Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0088-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Technical Amendments
Posted Date: 2020-04-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22384-22392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07531]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0088; FRL-10007-55-Region 9]

Air Plan Revisions; California; Technical Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
delete various local rules from the California State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) that were approved in error. These rules include general 
nuisance provisions, Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 
requirements, hearing board procedures, variance provisions, and local 
fee provisions. The EPA has determined that the continued presence of 
these rules in the SIP is inappropriate and potentially confusing and 
thus problematic for affected sources, the state, local agencies, and 
the EPA. The intended effect of this proposal is to delete these rules 
to make the SIP consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). The 
EPA is also proposing to make certain other corrections to address 
errors made in previous actions taken by the EPA on California SIP 
revisions.

DATE: Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0088 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Kevin 
Gong, at gong.kevin@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, Rules Office (AIR-3-2), 
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-
3073, or by email at gong.kevin@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the SIP?
III. What is the EPA's authority to correct errors in SIP 
rulemakings?
IV. Which rules are proposed for deletion?
V. What other corrections is the EPA proposing to make?
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    In this rulemaking, we address certain errors made over the years 
in connection with EPA actions on SIP revisions for the various air 
pollution control districts in California. In the first rule, published 
at 84 FR 45422 (August 29, 2019), we addressed errors associated with 
EPA actions on SIP revisions for the districts with names beginning 
with the letter A through the letter O. This proposed action follows 
the first action and addresses errors associated with EPA actions for 
the rest of the districts, i.e., those with names beginning with the 
letter P through the letter Z.

II. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the SIP?

    The Clean Air Act was first enacted in 1970. In the 1970s and early 
1980s, thousands of state and local agency regulations were submitted 
to the EPA for incorporation into the SIP to fulfill the new Federal 
requirements. In many cases, states submitted entire regulatory air 
pollution programs, including many elements not required by the Act. 
Due to time and resource constraints, the EPA's review of these 
submittals focused primarily on the new substantive requirements, and 
we approved many other elements into the SIP with minimal review. We 
now recognize that many of these elements

[[Page 22385]]

were not appropriate for approval into the SIP. In general, these 
elements are appropriate for state and local agencies to adopt and 
implement, but it is not necessary or appropriate to make them 
federally enforceable by incorporating them into the applicable SIP. 
These include:
    A. Rules that prohibit emissions causing general nuisance or 
annoyance in the community.\1\ Such rules address local issues but have 
essentially no connection to the purposes for which SIPs are developed 
and approved, namely the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement 
of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). See CAA section 
110(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An example of such a rule is as follows: A person shall not 
discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air 
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, 
nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to 
the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety 
of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural 
tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Local adoption of federal NSPS or NESHAP requirements either by 
reference or by adopting text identical to or modified from the 
requirements found in 40 CFR part 60 (``Standards of Performances for 
New Stationary Sources'') or 61 (``National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants''). Because the EPA has independent authority 
to implement 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, it is not appropriate to make 
parallel local authorities federally enforceable by approving them into 
the applicable SIP.
    C. Rules that govern local hearing board procedures and other 
administrative requirements such as fees, frequency of meetings, 
salaries paid to board members, and procedures for petitioning for a 
local hearing.
    D. Variance provisions that provide for modification of the 
requirements of the applicable SIP. State- or district-issued variances 
provide an applicant with a mechanism to obtain relief from state 
enforcement of a state or local rule under certain conditions. Pursuant 
to Federal law, specifically section 110(i) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 
7410(i), neither the EPA nor a state may revise a SIP by issuing an 
``order, suspension, plan revision or other action modifying any 
requirement of an applicable implementation plan'' without a plan 
promulgation or revision. The EPA and California have long recognized 
that a state-issued variance, though binding as a matter of state law, 
does not prevent the EPA from enforcing the underlying SIP provisions 
unless and until the EPA approves that variance as a SIP revision. The 
variance provisions included in today's action are deficient for 
various reasons, including their failure to address the fact that a 
state- or district-issued variance has no effect on federal 
enforceability unless the variance is submitted to and approved by the 
EPA as a SIP revision. Therefore, their inclusion in the SIP is 
inconsistent with the Act and may be confusing to regulated industry 
and the general public. Moreover, because state-issued variances 
require independent EPA approval to modify the substantive requirements 
of a SIP, removal of these variance provisions from the SIP will have 
no effect on regulated entities. See Industrial Environmental 
Association v. Browner, No. 97-71117 (9th Cir., May 26, 2000).
    E. Local fee provisions that are not economic incentive programs 
and are not designed to replace or relax a SIP emission limit. While it 
is appropriate for local agencies to implement fee provisions, for 
example, to recover costs for issuing permits, it is generally not 
appropriate to make local fee collection federally enforceable.

