B)(1) . . . No SERs are used in this calculation.'' The EPA does 
not agree with these statements. Rule 1302(C)(1) does not specifically 
reference Rule 1304(B)(1)--it references, more generally, Rules 1304 
and 1700.\45\ This

[[Page 42631]]

point is significant because Rule 1302(C)(1)'s general cross-reference 
to Rule 1304 encompasses not just Rule 1304(B)(1), which might be 
helpful, but also the deficient provisions of Rule 1304(C)(2)(d), 
which, as explained above, calculate SERs using a pre-project baseline 
of allowable (i.e., potential) emissions, which results in improper 
calculations of net emissions increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Rule 1302(C)(1)(a) states: ``The APCO shall analyze the 
application to determine the specific pollutants, amount, and change 
(if any) in emissions pursuant to the provisions of District Rules 
1304 and 1700.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District, in its comment letter, ``admits that the provisions 
as expressed in 1304(C)(2)(d) could, in the abstract and absent the 
procedural sequence set forth in 1302, potentially be interpreted 
incorrectly.'' The EPA does not agree that Rule 1302 contains a 
``procedural sequence.'' We also do not find any such sequence in Rule 
1304. Rule 1304 identifies several different types of emissions 
calculations but does not specify an analytical framework for their 
use.
    The District's comment also repeatedly refers to its Staff Report. 
In general, references to non-regulatory sources can be helpful to 
explain regulatory text; however, the District's reliance on its Staff 
Report in this instance is not sufficient to correct the fact that the 
rules fail to ensure proper analysis and implementation of federal 
requirements.
    Therefore, Rule 1302's broad cross reference to Rule 1304 is 
insufficient to establish a sequence or an ``analysis flow'' such as 
that asserted by the District. The ambiguity in the District's rules 
means that they do not ensure a proper analysis of emissions changes, 
such as, for example, correctly evaluating whether a project will 
result in an ``Emissions Change'' before evaluating whether it will 
result in a ``Net Emissions Increase.'' Such sequence is essential to 
correctly identifying whether a project would result in a net emissions 
increase under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vi), which the District currently 
uses as a basis for determining whether a project is a ``Major 
Modification.''
    In reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA must ensure that the plain 
language of the rule under review is clear and unambiguous. In a 
September 23, 1987 memorandum, the ``Potter memo,'' the EPA stated its 
criteria regarding the enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions.\46\ 
The Potter memo states that SIP rules must be clear in terms of their 
applicability, and that ``[v]ague, poorly defined rules must become a 
thing of the past.'' \47\ It also states that ``SIP revisions should be 
written clearly, with explicit language to implement their intent. The 
plain language of all rules . . . should be complete, clear, and 
consistent with the intended purpose of the rules.'' \48\ The EPA can 
only approve rule language that is clear on its face, and the sequence 
the District uses for determining emissions changes and net emissions 
increases is not sufficiently clear. The clarification in the Staff 
Report cannot supplant vague rule language. The District makes the 
statement that it has been using the provisions at issue ``since at 
least 1996 with corresponding demonstrable results in improving air 
quality.'' Even if air quality improved during this period, the rules 
must be clarified to ensure they are interpreted properly. It is 
speculative to assume that any air quality improvements occurred as a 
result of the way the rules are currently written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Memorandum dated September 23, 1987, from J. Craig Potter, 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional 
Administrators and Regional Counsels, Regions I-X, ``Review of State 
Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal 
Sufficiency.''
    \47\ Id. at 3.
    \48\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the District's comment letter states that ``USEPA 
also conveniently ignores the provisions of 1303(A)(4) which excludes 
the use of SERs in determining emissions increases for purpose [sic] of 
applying BACT.'' Rule 1303(A)(4) includes an appropriately specific 
cross-reference to Rule 1304(B)(1), regarding ``General Emissions 
Change Calculations.'' Rule 1304(B)(1) provides for proper calculation 
of a project's emissions changes. However, the BACT requirement is also 
implemented by Rule 1303(A)(2) and (A)(3), which, as described above, 
use the term ``Modified,'' which is problematically defined by Rule 
1301(RR), specifically because of its cross-reference to the term ``Net 
Emissions Increase,'' which is in turn deficient because of its cross 
reference to Rule 1304's calculation methodologies, including Rule 
1304(C)(2)(d). As we described in our response to the District's 
Comment 6b, MDAQMD found that a project in its jurisdiction did not 
trigger BACT because there was no net emissions increase and therefore 
the facility was not ``Modified'' as defined in Rule 1301(RR). It 
appears that the MDAQMD used the identical SERs-related provisions of 
MDAQMD Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) to calculate ``Net Emission Increase'' to 
conclude that the project was not ``Modified'' and as a result it did 
not require BACT.\49\ We note that such a conclusion appears 
inconsistent with MDAQMD Rule 1303(A)(4), but apparently resulted from 
the ambiguities in Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, and 1304 described above. 
Even though the project occurred in the MDAQMD jurisdiction, the 
identical rule provisions mean that it is a useful example to explain 
the rule deficiencies in AVAQMD. Under both AVAQMD's rules and 
MDAQMD's, it is difficult to envision a scenario in which a ``fully 
offset'' emissions unit, using the District's terminology, would ever 
need to install BACT or obtain offsets as long as the facility does not 
increase its allowable emissions. Therefore, we confirm the 
determinations in our proposed action that the definitions of ``Net 
Emissions Increase'' in Rule 1301(UU) and all related provisions in 
Rule 1301(MM), 1301(RR), and 1301(TTT), as well as 1304(B)(2), are 
deficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The District's analysis of the application for this project 
states: ``The permitting action is classified as an NSR Modification 
as defined in Rule 1301(NN). As there are no net emissions increases 
associated with NOX, VOC, or PM10, the emissions unit and 
the facility are not Modified as defined in Rule 1301 with respect 
to those pollutants and current BACT is not triggered.'' (Emphasis 
in original.) MDAQMD, ``Preliminary Determination/Decision--
Statement of Basis for Minor Modification to and Renewal of FOP 
Number: 104701849 For: High Desert Power Project, LLC.'' December 
21, 2022, p. 8. We note that the District makes two logically 
inconsistent statements in its analysis of the project: first, that 
the project is an NSR Modification under Rule 1301(NN), and second, 
that the project is not Modified as defined in Rule 1301(NN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #6d: With regard to the EPA's finding that ``SERs used to 
determine quantity of offsets required are not based on actual 
emissions as required in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J),'' the District 
repeats that its NSR regulation is designed to ensure that the 
emissions reductions achieved from each modified emissions unit, and 
thus from any facility containing such emissions units, are greater 
than those required by the CAA by requiring BACT and offsets in more 
cases and on a greater number of emissions units than the CAA requires. 
The District states that its NSR program is also designed to meet the 
California Clean Air Act requirement mandating that stationary source 
control programs developed by a district with moderate or greater ozone 
pollution achieve ``no net increase in emissions of nonattainment 
pollutants or their precursors from new or modified stationary sources 
which emit or have the potential to emit 25 tons per year or more of 
nonattainment pollutants or their precursors,'' which ensure that 
emissions at a particular

