Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0881-0016
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, New Source Review
Posted Date: 2014-09-17T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55637-55641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22019]

[[Page 55637]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0881; FRL-9916-06-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, State of 
California, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 
New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action under the Clean Air Act to approve revisions to the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District portion of the California 
State Implementation Plan submitted by the California Air Resources 
Board. These revisions concern pre-construction review of new and 
modified stationary sources located within the District. The revisions 
are intended to remedy deficiencies the EPA identified when granting 
limited approval and limited disapproval to the rules in 2010, and to 
add requirements for pre-construction review of new and modified 
sources of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0881 for 
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at 
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket 
are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available 
only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some 
may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To 
inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during 
normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, Permits Office (AIR-
3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3534, 
yannayon.laura@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background and Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA's Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Proposed Action

    On December 6, 2011 (76 FR 76112), under section 110(k) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), we proposed to approve two amended 
rules adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (District or SJVUAPCD) and submitted to EPA by the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB) as a revision to the California state 
implementation plan (SIP). The two amended rules include District Rule 
2020 (``Exemptions'') \1\ and District Rule 2201 (``New and Modified 
Stationary Source Review Rule'').\2\ These rules concern pre-
construction review of new and modified stationary sources (``new 
source review'' or NSR) within the District. Collectively, we refer to 
District Rules 2020 and 2201 herein as the ``District NSR rules.'' 
Table 1 below shows the relevant amendment and submittal dates for this 
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The purpose of District Rule 2020 (``Exemptions'') is to 
specify emission units that are not required to obtain an Authority 
to Construct or Permit to Operate. Rule 2020 also specifies the 
recordkeeping requirements to verify such exemptions and outlines 
the compliance schedule for emission units that lose the exemption.
    \2\ The purpose of District Rule 2201 (``New and Modified 
Stationary Source Review Rule'') is to provide for the review of new 
and modified stationary sources of air pollution and to provide 
mechanisms including emission trade-offs by which Authorities to 
Construct such sources may be granted, without interfering with the 
attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards. District 
Rule 2201 is also intended to provide for no net increase in 
emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified 
stationary sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their 
precursors.

                                  Table 1--Amended San Joaquin Valley NSR Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..............................            2020  Exemptions..............         8/18/11         9/28/11
SJVUAPCD..............................            2201  New and Modified                 4/21/11        05/19/11
                                                         Stationary Source
                                                         Review Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our December 6, 2011 proposed rule, we indicated that, in May 
2010, 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010), we took a limited approval and 
limited disapproval action on previous versions of District Rules 2020 
and 2201 because, although we found that the rules strengthened the 
SIP, they contained deficiencies in enforceability that prevented full 
approval. Specifically, in our May 2010 final rule, we indicated that 
both rules contained references to California Health and Safety Code 
(CH&SC) that were unacceptably ambiguous because the State law cited 
therein had not been submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP.
    In the year following our May 2010 limited approval and limited 
disapproval action, the District amended the NSR rules to address the 
deficiencies that EPA had identified in the previous version of the 
District NSR rules. In addition to addressing the deficiencies, the 
District amended the NSR rules in 2011 to address the 1997 
PM2.5 standards to ensure that new major sources of 
PM2.5, and major modifications at existing major 
PM2.5 sources, will undergo pre-construction review that 
requires permit applicants to apply Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 
(LAER) and provide emission offsets. The District NSR rules, as amended 
in 2011, are the subject of our December 6, 2011 proposed rule.
    In our December 6, 2011 proposed rule, we proposed approval of 
District Rule 2020 (``Exemptions'') because the rule, as amended, 
replaced a cross-reference to CH&SC section 42301.16, which is not 
approved in the SIP, with a clear description of the agricultural 
sources covered by the exemption based on the language from the 
corresponding CH&SC section. We also proposed to approve a new 
permitting exemption in District Rule 2020 for wind machines because 
wind machines are not subject to any prohibitory District rule, because 
no controls would approach any reasonable threshold of cost-
effectiveness given the very limited use of the machines and the low 
emissions per unit, and because neither the EPA-approved San Joaquin 
Valley PM10 maintenance plan nor the EPA-approved 
PM2.5 attainment plan relies on emissions reductions from 
this particular episodic source of emissions.
    With respect to District Rule 2201 (``New and Modified Stationary 
Source Review Rule''), we proposed approval because the rule, as 
amended, replaced references to CH&SC sections not approved into the 
SIP with a clear