III. What is the EPA's authority to correct erors in SIP rulemakings?

    Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, as amended in 1990, provides that, 
whenever the EPA determines that the EPA's action approving, 
disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part 
thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification or 
reclassification was in error, the EPA may in the same manner as the 
approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as 
appropriate without requiring any further submission from the state. 
Such determination and the basis thereof must be provided to the state 
and the public. We interpret this provision to authorize the EPA to 
make corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown to our 
satisfaction (or we discover) that (1) we clearly erred by failing to 
consider or by inappropriately considering information made available 
to the EPA at the time of the promulgation, or the information made 
available at the time of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to 
have been clearly inadequate, and (2) other information persuasively 
supports a change in the regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763 
(November 30, 1992) (correcting designations, boundaries, and 
classifications of ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and lead 
areas).

IV. Which rules are proposed for deletion?

    The EPA has determined that the rules listed in table 1 below are 
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP, but were previously approved 
into the SIP in error. Dates that these rules were submitted by the 
state and approved by the EPA are provided. We are proposing deletion 
of these rules and any earlier versions of these rules from the 
individual air pollution control district portions of the California 
SIP under CAA section 110(k)(6) as inconsistent with the requirements 
of CAA section 110.\2\ A brief discussion of the proposed deletions is 
provided in the following paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA has coordinated with the California Air Resources 
Board (CARB) to identify district rules appropriate for deletion 
from the California SIP. CARB has agreed that the deletion of the 
rules in table 1 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6) is appropriate. 
See letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike 
Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, January 31, 2020.

                             Table 1--Local Air District Rules Proposed for Deletion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Rule or regulation                    Title                Submittal date            EPA approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Placer County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51...........................  Nuisance...............  February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                          1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 112.............................  New Source Performance   November 3, 1975.......  42 FR 28122 (June 2,
                                        Standards.                                        1977); corrected at 42
                                                                                          FR 42219 (August 22,
                                                                                          1977).

[[Page 22386]]