[[Page 42632]]

facility remain the same or decrease over time. The District states 
that this is in direct contrast to the EPA's ``De Minimis'' provisions, 
which could result in up to a 25 tpy increase in pollutants from each 
Major Facility over every rolling five-year period. The District states 
that it has provided clear and convincing evidence in its Staff Report 
and elsewhere that its NSR program requires BACT and offsets in a 
number of situations where the CAA would not require them, resulting in 
a more stringent set of requirements overall. The District then 
requests specific, detailed guidance regarding what type and nature of 
additional evidence, if any, the EPA would consider appropriate to show 
equivalent stringency to the CAA requirements.
    Response to Comment #6d: The EPA disagrees with the District's 
comment. First, as we explained in our response to the District's 
Comment 6b, the District provides no demonstration to support its claim 
that its program is more stringent than required by the federal NSR 
regulations, nor does it provide any basis on which the EPA could find 
that its NSR program ensures equivalency with federal offset 
requirements. Similarly, the references in the District's comment 
letter to its Staff Report are not sufficient to demonstrate that its 
NSR program offsets emissions increases in a manner that is at least 
equivalent to federal requirements. As to the District's assertion that 
its NSR rules are designed to meet the California Clean Air Act ``no 
net increase'' requirement: even if the District's program satisfies 
the California Clean Air Act, it must also satisfy federal air 
pollution control requirements under the federal CAA and its 
implementing regulations; satisfaction of state law requirements does 
not justify noncompliance with federal requirements. We provide 
additional explanation on the California ``no net increase'' 
requirement and federal offsetting requirements in our response to 
District comments 9b and 10. Also, as we described in our response to 
the District's Comment 6b, MDAQMD's determination that the project did 
not require offsets despite a projected actual emissions increase of 35 
tpy NOX under the PSD program, supports our finding that the 
District's program, which implements the same offsetting rules as 
MDAQMD, is less stringent than the federal requirements. We respond to 
the District's assertion regarding the De Minimis provisions at CAA 
section 182(c)(6) in our response to the District's Comment 9b.
    Comment #7: Regarding the District's use of the word ``proceed'' in 
the definition of ``Historic Actual Emissions,'' which the EPA 
identified as a deficiency, the District agrees that the deficiency is 
probably an overlooked typographical error, but that it has been in the 
rule for several iterations, dating back to 1996. The District states 
that it could have provided to the EPA a commitment to correct this 
deficiency prior to the publication of the EPA's action if the EPA had 
provided prior notification of the issue. The District states that it 
would appreciate specific guidance from the EPA regarding whether a 
commitment to modify the deficient provision would be appropriate at 
this time.
    Response to Comment #7: The District does not appear to disagree 
with the EPA's proposed determination that this issue is a deficiency; 
rather, the District appears to take issue with the manner in which the 
EPA provided notification of it. The EPA appreciates the coordination 
and cooperation demonstrated over the period of joint work by our 
agencies to improve the District's NSR rules. We remain available to 
discuss revisions necessary to address the deficiencies with the goal 
to full approval of revisions to the District's rules and a fully 
approved NSR program. The District may address this deficiency, along 
with all other identified deficiencies, in its next revised SIP 
submittal of its NSR program rules.
    Comment #8: The District comments that the EPA failed to 
sufficiently communicate a deficiency identified in our proposed 
action, specifically, that Rules 1302 and 1304 allow for the 
interchangeable use of the terms ``contract'' and ``permit.'' The 
District states that, had the EPA communicated this deficiency, the 
District could have provided assurances to the EPA to remove the 
deficiency. The District states that it can and will be able to provide 
a commitment to modify the deficient provisions in a subsequent local 
action, but it requests specific guidance from the EPA on whether it is 
appropriate to provide the EPA a commitment to modify at this time.
    Response to Comment #8: We do not interpret the District's comment 
to assert a legal or technical basis that our proposed action to 
disapprove this rule is incorrect. The District states that the term 
``contract'' was most likely inadvertently retained and that it can 
commit to modify the specific provisions to address the issue. We 
appreciate the District's willingness to address this deficiency. It is 
not necessary for the District to provide additional commitments. 
Following this final action, the EPA remains available to discuss 
necessary revisions, with the goal of full approval of revisions to the 
District's rules and a fully approved NSR program.
    Comment #9a (``Interprecursor Trading''): This comment concerns the 
use of interprecursor trading, which is provided for in Rule 
1305(C)(6). The District first states that the EPA is concerned that a 
court decision and subsequent change to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11) make 
interprecursor trading impermissible. The District notes that it 
revised Regulation XIII (including Rule 1305) after the court decision 
but before the EPA revised 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11). The District states 
that it is unclear whether the revision to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11) has 
been challenged and observes that the EPA could have chosen to revise 
the provision differently. The District states that the EPA did not 
provide any indication in the TSD on the current status of this 
particular regulatory provision other than a citation. The District 
references a footnote as providing sufficient warning and requiring 
compliance with the applicable provisions to ensure that interprecursor 
trading among ozone precursors does not occur in a subsequent NSR 
action. The District states that prompt communication on the EPA's part 
would have obliviated [sic] the need for this comment as the District 
could have committed to clarifying the deficient provision in a 
subsequent rulemaking. The District then requests specific guidance 
from the EPA regarding whether the provision of a commitment of modify 
the deficient provision would be appropriate at this time.
    Response to Comment #9a (``Interprecursor Trading''): To the extent 
the District's comment might be read as asserting that the EPA's 
proposed limited approval/limited disapproval of Rule 1305 is 
incorrect, the EPA does not agree. As the District acknowledges in its 
comment, on January 29, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued 
a decision in Sierra Club v. USEPA, that vacated an EPA regulation that 
allowed the use of reductions of an ozone precursor to offset increases 
in a different ozone precursor, i.e., ``interprecursor trading.'' \50\ 
On July 19, 2021, the EPA removed the ozone interprecursor trading 
provisions in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11).\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815, 819-823 (D.C. Cir. 
2021).
    \51\ 86 FR 37918 (July 19, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 1305(C)(6) allows for the use of interprecursor trading. This 
fact is not