[[Page 55638]]

description of the applicability of the offset requirement to 
agricultural sources based on the language from the corresponding CH&SC 
sections. We also proposed approval of the revisions to District Rule 
2201 that added requirements to address the 1997 PM2.5 
standard, including permitting thresholds, Best Available Control 
Technology (which in California is the same as Federal LAER), and 
emission offset requirements, because we found that they satisfy the 
CAA requirements for NSR for new and modified major stationary sources 
of PM2.5.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council 
(NRDC) v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the D.C. Circuit Court 
remanded to EPA the implementation rules, including the NSR 
implementation rule, promulgated by EPA at 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 
2008) to implement the 1997 PM2.5 standards. The Court 
found that the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 
standards pursuant solely to the general implementation provisions 
of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, without also 
considering the particulate matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 
of Part D. In the wake of the decision in NRDC v. EPA, EPA has 
classified a number of areas, including the San Joaquin Valley, 
under subpart 4 as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas for the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 standards and has established a deadline of 
December 31, 2014 for submittal of SIP revisions necessary to meet 
subpart 4 requirements for the PM2.5 standards, including 
any necessary revisions to the District NSR rules. 79 FR 31566 (June 
2, 2014). In today's final rule, we are taking final action to 
approve the District NSR rules, as amended in 2011 to meet the NSR 
requirements for PM2.5 under subpart 1, because they 
address previously-identified deficiencies and strengthen the 
existing SIP by meeting subpart 1 NSR requirements for 
PM2.5, but we also recognize that further amendments may 
be necessary to the PM2.5-related portions of the 
District NSR rules to meet the applicable NSR requirements under 
subpart 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, in our December 6, 2011 proposed rule, we found that 
approval of amended Rules 2020 and 2201 would not interfere with 
attainment and reasonable further progress for any of the national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards), and would not 
interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act, and thus 
was acceptable under section 110(l) of the CAA. We based this finding 
on the following considerations:
     Amended Rule 2201 does not relax the SIP in any aspect; 
rather, the amended rule strengthens the SIP by applying NSR 
requirements to new major stationary sources and major modifications of 
PM2.5.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Consistent with EPA's 2008 NSR implementation rule for 
PM2.5 as developed consistent with subpart 1 of the CAA, 
District NSR rules currently regulate direct PM2.5 but 
only NOX and SOx as PM2.5 
precursors. To meet the requirements of subpart 4, the District's 
NSR rules may need to be revised to include VOCs or ammonia or both 
as additional PM2.5 precursors. As noted in the previous 
footnote, any changes to District NSR rules necessary to meet the 
requirements of subpart 4 with respect to PM2.5 must be 
submitted to EPA by December 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     While amended Rule 2020 contains a new exemption for wind 
machines, this exemption would not lead to an increase in emissions 
because, as explained above, wind machines would not be subject to any 
particular controls under the NSR rule even if no such exemption were 
in effect because no control device would be considered cost-effective.
     Neither the EPA-approved San Joaquin Valley 
PM10 maintenance plan nor the EPA-approved PM2.5 
attainment plan relies on emissions reductions from this particular 
episodic source of emissions (i.e., wind machines).
    Please see our December 6, 2011 proposed rule and related technical 
support document (TSD) for a more detailed discussion of the background 
for this action and our rationale for proposing approval of the amended 