 
Rule 113.............................  National Emission        November 3, 1975.......  42 FR 28122 (June 2,
                                        Standards for                                     1977); corrected at 42
                                        Hazardous Air                                     FR 42219 (August 22,
                                        Pollutants.                                       1977).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              San Diego County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 51..............................  Nuisance...............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno County APCD Rule 111..........  Arrests and Notices to   October 23, 1974.......  42 FR 42219 (August 22,
                                        Appear.                                           1977).
Fresno County APCD Rule 418..........  Nuisance...............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Fresno County APCD Rule 419..........  Exception..............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Kings County APCD Rule 419...........  Nuisance...............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Kings County APCD Rule 420...........  Exception..............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Madera County APCD Rule 418..........  Nuisance...............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Madera County APCD Rule 419..........  Exception..............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Madera County APCD Rule 511..........  Notice of Hearing......  October 15, 1979.......  46 FR 60202 (December
                                                                                          9, 1981).
Merced County APCD Rule 418..........  Nuisance...............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Merced County APCD Rule 419..........  Exception..............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Merced County APCD Rule 511..........  Notice of Hearing......  August 2, 1976.........  43 FR 25689 (June 14,
                                                                                          1978).
San Joaquin County APCD Rule 418.....  Nuisance...............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
San Joaquin County APCD Rule 419.....  Exception..............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Stanislaus County APCD Rule 418......  Emissions in General...  July 19, 1974..........  42 FR 25501 (May 18,
                                                                                          1977); corrected at 42
                                                                                          FR 42219 (August 22,
                                                                                          1977).
Stanislaus County APCD Rule 419......  Exception..............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Stanislaus County APCD Rule 505......  Petitions for Variances  July 19, 1974..........  42 FR 25501 (May 18,
                                                                                          1977); corrected at 42
                                                                                          FR 42219 (August 22,
                                                                                          1977).
Tulare County APCD Section 419.......  Nuisance...............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
Tulare County APCD Section 420.......  Exception..............  October 23, 1974.......  42 FR 42219 (August 22,
                                                                                          1977).
Tulare County APCD Section 507.......  Supplemental             February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                        Information.                                      1972).
Tulare County APCD Section 508.......  Matters Initiated by     February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                        Control Officer or                                1972).
                                        Hearing Board.
Tulare County APCD Section 515.......  Record of Proceedings..  February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                          1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           San Luis Obispo County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 111.............................  Nuisance...............  February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                          1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Santa Barbara County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 17..............................  Nuisance...............  February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                          1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Shasta County AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4:2.............................  General................  November 21, 1986......  54 FR 14648 (April 12,
                                                                                          1989).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Siskiyou County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4.2.............................  Nuisance...............  February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                          1972).
Rule 4.2-1...........................  Exceptions.............  March 23, 1988.........  54 FR 43174 (October
                                                                                          23, 1989).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                South Coast AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orange County APCD Rule 45...........  Permit Fees--Open        June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                        Burning.                                          22, 1972).

[[Page 22387]]

 
San Bernardino County APCD Rule 120..  Fees...................  February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                          1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Tehama County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4:4.............................  Nuisance...............  February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                          1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Tuolumne County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 205.............................  Nuisance...............  July 22, 1975..........  42 FR 42219 (August 22,
                                                                                          1977).
Rule 703.............................  Contents of Petitions..  October 23, 1981.......  47 FR 23159 (May 27,
                                                                                          1982).
Rule 710.............................  Notice of Public         October 23, 1981.......  47 FR 23159 (May 27,
                                        Hearing.                                          1982).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Ventura County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 51..............................  Nuisance...............  June 30, 1972..........  37 FR 19812 (September
                                                                                          22, 1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Yolo-Solano AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2.5.............................  Nuisance...............  February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                          1972).
Rule 2.6.............................  Additional Exception...  February 21, 1972......  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                          1972).
Rule 5.1.............................  Applicable Articles of   June 22, 1978..........  44 FR 5662 (January 29,
                                        the Health and Safety                             1979).
                                        Code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Placer County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)

    Placer County APCD Section 51 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type 
of prohibitory rule. As such, Section 51 was inappropriate for 
inclusion in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In 
this action, we are proposing to delete Section 51 from the Placer 
County APCD portion of the California SIP.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (AQMD)

    Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rules 112 (New Source Performance 
Standards) and 113 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants) require sources to comply with the applicable provisions of 
the NSPS and NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61. Because the 
EPA has independent authority to implement 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, it 
was not appropriate to make parallel local authorities federally 
enforceable by approving Rules 112 and 113 into the Sacramento 
Metropolitan AQMD portion of the California SIP. In this action, we are 
proposing to delete Rules 112 and 113 from the Sacramento Metropolitan 
AQMD portion of the California SIP.

San Diego County APCD

    San Diego County APCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type 
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 51 was inappropriate for inclusion 
in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In this action, 
we are proposing to delete Rule 51 from the San Diego County APCD 
portion of the California SIP.