[[Page 42633]]

changed by a footnote in the rule that acknowledges the January 2021 
court decision without clearly prohibiting the use of interprecursor 
trading to satisfy offset obligations.\52\ To the extent the District 
is suggesting that the timing of the EPA's revisions to 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(11) or the possibility of subsequent legal challenges to 
those revisions somehow affects the EPA's conclusion that Rule 
1305(C)(6) is not consistent with federal law, we disagree. Therefore, 
the EPA's proposed limited approval/limited disapproval of Rule 1305 is 
appropriate. Following this final action, the EPA remains available to 
discuss necessary revisions, with the goal of full approval of 
revisions to the District's rules and a fully approved NSR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The footnote attached to Rule 1305 states: ``Use of this 
section subject to the ruling in Sierra Club v. USEAP [sic] 985 F.3d 
1055 (D.C. Cir, 2021) and subsequent guidance by USEPA.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #9b (``De Minimis Rule''): The District summarizes the 
EPA's proposed action as asserting that CAA section 182(c)(6) 
``mandates the inclusion of a so called `De Minimis' provision'' and 
also as appearing to assert that CAA 182(c)(6) overrides the District's 
ability to implement rules that are more stringent than the 
requirements of the CAA pursuant to CAA section 116. The District 
states that the SIP-approved version of its NSR program does not 
contain a ``De Minimis'' provision primarily due to the requirement in 
the California Health and Safety Code section 40918(a) of ``no net 
increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants and their 
precursors.'' The District asserts that the EPA did not bring up this 
issue during the rule development period. The District states that the 
inclusion of the ``de minimis'' provision, as required under CAA 
section 182, would allow major facilities to increase their actual 
emissions without providing offsets, increasing NOX and VOC 
emissions by as much as 100 tons per year, as it results in ``a 
complete exemption from Offsets and BACT requirements.'' It then 
asserts that incorporating the De Minimis provision would weaken its 
NSR program, which would violate CAA section 110(l), California Health 
and Safety Code section 40918(a)(1), and the Protect California Air Act 
of 2003, which it states, ``prohibits local air districts from amending 
or revising its New Source Review rules to be less stringent than those 
in effect on 12/30/2002.'' The District also states that, despite its 
assertion of the adequacy of the current submissions, it requests 
specific guidance regarding the type and nature of evidence the EPA 
would consider appropriate to show greater stringency of the District's 
NSR program than that provided by the ``de minimis'' provision.
    Response to Comment #9b (``De Minimis Rule''): The EPA does not 
agree with the comment. CAA section 182(c)(6) (``the De Minimis Rule'') 
specifies a mandatory requirement for state NSR programs in 
nonattainment areas classified as Serious and above. It requires such 
areas to evaluate whether a particular physical change or change in the 
method of operation is a major modification by considering net 
emissions increases from that change and all other net emissions 
increases during the preceding five calendar years. If the total of all 
such emission increases is greater than 25 tons, the particular change 
is subject to the area's SIP-approved NNSR program.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The CAA section 182(c)(6) ``De Minimis Rule'' provides: 
``The new source review provisions under this part shall ensure that 
increased emissions of volatile organic compounds resulting from any 
physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a 
stationary source located in the area shall not be considered de 
minimis for purposes of determining the applicability of the permit 
requirements established by this chapter unless the increase in net 
emissions of such air pollutant from such source does not exceed 25 
tons when aggregated with all other net increases in emissions from 
the source over any period of 5 consecutive calendar years which 
includes the calendar year in which such increase occurred.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District does not dispute the EPA's determination that the 
District's NSR program does not include provisions specified in CAA 
section 182(c)(6).\54\ Instead, the District asserts that the inclusion 
of language to satisfy the De Minimis Rule provision would result in 
emissions increases at major facilities, possibly totaling as much as 
100 tons each of NOX and VOC over a five-year period without 
requiring offsets. This assertion, however, reflects the District's 
misinterpretation of CAA 182(c)(6). CAA section 182(c)(6) requires NNSR 
programs in nonattainment areas to require facilities to aggregate 
project emissions over a rolling five-year period to ensure adequate 
regulatory review of NSR requirements such as those for control 
technologies and offsets. Contrary to the District's assertions, CAA 
section 182(c)(6) does not allow facilities to increase actual 
emissions by 25 tons without offsetting them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The District also concedes that it revised Rule 1303 to 
remove a provision that previously provided such assurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the District does not explain how the De Minimis Rule 
conflicts with either the ``no net increase'' requirement in California 
Health and Safety Code section 40918(a) or the Protect California Air 
Act of 2003. The District's comment does not change the EPA's 
understanding that the De Minimis Rule operates independently of these 
requirements, and therefore the District's implementation of it would 
not weaken the District's current NNSR program. As the District's rules 
are currently written, BACT requirements apply when an emission unit 
has an emission increase or PTE of greater than 4.56 tpy (25 lb/day) 
(Rule 1303(A)(1) and (2)), or when the emission increase or PTE of all 
emission units exceed 25 tpy (Rule 1303(A)(3)). For example, a new 
facility with five emission units, each with a PTE of 4 tpy, would not 
be subject to BACT requirements under state or federal NSR 
requirements. However, if during the next 5 years, the source proposed 
to add three additional emission units, each with a PTE of 4 tpy, BACT 
would still not be triggered under the current rule, since the state 
4.56 tpy emission unit and the federal 25 tpy project thresholds have 
not been exceeded. However, under the ``De Minimis'' requirements, the 
new project would be considered a major modification, with an 
aggregated emission increase of 32 tpy, and therefore, trigger both 
BACT and offset requirements for the current project. This is because 
the aggregated emissions from the two projects occuring within a 5-year 
time frame exceed the 25 tpy De Minimis Rule threshold. The District's 
rules fail to ensure that such a scenario is not treated as de minimis, 
as CAA section 182(c)(6) requires. The federal De Minimis Rule prevents 
a series of smaller projects, with emissions equivalent to the major 
modification threshold, from avoiding the major modification 
requirements of BACT and offsets. California law does not ensure 
conformity with the De Minimis Rule; therefore, the District's NSR 
program must include provisions to ensure compliance with it. The 
District's assertion that the De Minimis rule would result in a 
complete exemption from offsets and BACT requirements is not correct--
implementation of the requirements of the De Minimis Rule would ensure 
that more projects are subject to NNSR requirements, and, in turn, 
procure offsets and install BACT, consistent with federal law.
    The District asserts that its submitted rules would be more 
stringent than implementing the De Minimis Rule and other aspects of 
EPA's NNSR requirements and seeks guidance from the EPA on how to make 
this demonstration. In general, to make a demonstration that a program 
is at least as stringent as federal NNSR program