District NSR rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Our proposed approval of the 2011 amended versions of 
District Rules 2020 and 2201 provided us with the basis to issue an 
interim final rule (76 FR 76046, December 6, 2011) deferring 
imposition of sanctions under CAA section 179 resulting from the 
limited disapproval of the rules on May 11, 2010 at 75 FR 26102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    Our December 6, 2011 proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment 
period. During that period, we received one comment letter from 
Earthjustice (dated January 5, 2012), containing four comments. In the 
following paragraphs, we summarize the comments and provide our 
responses.
    Earthjustice Comment #1: Earthjustice asserts that District Rule 
2201 is not fully approvable under 40 CFR 51.165 until it is revised to 
include condensable emissions in the definition of PM2.5. 
Earthjustice argues that EPA is simply assuming this defect away, 
because it has pointed to no District permitting decision or any 
statement by the District providing evidence to support EPA's belief 
that the District is appropriately accounting for condensable 
emissions.
    Response to Earthjustice Comment #1: To appropriately account for 
condensable particulate matter in regulating PM2.5 from 
stationary sources, we agree that District rules should be amended to 
be explicit regarding the inclusion of the condensable portion of 
particulate matter in the definition of PM2.5, and indicated 
as much in our proposed rule at 76 FR 76112, at 76114, footnote 3. The 
commenter is correct that we did not refer to any specific District 
permitting decision or District statement in support of our stated 
belief that, notwithstanding the absence of explicit rule language, the 
District is appropriately accounting for condensable particulate matter 
in regulating PM2.5.
    Thus, in response to this comment, we have requested, and the 
District has responded with, a letter clarifying how the District 
treats the condensable portion of particulate matter for NSR purposes. 
In a letter dated June 26, 2014, from David Warner, Deputy Air 
Pollution Control Officer, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District, to Gerardo C. Rios, EPA Region IX, the District 
explains that it interprets its current regulations to require 
consideration of condensable particulate matter for PM2.5 
NSR purposes based on the definitions for ``PM2.5'' and 
``particulate matter'' in District Rules 2201 and 1020, respectively. 
The former term is defined in terms of ``particulate matter,'' and the 
latter term is defined in terms of ``any material except uncombined 
water, which exists in a finely divided form as a liquid or solid at 
standard conditions.'' As such, the condensable portion of particulate 
matter is treated as a part of total PM2.5 emissions under 
existing District NSR rules.
    Nonetheless, in its letter, the District indicates that it will 
amend its rules to eliminate any confusion about the inclusion of 
condensable particulate matter as part of PM2.5 when it 
considers further PM2.5-related amendments to District NSR 
rules. CARB must submit to EPA, no later than December 31, 2014, any 
revisions to District NSR rules that are necessary to address subpart 
4. See 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014).
    Earthjustice Comment #2: Earthjustice asserts that District Rule 
2201 does not ensure PM2.5 offsets will be surplus at time 
of use and must do so in order to be approved as meeting NSR 
requirements. Earthjustice notes that, unlike the District's NSR 
requirements for ozone and PM10, PM2.5 offsets 
are not required of minor sources or at more stringent ratios, and thus 
no demonstration can be made to show that the District's NSR program, 
in the aggregate, achieves PM2.5 offsets equivalent to those 
that would be required if all major sources were required to provide 
offsets that are surplus at the time of use.
    Response to Earthjustice Comment #2: As the commenter notes, EPA 
has previously approved versions of District Rule 2201 that allow the 
District to demonstrate that an equal number of ``surplus'' emission 
reductions are provided by District Rule 2201 as would be required if 
all major sources, including PM2.5 major sources, were