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD

    Established in 1991, the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD unified 
Fresno County APCD, Kern County APCD (San Joaquin Valley portion of 
Kern County), Kings County APCD, Madera County APCD, Merced County 
APCD, San Joaquin County APCD, Stanislaus County APCD, and Tulare 
County APCD into a single unified APCD. The San Joaquin Valley Unified 
APCD portion of the applicable California SIP continues to include 
certain rules originally adopted by the individual county APCDs and 
approved by the EPA prior to the establishment of the unified APCD. The 
following individual county rules are general-nuisance type of 
prohibitory rules, and were inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and, 
thus, were approved by the EPA in error: Fresno County APCD Rule 418 
(Nuisance), Kings County APCD Rule 419 (Nuisance), Madera County ACPD 
Rule 418 (Nuisance), Merced County APCD Rule 418 (Nuisance), San 
Joaquin County APCD Rule 418 (Nuisance), Stanislaus County APCD Rule 
418 (Emissions in General) and Tulare County APCD Section 419 
(Nuisance). The following individual county rules provide an exception 
to the general nuisance rules cited above, and should be deleted if the 
general nuisance rules are deleted: Fresno County APCD Rule 419 
(Exception), Kings County APCD Rule 420 (Exception), Madera County ACPD 
Rule 419 (Exception), Merced County APCD Rule 419 (Exception), San 
Joaquin County APCD Rule 419 (Exception), Stanislaus County APCD Rule 
419 (Exception) and Tulare County APCD Section 420 (Exception).
    In addition, Madera County APCD Rule 511 (Notice of Hearing), 
Merced County APCD Rule 511 (Notice of Hearing), Stanislaus County APCD 
Rule 505 (Petitions for Variances) and Tulare County APCD Sections 507 
(Supplemental Information), 508 (Matters Initiated by Control Officer 
or Hearing Board) and 515 (Record of Proceedings) relate to hearing 
board procedures, and as such, were inappropriate for inclusion in the 
SIP and were thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are 
proposing to delete the above county rules from the San Joaquin Valley 
Unified APCD portion of the California SIP.
    Lastly, at 66 FR 47603, at 47608-47609 (September 13, 2001), the 
EPA proposed to delete Fresno County APCD Rule 111 (Arrests and Notices 
to Appear), submitted on June 4, 1986, along with all the other county 
rules titled ``Arrests and Notices to Appear.'' At 67 FR 2573 (January 
18, 2002), the EPA finalized the deletion of the other county rules 
titled ``Arrests and Notices to Appear'' but did not finalize the 
deletion of Fresno County Rule 111 because we realized that the June 4, 
1986 version of Rule 111 was not approved into the SIP. See 67 FR 2573, 
at 2575 (January 18, 2002). In this action, we are proposing to delete 
the version of Fresno County Rule 111

[[Page 22388]]

(Arrests and Notices to Appear) that is part of the applicable 
California SIP, i.e., the version of Fresno County APCD Rule 111 that 
was submitted on October 23, 1974, and approved at 42 FR 42219 (August 
22, 1977), to be consistent with our action on the other corresponding 
county rules.

San Luis Obispo County APCD

    San Luis Obispo County APCD Rule 111 (Nuisance) is a general-
nuisance type of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 111 was inappropriate 
for inclusion in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. 
In this action, we are proposing to delete Rule 111 from the San Luis 
Obispo County APCD portion of the California SIP.

Santa Barbara County APCD

    Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 17 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance 
type of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 17 was inappropriate for 
inclusion in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In 
this action, we are proposing to delete Rule 17 from the Santa Barbara 
County APCD portion of the California SIP.

Shasta County AQMD

    Shasta County AQMD Rule 4:2 (General) relates to hearing board 
procedures, and as such, was inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and 
was thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are proposing 
to delete Rule 4:2 from the Shasta County AQMD portion of the 
California SIP.

Siskiyou County APCD

    Siskiyou County APCD Rule 4.2 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type 
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4.2 was inappropriate for inclusion 
in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Siskiyou County 
APCD Rule 4.2-1 (Exceptions) provides an exception to Rule 4.2 and 
should be deleted if Rule 4.2 is deleted. In this action, we are 
proposing to delete Rules 4.2 and 4.2-1 from the Siskiyou County APCD 
portion of the California SIP.