[[Page 42634]]

requirements, the District would need to demonstrate that the 
requirements of its rule would trigger LAER and offsets requirements in 
all cases that would trigger these same requirements pursuant to the 
provisions of CAA section 182(c)(6). The EPA does not believe such a 
demonstration is possible, given the variety of project scenarios, 
which, depending on the facts (timing and emission rates from 
individual and groups of emissions units), would show that each set of 
rules is more and less stringent than the other in some cases. As we 
discussed in our response to District Comments 6-6d, the District's 
rules are flawed in that they allow for improper calculation of net 
emissions increases, which affects the implementation of NSR 
requirements. Our responses to Comments 6-6d also describe the MDAQMD's 
analysis of a permit application for a project involving a power plant 
and its determination that the project was not a modification because 
it would result in an emissions decrease, even though the project would 
increase actual emissions. The same situation could occur in the 
District because the District rules implicated by the permit 
application are identical to the MDAQMD's. We do not agree that the 
District's approach of not considering this project or other similar 
projects to be a modification constitutes a more stringent program.
    As to the District's statement regarding the EPA not raising this 
issue earlier, the EPA appreciates the coordination and cooperation 
demonstrated over the period of joint work by our agencies to improve 
the rules. We remain available to discuss revisions necessary to 
address the deficiencies with the goal of full approval of revisions to 
the District's rules and a fully approved NSR program.
    Comment #10: The District states that the De Minimis Rule ``would 
have a profound negative effect on air quality'' because not only would 
facilities be able to increase allowable emissions by up to 25 tons per 
rolling 5-year period, but the rule would also cause other detrimental 
practices such as ``emissions spiking'' and delayed equipment upgrades.
    Response to Comment #10: The District's hypothetical assertions 
that CAA 182(c)(6) would encourage ``emissions spiking'' to 
artificially increase actual emissions prior to making a modification 
are unsupported. As a practical matter, a source operating for two 
years above its actual needed operations to get as close as possible to 
its allowable emissions would likely incur significant costs in the 
process to unnecessarily operate the equipment. We do not see this 
scenario as providing a realistic incentive; in fact, implementation of 
CAA section 182(c)(6) would create no greater incentive for a source to 
increase its actual emissions prior to making a change that may require 
the source to undergo NNSR than the limited incentive that exists under 
the District's current rules. Similarly, the District's hypothetical 
assertion that the De Minimis Rule would discourage facilities from 
upgrading equipment is outside the scope of our proposed action, which 
is to ensure the District's NSR rules comply with federal NNSR program 
requirements regarding the calculation of emission reductions and the 
quantity of offsets required for significant emission increases.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ We also note that the District's current NSR program fails 
to adequately address increases in actual emissions that might 
result from delayed equipment upgrades because the rules allowing 
net emissions increases to be evaluated using a baseline of pre-
project allowable emissions rather than actual emissions. See EPA 
responses to Comments 6-6d above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also requests that the EPA ``provide clear and 
convincing evidence that the implementation of USEPA's suggested 
corrections would indeed produce a benefit to air quality in the 
region.'' The objective of the EPA review of the District's submitted 
rules is to ensure conformity with federal requirements. Our proposed 
action describes the statutory and regulatory requirements that the 
District's NSR rules must satisfy for EPA approval.\56\ Where the 
District disagrees with the EPA's finding of deficiency, it has not 
provided a quantitative or legal demonstration that its rule provisions 
are more stringent, or at least as stringent, as the federal 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See 88 FR 5826, 5829-30; TSD p. 21-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #11: The District states that the EPA's proposed limited 
disapproval of all rules that cite Rule 1304(C)(2) is overbroad. The 
District states that the EPA has indicated that it is proposing to 
disapprove Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305 primarily due to the 
cross-references in these rules to provisions in Rule 1304(C)(2). The 
District states that such an action would disapprove the use of any 
internal offsetting for any facility--not just Major Facilities--
regardless of the calculation used to determine SERs. The District 
states that such a disapproval might result in an increase of Emission 
Reductions Credits being banked and then immediately used, under 
District Regulation XIV, ``Emission Reduction Credit Banking,'' but 
asserts that it is more probable that it would result in an immediate 
cessation of all modifications to existing facilities within the 
District. Therefore, the District states this action is overbroad, as 
simply disapproving the use of the provisions in Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) 
would be enough to alleviate the EPA's stated concerns and allow the 
remainder of the NSR program to be approved in a manner and to the 
extent that it could be included to satisfy the 70 ppb ozone NAAQS 
requirements. The District requests that the EPA provide further 
justification on why a more limited disapproval of the provisions 
contained in Rule 1304(C)(2)(d) would be insufficient to address the 
EPA's major alleged deficiencies, as set forth in the EPA's proposed 
action.
    Response to Comment #11: As we stated in our proposed action, the 
deficiencies pertaining to offsets in the District's NSR program make 
portions of Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305 not fully approvable 
because the District's NSR program is not consistent with CAA section 
182(c)(6). Our basis for that finding is also explained in our 
responses to Comments 9 and 10 above. In addition, the EPA's TSD 
provides additional information regarding the deficiencies in these 
rules, largely as a result of cross references to Rule 1304(C)(2)(d), 
which allows SERs to be calculated using a baseline of allowable 
emissions, not actual emissions. This deficiency affects the 
calculation of net emissions increases in Rule 1304(B)(2). Therefore, 
the use of the term ``net emissions increase'' or cross-references to 
Rule 1304 affect the approvability of Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, and 1305. 
Please see Table 4 of our TSD for additional information.
    The EPA's action to finalize a limited approval and limited 
disapproval of Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305 into the SIP 
means that the rules, as currently submitted, will be incorporated into 
the SIP, but they must be revised and resubmitted to the EPA to avoid 
sanctions and FIP consequences. As we stated in our proposed action, we 
proposed limited approval and limited disapproval of these rules 
because although they fulfill most of the relevant CAA requirements and 
strengthen the SIP, they also contain certain deficiencies. Our final 
action incorporates into the SIP the submitted rules listed in Table 2 
for which we are fully approving or finalizing a limited approval/
limited disapproval, including those provisions we identified as 
deficient.
    Comment #12: The District states that the issues with its NSR 
program are substantially similar to those the EPA raised in the NPRM 
for the MDAQMD's