[[Page 55639]]

required to provide offsets that are surplus at the time of use. The 
offset equivalency provisions provided in section 7 (``Annual Offset 
Equivalency Demonstration and Pre-baseline ERC Cap Tracking System'') 
of District Rule 2201 require the District to submit an annual report 
demonstrating that the amount of ``surplus'' emission reductions 
required by the CAA are provided by the sources that surrendered the 
emission reduction credits or by additional or ``extra'' emission 
reductions (in the form of offsets) not otherwise required by the CAA.
    EPA recognizes that District Rule 2201 does not require new or 
modified minor PM2.5 sources to offset their emissions with 
surplus emission reductions nor does District Rule 2201 impose a more 
stringent PM2.5 ratio to compensate for the absence of a 
requirement that all offsets must be surplus at the time of use. 
However, the District can still provide an equivalency demonstration 
for PM2.5 under the provisions of section 7 of District Rule 
2201 because the District holds a large quantity of PM10 
offsets that can be speciated to determine the portion of the offset 
that is made up of PM2.5 emissions. Thus, if an applicant 
surrenders PM2.5 offsets that are not considered surplus at 
the time of use, then the provisions of section 7 would apply, and the 
District could supply the necessary PM2.5 offsets by 
speciating existing PM10 offsets that it holds. Thus, EPA 
finds that District Rule 2201 does provide an appropriate mechanism to 
ensure that either (1) all PM2.5 credits surrendered are 
surplus at time of use or (2) the District provides the necessary 
quantity of surplus PM2.5 offsets by speciating 
PM10 offsets into their PM2.5 fraction. Lastly, 
we note that the District has yet to issue a permit for a new major 
PM2.5 source or a major modification of an existing major 
PM2.5 source, and thus, while the mechanism exists for 
showing equivalency, it has yet to be relied upon by the District in 
practice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See email from Arnaud Marjollet, Director of Permit 
Services, SJVUAPCD, to Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, July 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice Comment #3: Earthjustice requests that EPA clarify 
that no sources will ever qualify for the offset exemption in section 
4.6.9 in District Rule 2201 because any source that emits criteria 
pollutants is capable of generating real, permanent, quantifiable and 
enforceable emission reductions. Earthjustice states that it is not a 
question of ``if'' emissions reductions from agricultural sources would 
meet the criteria in section 4.6.9 but how the emission reductions are 
demonstrated and enshrined. Earthjustice further requests that EPA 
reiterate that the ability of a source to generate creditable emissions 
reductions does not depend on whether an agency chooses to adopt 
protocols allowing such credits.
    Response to Earthjustice Comment #3: The District adopted the 
offset exemption in section 4.6.9 of District Rule 2201 to explicitly 
align District NSR rules with State law regarding District regulation 
of agricultural sources. We first approved the offset exemption in 
section 4.6.9 of Rule 2201 as part of the California SIP in our limited 
approval and limited disapproval action published in May 2010. See 75 
FR 26102 (May 11, 2010).
    As approved in May 2010, section 4.6.9 provides that emissions 
offsets shall not be required for: ``Agricultural sources, to the 
extent provided by California Health and Safety Code, section 
42301.18(c), except that nothing in this section shall circumvent the 
requirements of section 42301.16(a).'' California Health & Safety Code 
(CH&SC) section 42301.18(c) provides that: ``A district may not require 
an agricultural source to obtain emissions offsets for criteria 
pollutants for that source if emissions reductions from that source 
would not meet the criteria for real, permanent, quantifiable, and 
enforceable emissions reductions.'' CH&SC section 42301.16(a) in turn 
provides that: ``In addition to complying with the requirements of this 
chapter, a permit system established by a district pursuant to Section 
42300 shall ensure that any agricultural source that is required to 
obtain a permit pursuant to Title I . . . or Title V . . . of the 
federal Clean Air Act is required by district regulation to obtain a 
permit in manner that is consistent with the federal requirements.'' 
Our action in May 2010 was a limited approval and limited disapproval 
action because, while strengthening the SIP and meeting most applicable 
requirements, District Rule 2201 contained unacceptably ambiguous 
provisions in section 4.6.9 because the statutory provisions cited 
therein are not approved as part of the California SIP. In our May 2010 
final rule, we understood the offset exemption to apply to all new 
minor agricultural sources and minor modifications to agricultural 
sources and determined that the exemption was consistent with Federal 
NSR requirements and would not interfere with attainment or maintenance 
of the NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley. 75 FR at 26105 (May 11, 2010).
    In response to our limited approval and limited disapproval action 
in May 2010, the District amended section 4.6.9 of Rule 2201 to provide 
that emissions offsets shall not be required for: ``Agricultural 
Sources, for criteria pollutants for that source if emissions 
reductions from that source would not meet the criteria for real, 
permanent, quantifiable and enforceable emissions reductions.'' The 
District also added a new subsection 4.6.9.1 that reads: ``In no case 
shall the offset exemption in section 4.6.9 apply to an agricultural 
source that is also a major stationary source for the pollutant for 
which the offset exemption is sought.'' As such, the District merely 
replaced the statutory reference to CH&SC section 42301.18(c) with text 
mirroring the language from the code section itself and added language 
limiting the exemption to give effect to CH&SC section 42301.16(a). 
EPA's proposed approval of District Rule 2201, as amended in 2011, 
recognizes that the District amended the rule in such a way as to 
eliminate the deficiency that we had identified in May 2010. In today's 
action, we are taking final action to approve the amended version of 
District Rule 2201, including the amendment to section 4.6.9 as a 
revision to the California SIP.
    The commenter does not object to the District's amendment to 
section 4.6.9 to address the deficiency identified by EPA in our May 
2010 final action, nor does it object to our determination that the 
amendment has resolved the identified deficiency. Rather, the comment 
seeks EPA agreement on a factual statement that derives logically from 
the commenter's interpretation of the language of the underlying state 
law provision. As noted above, in our May 2010 final action, in 
contrast to the commenter's interpretation, we understood the offset 
exemption to apply to all new minor agricultural sources and to all 
minor modifications to agricultural sources. Notwithstanding the 
breadth of application of the exemption to minor agricultural sources, 
we determined in our May 2010 final action that the exemption was 
consistent with Federal NSR requirements and would not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. If, as commenter contends, the 
exemption applies to no minor agricultural sources or modifications to 
minor agricultural sources, our determination as to whether the 
exemption is acceptable would remain the same.
    Nonetheless, we note that the commenter's opinion that section 
4.6.9 of District Rule 2201 does not in fact exempt any new or modified 
agricultural source from the offset