South Coast AQMD

    The South Coast AQMD includes all of Orange County, the non-desert 
portions of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, and all of 
Riverside County (except for the Palo Verde Valley in far eastern 
Riverside County). In 1972, when the original California SIP was 
submitted and approved by EPA, the Los Angeles County APCD, Orange 
County APCD, Riverside County APCD and San Bernardino County APCD each 
had jurisdiction over stationary sources within their respective 
counties. On July 16, 1975, the Los Angeles County APCD, Orange County 
APCD, Riverside County APCD, and San Bernardino County APCD were 
unified into the Southern California APCD. On February 1, 1977, the 
State of California split the Southern California APCD into the South 
Coast AQMD in the western coastal area (including Orange County, and 
the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino 
Counties, referred to as the ``South Coast Air Basin'') and three 
separate APCDs (i.e., Los Angeles County APCD, San Bernardino County 
APCD, and Riverside County APCD, included within the ``Southeast Desert 
Air Basin''), formed out of the remaining parts of three counties in 
the eastern desert area. See 43 FR 25684 (June 14, 1978). The Southeast 
Desert portion of Riverside County was added to the South Coast AQMD on 
December 1, 1977. On July 1, 1994, the Palo Verde Valley area of 
Riverside County left the South Coast AQMD and joined the Mojave Desert 
AQMD.
    Certain rules adopted by the original county-based APCDs remain 
part of the applicable SIP for the South Coast AQMD (i.e., have not 
been deleted or superseded by EPA-approved rules adopted by the 
Southern California APCD or South Coast AQMD), including Orange County 
APCD Rule 45 (Permit Fees--Open Burning) and San Bernardino County APCD 
Rule 120 (Fees). Orange County APCD Rule 45 and San Bernardino County 
APCD Rule 120 are local fee provisions that were not appropriate for 
inclusion in the SIP, and thus, were approved by the EPA in error. In 
this action, we are proposing to delete Orange County APCD Rule 45 and 
San Bernardino County APCD Rule 120 from the South Coast AQMD portion 
of the California SIP.

Tehama County APCD

    Tehama County APCD Rule 4:4 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type 
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4:4 was inappropriate for inclusion 
in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In this action, 
we are proposing to delete Rule 4:4 from the Tehama County APCD portion 
of the California SIP.

Tuolumne County APCD

    Tuolumne County APCD Rule 205 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type 
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 205 was inappropriate for inclusion 
in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Tuolumne County 
APCD Rules 703 (Contents of Petitions) and 710 (Notice of Public 
Hearing) relate to hearing board procedures, and as such, were 
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and were thus approved by the 
EPA in error. In this action, we are proposing to delete Rules 205, 703 
and 710 from the Tuolumne County APCD portion of the California SIP.

Ventura County APCD

    Ventura County APCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type 
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 51 was inappropriate for inclusion 
in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In this action, 
we are proposing to delete Rule 51 from the Ventura County APCD portion 
of the California SIP.

Yolo-Solano AQMD

    Yolo Solano AQMD Rule 2.5 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of 
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 2.5 was inappropriate for inclusion in 
the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Yolo-Solano AQMD 
Rule 2.6 (Additional Exception) provides an exception to Rule 2.5 and 
should be deleted if Rule 2.5 is deleted. Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 5.1 
(Applicable Articles of the Health and Safety Code) relates to hearing 
board procedures, and as such, was inappropriate for inclusion in the 
SIP and was thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are 
proposing to delete Rules 2.5, 2.6 and 5.1 from the Yolo-Solano AQMD 
portion of the California SIP.

V. What other corrections is the EPA proposing to make?

    The EPA is also proposing certain error corrections not because the 
rules were originally approved into the SIP in error but because of 
other types of errors made in the course of the SIP rulemaking action. 
Each such proposal is described in the following paragraphs.

Placer County APCD

    Publisher's Error in Connection with Approval of Rule 243 
(Polyester Resin Operations): On October 3, 2011 (76 FR 61057), the EPA 
approved Placer County Rule 243 (Polyester Resin Operations), as 
submitted on December 7, 2010, and the amendatory instructions listed 
the approval of Rule 243 correctly at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(389)(i)(B)(1). 
However, due to a publisher's error, the approval of Placer County APCD 
Rule 243 is listed at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(390)(i)(B)(1). We are proposing 
to correct this error by amending the two paragraphs in 40 CFR 
52.220(c) accordingly.