[[Page 42635]]

NSR program.\57\ The District requests that the EPA not finalize this 
action until the MDAQMD's issues are resolved, because any resolution 
of the issues for the MDAQMD would presumably be similarly applied to 
the District's program. The District states that if such a delay is not 
possible, it requests that the EPA not object to the consolidation of a 
challenge to this action in any future potential litigation involving 
the MDAQMD's issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 87 FR 72434 (November 25, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response to Comment #12: The EPA believes it will be efficient to 
work with AVAQMD and MDAQMD simultaneously to resolve the identified 
deficiencies for both NSR programs. The District's comment regarding 
future potential litigation is outside the scope of this rulemaking and 
no response is required.

B. Comments From the Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale

    The Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale state that they ``adopt[ ] and 
join[ ] in the comment letter submitted by the Antelope Valley Air 
Quality Management District (AVAQMD)'' and that they ``would like to 
reiterate [the District's] comments in their entirety.'' The EPA's 
responses to the District's comments are provided in section II.A. of 
this document.

C. Comments From Northrop Grumman Corporation (``Northrop Grumman''), 
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company--Palmdale (``Lockheed Martin 
Aero''), and the United States Department of Defense (``DoD'')

    Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #1: Both 
commenters state that the proposed rulemaking identifies alleged 
deficiencies that are currently approved into the SIP without 
explanation for why previously approved provisions are now 
inappropriate. The commenters state that the CAA has not been amended 
since 1990 and that they have not identified any federal regulatory 
changes or EPA guidance that provide a basis for determining that the 
current rules are deficient. The commenters state that they would 
appreciate an analysis and rationale for the changes to the EPA's 
interpretations that render the previously approved NSR program 
provisions now unacceptable.
    Response to Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #1: 
As the EPA stated in our response to the District's Comment #4, the 
EPA's proposed action and TSD provide citations to the specific 
provisions in the Act and its implementing regulations that are the 
basis for the EPA's disapproval of certain specified provisions in the 
District's revised NSR rules. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) requires 
offsets for each major modification at a major source in an amount 
equal to the difference between pre-modification actual emissions and 
post-modification PTE.\58\ The EPA interprets the language in the 
regulation referring to ``the modification'' to mean each major 
modification that is undertaken at a major source, with emphasis on the 
word ``each.'' The EPA's interpretation of this provision is consistent 
with our approval of other NSR SIP rules in the past.\59\ Since 
approving rules from the District's Regulation XIII into the SIP in 
1996, the EPA has revised the implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 
to clarify the Act's requirements several times. The 2002 revisions to 
40 CFR 51.165 added 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J).\60\ As we discussed in 
this document and in our proposed action and accompanying TSD, the 
District's submitted rules do not adequately address the requirements 
in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J).\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See, e.g., EPA, ``Technical Support Document for the 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area New 
Source Review Regulations,'' 67 FR 80185 (December 31, 2002), p. I-
6-11 (``With regard to the amount of emissions increase that must be 
offset, consistent with our proposal, the new rules provide once a 
physical or operational change is determined to be a major 
modification (based on the `actual-to-projected-actual' 
applicability test) the current definition of `actual emissions' 
would continue to be used for other NSR purposes, including ambient 
impact analyses. Based on this position, the new rules for 
nonattainment NSR provide that the total tonnage of increased 
emissions, in tons per year, resulting from a major modification 
must be determined by summing the difference between the allowable 
emissions after the modification and the `actual emissions' (as 
defined by the current rules) before the modification for each 
emissions unit affected by the modification. [Sec.  See 
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J)]''). See also 81 FR 50339, 50340 (August 1, 
2016) (``40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) directs SIPs to include rules to 
ensure that the total tonnage of increased emissions, in tons per 
year, resulting from a major modification that must be offset in 
accordance with section 173 of the Act shall be determined by 
summing the difference between the allowable emissions after the 
modification and the actual emissions before the modification. This 
provision requires providing offsets for each major modification at 
a major source in an amount equal to the difference between pre-
modification actual emissions and post-modification PTE.'')
    \59\ See, e.g., ``Revisions to California State Implementation 
Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Stationary Sources; 
New Source Review;'' 83 FR 8822 (March 1, 2018); see also ``Revision 
of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Sacramento 
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source 
Permits;'' 78 FR 53270 (August 29, 2013).
    \60\ 67 FR 80185 (December 31, 2002).
    \61\ In our 2002 rulemaking, we also added the requirement in 40 
CFR 51.165(a)(2)(ii) that deviations from federal definitions and 
requirements are generally approvable only if a state specifically 
demonstrates that the submitted provisions are more stringent, or at 
least as stringent, in all respects as the corresponding federal 
provisions and definitions. To date, the District has not made such 
a demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #2, and DoD 
Comment: Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero state that the EPA 
would require the use of HAE or actual emissions even where a 
particular Emissions Unit has already been offset in a past NSR 
permitting action. The commenters take issue with the argument that 
taking credit for these previously offset sources does not represent 
``real reductions.'' The commenters state that their facility emission 
limits, as well as individual permit limits, were created as a result 
of facility shutdowns (the Ford Motor Company plant in Pico Rivera and 
the Lockheed Martin Burbank facility). Both commenters state that at 
the time of the Ford and Lockheed shutdowns, their facilities were 
under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, therefore ERCs were calculated 
pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1306(e)(2), based on ``actual emissions that 
occurred each year during the two-year period immediately preceding the 
date of permit application, or other appropriate period determined by 
the Executive Officer or designee to be representative of the source's 
cyclical operation, and consistent with federal requirements,'' and 
included all adjustments or discounts required as well as payment of 
any remaining NSR balances. Both commenters assert that these were not 
``paper reductions'' but were instead real emissions reductions, and to 
now determine those reductions as ``paper'' reductions is without 
merit.
    Similarly, the DoD believes that emissions that are previously 
offset through an approved New Source Review regulation represent 
actual emission reductions as required by CAA section 173(c)(1), and as 
such, can be used for calculating emission reductions pursuant to 
1304(C)(2)(d). Fully offset emissions are not ``paper reductions''; 
they represent actual reduction in emissions, banked and used following 
approved regulatory procedures. DoD argues that the removal of this 
provision would create a discriminatory situation in which a facility 
that has previously provided offsets for emission sources or processes 
is not differentiated from one that has received a permit without 
providing offsets. DoD requests that the EPA reconsider this change so 
that facilities have the incentive and flexibility to modify and 
replace older emission sources to improve the air quality and achieve 
military mission requirements.