[[Page 55640]]

exemption is not shared by EPA or the State of California. In a 
detailed response to a comment in a separate final rule, we explain 
that, while we agree that the criteria in CH&SC section 42301.18(c) 
allowing districts to require emissions offsets for new or modified 
agricultural sources does not depend upon the district's adoption of a 
specific protocol or rule allowing offsets from such sources to be 
generated, some determination is necessary. See at 78 FR 46504, at 
46509 (August 1, 2013). More specifically, in our August 2013 final 
rule, at 46509, we explain:

    However, whether emissions reductions from a given agricultural 
source meet the relevant criteria is not self-evident or self-
implementing. Some determination is necessary. For instance, the 
District is the agency responsible for allowing the emissions 
reductions from a given agricultural source to be banked or used for 
the purpose of offsetting emissions increases from new or modified 
stationary sources that are subject to the offset requirement under 
an approved NSR program. If the District allowed emission reductions 
to be banked or used for offsetting emission increases, then the 
District would thereby be determining that the emissions reductions 
are ``real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable'' since those 
are the basic criteria for judging the creditability of emission 
reductions for use as NSR offsets. The District's authority to 
impose the offset requirement on new or modified minor agricultural 
sources would vest as to those agricultural sources for which it has 
allowed banking or use of emission reductions for NSR offset 
purposes. Thus, while no protocol or District rule specifically 
directed at agricultural sources need be adopted for the offset 
authority to vest, some determination is necessary.