San Diego County APCD

    Erroneous Listing of Certain Rules as San Diego County APCD Rules: 
On June

[[Page 22389]]

2, 1977 (42 FR 28122), the EPA took final action to approve Rules 112 
and 113 adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD and codified the 
approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B). On August 22, 1977 (42 FR 
42219), the EPA redesignated the paragraph listing the approval of 
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rules 112 and 113 to 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(29)(ii)(B) but failed to delete 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B). 
See 42 FR 42219, at 42225 (August 22, 1977). Paragraph 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(29)(v) lists EPA-approved rules adopted by the San Diego 
County APCD, and the failure to delete 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B) makes 
it appear that Rules 112 and 113 are part of the San Diego County APCD 
portion of the applicable SIP but, as explained herein, they are not. 
Today, we are proposing to delete 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B).
    Failure to Codify Approval of Amendments to San Diego County APCD 
Rule 20.1: On July 6, 1982 (47 FR 29231), the EPA took final action to 
approve certain rules adopted by the San Diego County APCD, including 
amendments to Rule 20.1 (Definitions, Emission Calculations, Emission 
Offsets and Banking, Exemptions, and Other Requirements), submitted on 
January 28, 1981. However, we failed to codify the approval of Rule 
20.1 at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(98)(xi), the subsection listing San Diego 
County APCD rules submitted on January 28, 1981 and approved by the 
EPA. We propose to do so in today's action. We note that the amendments 
to Rule 20.1 that were approved on July 6, 1982, were recently 
superseded in the applicable San Diego County APCD portion of the 
California SIP by approval of a further amended version of Rule 20.1 
(New Source Review--General Provisions) at 83 FR 50007 (October 4, 
2018).
    Publisher's Error Deleting Codification of Approval of San Diego 
County APCD Rule 67.0: On June 30, 1993 (58 FR 34904), the EPA took 
final action to approve San Diego County Rule 67.0 (Architectural 
Coatings), adopted on December 4, 1990, as a revision to the California 
SIP. We codified the approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(184)(i)(D)(1) but 
failed to include introductory text identifying the San Diego County 
APCD as the relevant air pollution control agency associated with Rule 
67.0. On August 4, 2000 (65 FR 47862), we added introductory text 
identifying San Diego County APCD at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(184)(i)(D) but, 
due to a publisher's error, the regulatory text listing the approval of 
Rule 67.0 was erroneously deleted. While the December 4, 1990 version 
of San Diego County APCD Rule 67.0 has since been superseded in the 
applicable California SIP, we propose to re-instate 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(184)(i)(D)(1) to maintain an accurate accounting of the 
version of Rule 67.0 that applied for federal enforcement purposes at 
different times in the past.
    Erroneous Codification of Approval of San Diego County APCD Rule 
67.11: On April 11, 2013 (78 FR 21537), the EPA took final action to 
approve San Diego County APCD Rule 67.11 (Wood Products Coating 
Operations), submitted on September 21, 2012. We erroneously codified 
the approval of Rule 67.11 at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(307), which lists 
approved rules submitted on November 19, 2002. We propose to 
redesignate the paragraph listing the approval of Rule 67.11 from 40 
CFR 52.220(c)(307) to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(423), which lists approved rules 
submitted on September 21, 2012.