[[Page 42636]]

    Response to Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #2 
and DoD Comment: The EPA disagrees with the comments, although we have 
no argument with the commenters as to whether the reductions were real 
at the time the offsets were originally used to permit the emissions 
units. Instead, the intent of our statement was to clarify that because 
such emissions reductions were previously used as offsets to create the 
permitted allowable emissions, they are not real reductions for a 
current project. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i)(A) establishes the federal 
requirements for SIP rules concerning offsets. This provision states 
that the baseline for determining credit for emissions reductions shall 
be the actual emissions of the source from which the credits are 
obtained, where the attainment plan is based on the actual emissions of 
sources within the nonattainment area. The District's attainment plan 
is based on actual emissions from permitted sources, thus triggering 
the requirements of this provision.\62\ Thus, an emission unit's actual 
emissions must be used as the baseline for calculating emission 
reductions from an existing emission unit, regardless of whether it was 
previously offset or not. Allowing credit for a reduction in previously 
offset PTE is not creditable, because that portion of the reduction has 
already been credited in the attainment plan demonstration. 
Furthermore, 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(G) explicitly prohibits facilities 
from using the same emissions reductions more than once. If a facility 
relies upon emissions reductions for a prior NNSR permit action, those 
emissions reductions are not eligible for use again in a future NNSR 
permit action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ AVAQMD, ``Federal 70 ppb Ozone Attainment Plan (Western 
Mojave Desert Nonattainment Area),'' for adoption on January 17, 
2023, p. 24 (``The stationary source inventory is composed of point 
sources and area-wide sources . . . The inventory reflects actual 
emissions from industrial point sources reported to the Districts by 
the facility operators through calendar year 2018.'' (emphasis 
added)). See also, AVAQMD, ``Federal 75 ppb Ozone Attainment Plan 
(Western Mojave Desert Nonattainment Area),'' March 21, 2017, p. 7 
(``This document includes a comprehensive, accurate and current 
inventory of actual emissions . . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters assert that reductions previously used to offset a 
project may be used to offset emissions increases occurring in the 
present day. These assertions are problematic--reductions used for 
offsets must be ``surplus'' to reductions that were already required by 
federal law (e.g., by other SIP-approved regulations such as CAA 
section 182(b)(2) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
requirements and NSR permits). Because the offsets provided for the 
existing equipment were already ``relied'' upon to issue an NSR permit, 
they cannot be used again to issue another NSR permit. The commenters 
reference ERCs awarded to them by SCAQMD; since AVAQMD was formed in 
1997, reductions that were credited by SCAQMD must have occurred at 
least 20 years in the past.\63\ We note here that in our proposed 
action, we did not identify the prohibition of reliance on previously-
used offsets as a deficiency in the District's rules, but the issue 
relates to the same deficient provision that we identified: Rule 
1304(C)(2)(d). We determined that it is appropriate to include an 
explanation of the requirements stated in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i)(A) and 
40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(G) to fully respond to the commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ We note that the shutdowns of the facilities referenced in 
the comments appear to have occurred in the 1980's or early 1990s. 
See, e.g., EPA, ``Reuse and the Benefit to Community: San Fernando 
Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site: Burbank,'' October 2018, p. 1 (``The 
closure of the Lockheed Martin facility in 1991 presented a 
redevelopment opportunity, while the groundwater cleanup presented a 
challenge in a water-scarce region.''), available at: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/100002333.pdf; see also, The New York Times, 
``Northrop to Buy Vacant Ford Plant,'' February 5, 1982 (``Ford 
discontinued assembly operations at the plant in January, 1980.''), 
available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/05/business/northrop-to-buy-vacant-ford-plant.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements stated in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i)(A) and 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(G) are consistent with the statutory provisions stated 
in CAA section 173(c)(1), which the DoD asserts is satisfied when 
previously offset emissions are treated as actual emission reductions 
for a current project, a statement with which we disagree. The CAA and 
its implementing regulations require a pre-construction analysis of 
each project at a major source to determine whether the project will 
result in a significant emissions increase and a significant net 
emissions increase, and if so, the quantity of reductions necessary to 
offset the significant emissions increase. CAA section 173(c)(1) 
requires NSR SIPs to offset the ``total tonnage of increased emissions 
of the air pollutant from the new or modified source by an equal or 
greater reduction, as applicable, in the actual emissions of such air 
pollutant,'' and that ``[s]uch emission reductions shall be, by the 
time a new or modified source commences operation, in effect and 
enforceable . . . .'' As we explained above, because the District's 
attainment plan is based on actual emissions from permitted sources, an 
emission unit's actual emissions must be used as the baseline for 
calculating emission reductions from an existing emission unit, 
regardless of whether it was previously offset or not.
    In terms of calculating offset quantities, 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) is plainly stated as a discrete requirement 
applicable to each proposed major modification. This provision requires 
offsets for each major modification at a major source in an amount 
equal to the difference between pre-modification actual emissions and 
post-modification potential to emit, which is generally equivalent to 
allowable emissions. The EPA interprets the language in the regulation 
referring to ``the modification'' to mean each major modification that 
a facility undertakes at a major source. The EPA's interpretation of 
this provision is consistent with our approval of other NSR SIP 
rules.64 65
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See, e.g., ``Revisions to California State Implementation 
Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Stationary Sources; 
New Source Review,'' 83 FR 8822 (March 1, 2018); see also ``Revision 
of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Sacramento 
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source 
Permits,'' 78 FR 53270 (August 29, 2013).
    \65\ In response to the DoD's assertion that the federal 
requirements ``would create a discriminatory situation,'' we 
maintain that the permit application process should be sufficient to 
enable the District to determine the quantity and status of offset 
credits and reductions; diligent implementation of the federal 
requirements will avoid confusion and unfair outcomes. Removal of 
the use of a PTE-to-PTE test would align the District's NNSR program 
with the same federal NNSR program that is applicable in all other 
areas. We do not see this as discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment 3: Northrop 
Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero state that the AVAQMD's NSR rules 
assure that increased emissions are offset by enforceable reductions in 
actual emissions. The commenters state that the CAA and its 
implementing regulations require that emission increases from new and 
modified sources in nonattainment areas are offset by emissions 
reductions that:

    (1) Are ``in effect and enforceable'' (CAA section 173(c)) 
(emphasis in original comment);
    (2) are ``creditable to the extent that the old level of actual 
emissions . . . exceeds the new level of actual emissions'' (40 CFR 
51.165(a)(1)(vi)(E)(1)) (emphasis in original comment); and
    (3) amount to the sum of ``the difference between allowable 
emissions after the modification . . . and the actual emissions 
before the modification'' (40 CFR(a)(3)(ii)(J)) (emphasis in 
original comment).