    Moreover, by letter dated March 18, 2013, the California Attorney 
General's office states, in connection with CH&SC section 42301.18(c): 
``It is our understanding that currently emissions reductions from 
minor agricultural sources do not meet the criteria for real, 
permanent, quantifiable and enforceable emission reductions. On these 
facts, the plain language of subdivision (c) of the statute serves to 
suspend the duty of a minor agricultural source to offset emissions 
from that source.'' \7\ As such, given the direct connection between 
CH&SC section 42301.18(c) and section 4.6.9 in District Rule 2201, it 
is clear that new minor agricultural sources and minor modifications to 
existing agricultural sources have qualified for the offset exemption 
in section 4.6.9 of District Rule 2201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Letter and attachment from Robert W. Byrne, Senior Assistant 
Attorney General, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 
Region IX, March 18, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice Comment #4: Earthjustice asserts that EPA should 
finalize a limited approval/limited disapproval and maintain sanctions 
until the defects in District Rule 2201, including the condensable 
emissions issue and the offsets issue, discussed in comments 1 
and 2, above, are adequately addressed.
    Response to Earthjustice Comment #4: For the reasons given in the 
proposed rule, and in responses to comments, we conclude that amended 
District Rules 2020 and 2201, as submitted on September 28, 2011 and 
May 19, 2011, respectively, adequately address deficiencies in the 
previous version of the District NSR rules and provide for review of 
new and modified sources of PM2.5, including the 
requirements for LAER and emissions offsets for new major 
PM2.5 sources and major modifications to existing major 
PM2.5 sources, consistent with the requirements under 
subpart 1 of part D. In addition, under an EPA rule published in June 
2014 (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014), CARB must submit a SIP revision 
containing further amendments to District NSR rules no later than the 
end of 2014 as necessary to address PM2.5-related 
requirements under subpart 4 of part D. Thus, while the District NSR 
rules, amended in 2011, may not yet meet all of the requirements for 
PM2.5 (i.e., those under subpart 4), we believe that full 
approval, rather than limited approval, of the 2011 amended District 
NSR rules is the appropriate action to take at this time given the SIP 
strengthening aspects of the amended rules. EPA will consider whether 
District NSR rules meet all applicable PM2.5 requirements 
under subpart 4 in a separate rulemaking after submittal by CARB of any 
necessary SIP revisions.

III. Final Action

    After due consideration of the comments submitted on our proposed 
action, and for the reasons provided in our proposed rule and 
summarized above, we are taking final action under CAA section 
110(k)(3) to approve District Rule 2020 (``Exemptions''), as amended by 
the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on August 
18, 2011 and submitted by CARB on September 28, 2011; and District Rule 
2201 (``New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule''), as amended 
by the District on April 21, 2011 and submitted by CARB on May 19, 
2011, as revisions to the California SIP.\8\ In so doing, we conclude 
that the District has remedied deficiencies that EPA had identified in 
previous versions of the rules and that other changes made by the 
District to the rules strengthen the SIP. Further PM2.5-
related amendments in the District's NSR rules as necessary to address 
subpart 4 of part D are due for submittal to EPA by the end of 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Upon the effective date of this final rule, District Rules 
2020 and 2201, as approved herein, will supersede District Rules 
2020 and 2201 as approved on May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26102) in the 
applicable California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon the effective date of today's final approval, all sanctions 
and sanctions clocks that were triggered upon our final limited 
disapproval at 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010) of previous versions of 
District Rules 2020 and 2201, and deferred upon our interim final rule 
at 76 FR 76046 (December 6, 2011), are permanently terminated.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement

[[Page 55641]]

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those 
requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2).
    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 November 17, 2014. 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, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 11, 2014.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended 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 adding paragraphs(c)(400)(i) and 
(c)(400)(ii)(C), and (c)(440), to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (400) * * *
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 2201, ``New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule,'' 
amended on April 21, 2011.
    (ii) * * *
    (C) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Letter from David Warner, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo 
C. Rios, Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX, dated June 26, 2014.
* * * * *
    (440) Amended regulations were submitted by the Governor's designee 
on September 28, 2011.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 2020, ``Exemptions,'' amended on August 18, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2014-22019 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P