    The commenters state that despite the EPA's reservations about the 
District's use of a PTE baseline for calculating SERs for previously 
offset sources, the District's rules do just as the CAA requires. The 
commenters argue that the

[[Page 42637]]

District's SER calculations are in fact what turn temporary and 
unenforceable reductions into actual, permanent, and enforceable 
reductions, which may be properly credited as offsets or against 
emission increases when measuring a net emissions increase.
    Response to Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #3: 
The EPA disagrees with the comments. As the commenters state, 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(1)(vi)(E)(1) specifies that emission reductions are 
creditable as offsets to the extent that the old level of actual 
emissions . . . exceeds the new level of actual emissions.'' This 
provision clearly indicates that the baseline for calculating an 
emissions reduction is the current actual level of emissions, not the 
allowable emissions, as suggested by the commentor. As we explained in 
our proposed action, the District's program is deficient because it 
allows sources to calculate the quantity of emissions reductions by 
using potential to emit as the baseline for the calculations rather 
than the federally required baseline of actual emissions. Using a PTE-
to-PTE test to calculate the quantity of creditable emissions 
reductions does not satisfy the requirements stated in CAA section 
173(c)(1) or 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(E)(1) because it does not consider 
the actual emissions change resulting from a project.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See note 22 above regarding Rule 1304(C)(2)(d)(i), which 
states that the PTE for an emissions unit is specified in a 
federally enforceable emissions limitation and the generally 
interchangeable nature of the terms ``allowable'' and ``potential'' 
in the context of this rulemaking regarding the District's NSR 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as the EPA explained in our proposed action, 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) directs SIPs to include rules to ensure that the 
total tonnage of increased emissions, in tons per year, resulting from 
a major modification that must be offset in accordance with CAA section 
173 shall be determined by summing the difference between the allowable 
emissions after the modification and the actual emissions before the 
modification.\67\ This provision requires providing offsets for each 
major modification at a major source in an amount equal to the 
difference between pre-modification actual emissions and post-
modification PTE.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 81 FR 50339, 50340 (August 1, 2016).
    \68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the commenters' assertions, the District's use of a 
PTE-to-PTE test in lieu of the required actual to potential test 
renders that portion of the District's NSR program deficient. 
Therefore, the District's rules do not satisfy the federal requirements 
that the commenters cite.
    Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #4: Northrop 
Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero state that EPA's suggested corrections 
could limit the ability to modernize, which would be detrimental to air 
quality. The commenters state that there are no available ERCs in the 
District, and that interdistrict ERC requirements under the California 
Health and Safety Code along with the EPA's revised regulations that 
make interprecursor trading between ozone precursors impermissible mean 
that it is unlikely for the company to locate sufficient offsets for 
its projects.
    Northrop Grumman states that it recently installed a large new 
paint hangar equipped with technology to meet the Regulation XIII BACT 
requirement and is in the process of designing another that will also 
be equipped with technology to meet BACT. Northrop Grumman argues that 
eliminating the use of potential to emit as HAE for previously offset 
sources would make this modernization impossible due to the lack of VOC 
offsets in this or any upwind district. Lockheed Martin Aero describes 
plans to update its own facility. Lockheed Martin Aero also argues that 
eliminating the use of potential to emit as HAE for previously offset 
sources would make this modernization impossible due to the complete 
lack of VOC offsets in this or any upwind district.
    Response to Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #4: 
These comments do not provide any information regarding the legality or 
appropriateness of the EPA's proposed rulemaking action. Instead, they 
raise concerns about the impacts regarding the outcome of our action, 
in that the required rule revisions may require such projects to obtain 
additional offsets, which they state are not available. This concern is 
outside the scope of our proposed action, which is to ensure the 
District's NSR rules comply with federal NNSR program requirements 
regarding the calculation of emission reductions and the quantity of 
offsets required for significant emission increases.
    The EPA will continue to work with the District to resolve the 
deficiencies in its NSR rules and stakeholders will have the ability to 
provide input on revisions to the rules through public participation 
opportunities at the local and federal level.
    Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #5: Northrop 
Grumman Lockheed Martin Aero state that the results of this SIP 
disapproval could limit modernization and growth at a crucial time for 
the companies. The commenters assert that the District has provided 
more than appropriate evidence in its staff report and supporting 
analyses that its entire NSR program is fully compliant with and is 
overall more stringent than the CAA. The commenters claim that the 
EPA's proposed disapproval is not only unnecessary to protect air 
quality but could also result in significant unintended consequences.
    The commenters state that they are major aerospace defense 
contractors and employers in the AVAQMD. Northrop Grumman explains that 
it has plans to add productive capacity and 1,100 jobs at its Palmdale 
facility this year, and that the EPA's proposed disapproval could limit 
the ability to achieve that growth, which could also have much broader 
ramifications, including the ability to meet its contractual 
obligations to the United States Department of Defense that are 
important to national security. Lockheed Martin Aero states that it has 
plans to add productive capacity and jobs at the Palmdale facility, and 
that limiting that growth could have much broader ramifications 
including the ability to meet its contractual obligations to the United 
States Department of Defense that are important to national security.
    The commenters conclude with the statement that they do not believe 
there is evidence that EPA's disapproval will produce benefits to air 
quality in the region, and instead encourage the EPA to approve the 
rules as submitted and to focus its efforts on mobile and other 
underregulated sources in the District that are within its purview.
    Response to Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Aero Comment #5: 
The EPA appreciates the commenters' concerns regarding business 
operations and employment considerations. The EPA is responsible for 
ensuring the rules submitted for inclusion in the SIP comply with all 
applicable CAA requirements prior to approval. Our action is intended 
to ensure that federal NNSR requirements are met and will be 
implemented consistently. The EPA will continue to work with the 
District to resolve the deficiencies in its rules and stakeholders will 
have the ability to provide input on revisions to the rules through 
public participation opportunities at the local and federal level. The 
EPA looks forward to working collaboratively with the District to 
address the deficiencies in its rules and thereby assisting the 
District in addressing air pollution in its jurisdiction.

[[Page 42638]]

III. EPA Action

    None of the submitted comments change our assessment of the 
submitted rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as 
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving the 
submitted versions of Rules 219, 1300, and 1306. Likewise, as 
authorized under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is 
finalizing a limited approval of the submitted versions of Rules 1301, 
1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309. This action incorporates submitted 
Rules 219, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, and 1309 into the 
California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As 
authorized under section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), the EPA is 
simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of Rules 1301, 1302, 
1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309.
    As a result of our limited approval and limited disapproval of 
Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309, the EPA must promulgate a 
federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) for the District 
within 24 months unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that 
correct the deficiencies identified in this action. In addition, the 
offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) will be imposed 18 months 
after the effective date of this action, and the highway funding 
sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) six months after the offset sanction 
is imposed. Sanctions will not be imposed if the EPA approves a 
subsequent SIP submission that corrects the identified deficiencies 
before the applicable deadlines.
    In this action we are also finalizing an approval of the District's 
visibility provisions for major sources subject to review under the 
NNSR program under 40 CFR 51.307. Therefore, we are revising 40 CFR 
52.281(d) to remove the FIP for visibility protections as it applied to 
the District.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 
CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the rules listed in 
Table 2 of this preamble which implement the District's New Source 
Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources of air 
pollution under part D of title I of the CAA. The EPA has made, and 
will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX Office 
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those 
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to 
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will 
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA 
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be 
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that 
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of

[[Page 42639]]

environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    Under the CAA, 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 review state choices, 
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act. 
Accordingly, this final action is finalizing the approval and the 
limited approval and limited disapproval of a state submittal as 
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as 
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing 
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did 
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due 
to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected 
to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected 
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and 
there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal 
of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, 
low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 1, 2023. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon oxides, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 22, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (b)(25), (c)(6)(xvii)(E), (c)(31)(vi)(I), and 
(c)(39)(iii)(H);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(68)(ii); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(68)(v) through (vii), (c)(70)(i)(F) and (G), 
(c)(87)(v)(B), (c)(103)(xviii)(D), (c)(155)(iv)(D), (c)(240)(i)(A)(6) 
and (7), and (c)(602).
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (25) Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District.
    (i) Previously approved on May 31, 1972, in paragraph (b) of this 
section and deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(6): Rule 11.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (c) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (xvii) * * *
    (E) Previously approved on September 22, 1972, in paragraph (c)(6) 
of this section and deleted with replacement in paragraph 
(c)(39)(iii)(B) of this section for implementation in the Antelope 
Valley Air Quality Management District: Rule 11.
* * * * *
    (31) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (I) Previously approved on November 9, 1978, in paragraph 
(c)(31)(vi)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement for 
implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District: 
Rule 206.
* * * * *
    (39) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (H) Previously approved on November 9, 1978, in paragraph 
(c)(39)(iii)(B) of this section and deleted without replacement: Rules 
206 and 219.
* * * * *
    (68) * * *
    (ii) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, and deleted without 
replacement for implementation in the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District: Rule 1311.
* * * * *
    (v) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, in paragraph 
(c)(68)(i) of this section and deleted with replacement in paragraph 
(c)(240)(i)(A) of this section: Rules 1301, 1303, 1304, 1306, 1310 and 
1313.
    (vi) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, in paragraph 
(c)(68)(i) of this section and deleted without replacement: Rule 1307.
    (vii) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, in paragraph 
(c)(68)(i) of this section and now deleted without replacement for 
implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District: 
Rule 1311.
* * * * *
    (70) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, in paragraph 
(c)(70)(i)(A) of this section and deleted with replacement in paragraph 
(c)(240)(i)(A) of this section: Rule 1302.
    (G) Previously approved on January 21, 1981, in paragraph 
(c)(70)(i)(A) of this section and deleted without replacement: Rule 
1308.
* * * * *
    (87) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (B) Previously approved on June 9, 1982, in paragraph (c)(87)(v)(A) 
of this section and deleted without replacement: Rules 1301, 1302, 
1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1310, 1311, and 1313.
* * * * *
    (103) * * *
    (xviii) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on July 6, 1982, in paragraph 
(c)(103)(xviii)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in 
paragraph (c)(602)(i)(A)(1) of this section for implementation in the 
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District: Rule 219.
* * * * *

[[Page 42640]]

    (155) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on January 29, 1985, in paragraph 
(c)(155)(iv)(B) of this section and deleted without replacement: Rule 
1305.
* * * * *
    (240) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (6) Previously approved on December 4, 1996, in paragraph 
(c)(240)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in 
paragraphs (c)(602)(i)(A)(2) through (c)(602)(i)(a)(9) of this section 
for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management 
District: Rules 1301, 1302, and 1309, adopted on December 7, 1995, Rule 
1303, adopted on May 10, 1996, and Rules 1304 and 1306, adopted on June 
14, 1996.
    (7) Previously approved on December 4, 1996, in paragraph 
(c)(240)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted without replacement 
for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management 
District: Rules 1309.1, 1310 and 1313, adopted on December 7, 1995.
* * * * *
    (602) The following regulations were submitted on August 3, 2021, 
by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated August 3, 
2021.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Antelope Valley Air Quality 
Management District.
    (1) Rule 219, ``Equipment Not Requiring a Permit,'' amended on June 
15, 2021.
    (2) Rule 1300, ``New Source Review General,'' amended on July 20, 
2021.
    (3) Rule 1301, ``New Source Review Definitions,'' amended on July 
20, 2021.
    (4) Rule 1302 ``New Source Review Procedure,'' (except 1302(C)(5) 
and 1302(C)(7)(c)), amended on July 20, 2021.
    (5) Rule 1303, ``New Source Review Requirements,'' amended on July 
20, 2021.
    (6) Rule 1304, ``New Source Review Emissions Calculations,'' 
amended on July 20, 2021.
    (7) Rule 1305, ``New Source Review Emissions Offsets,'' amended on 
July 20, 2021.
    (8) Rule 1306, ``New Source Review for Electric Energy Generating 
Facilities,'' amended on July 20, 2021.
    (9) Rule 1309, ``Emission Reduction Credit Banking,'' amended on 
July 20, 2021.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.281 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(10) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.281  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-13763 Filed 6-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P