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD

    Failure to Include Introductory Text for Approval of Rules 
Submitted on May 13, 1980, including Fresno County APCD Rules 410, 
411.1 and 416.1: On May 13, 1980, the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB) submitted certain amended rules to the EPA as a revision to the 
California SIP, including Fresno County Rules 410 (Storage of Organic 
Liquids), 411.1 (Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks--Phase 
II) and 416.1 (Agricultural Burning). We codified our approval of the 
rules submitted on May 13, 1980, at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(83), see, e.g., 47 
FR 29668 (July 8, 1982) (Approval of Fresno County APCD Rule 410) and 
46 FR 60202 (December 9, 1981) (Approval of Fresno County APCD Rules 
411.1 and 416.1), but inadvertently failed to identify the submittal 
date and, in two instances, failed to identify the applicable air 
pollution control district for the approved rules as the Bay Area AQMD 
and the Fresno County APCD, respectively. In this action, we propose to 
add introductory text to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(83) specifying a submittal 
date of May 13, 1980, and to properly designate subparagraph (i) as the 
Bay Area AQMD and subparagraph (iii) as the Fresno County APCD.
    Publisher's Error in Connection with Supersession of San Joaquin 
County APCD Rules 413.2 and 413.3: On September 23, 2010 (75 FR 57862), 
the EPA approved San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Rules 4453 (Refinery 
Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems) and 4454 (Refinery Process Unit 
Turnaround) and codified the supersession of the relevant county-level 
APCD SIP rules, including San Joaquin County APCD Rules 413.2 (Refinery 
Vacuum Producing Devices) and 413.3 (Refinery Process Unit Turnaround) 
in the existing SIP. The codification of the supersession of San 
Joaquin County APCD Rules 413.2 and 413.3 was intended to be published 
at paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vii), which lists San Joaquin County 
APCD rules, but, due to a publisher's error, it was published instead 
at paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vi), which lists rules adopted by 
Merced County APCD. In this action, we propose to redesignate paragraph 
40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vi)(D) as paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vii)(D) 
to correct this error.
    Erroneous Amendatory Instruction Related to Approval of San Joaquin 
County APCD Rules 409.7 and 409.8: On June 18, 1982 (47 FR 26384), the 
EPA took final action to approve certain regulations adopted by the San 
Joaquin County APCD, including Rules 409.7 (Graphic Arts) and 409.8 
(Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Systems), submitted on July 14, 1981. 
Due to erroneous amendatory instructions, the approval of San Joaquin 
County APCD Rules 409.7 and 409.8 was published as subparagraph (B) 
under paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(102)(ii), which lists rules adopted by 
the Stanislaus County APCD, instead of subparagraph (B) under paragraph 
40 CFR 52.220(c)(102)(i), which lists rules adopted by the San Joaquin 
County APCD. In this action, we propose to redesignate paragraph 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(102)(ii)(B) as 40 CFR 52.220(c)(102)(i)(B) to correct this 
error.

Santa Barbara County APCD

    Erroneous Codification of Approval of Santa Barbara County APCD 
Rule 337: On April 11, 2013 (78 FR 21537), the EPA took final action to 
approve Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 337 (Surface Coating of 
Aerospace Vehicles and Components), submitted on September 21, 2012. We 
erroneously codified the approval of Rule 337 at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(214), 
which lists approved rules submitted on January 24, 1995. We propose to 
redesignate the paragraph listing the approval of Rule 337 from 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(214) to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(423), which lists approved rules 
submitted on September 21, 2012.
    Inadvertent Failure to Add Introductory Text in Connection with 
Approval of Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 316: On August 30, 1993 (58 
FR 45442), the EPA took final action to approve Santa Barbara County 
APCD Rule 316 (Storage and Transfer of Gasoline), submitted on April 5, 
1991, and codified the approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(183)(i)(E)(2) but 
inadvertently

[[Page 22390]]

failed to add introductory text identifying Santa Barbara County APCD 
as the applicable air district for approved rules listed under 
paragraph (E). In this action, we propose to revise 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(i)(E) to add ``Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control 
District'' to clarify the applicability of Rule 316 listed in 
subparagraph (E)(2).

Shasta County AQMD

    Typographical Error in Connection with Deletion of Shasta County 
AQMD Rule 2:19: On January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3045, at 3053), the EPA 
proposed to delete various local rules from the California SIP, 
including a Shasta County AQMD rule titled ``Change in Multi-Component 
System.'' However, due to a typographical error, the rule titled 
``Change in Multi-Component System'' was identified as Rule 2:22. The 
correct rule number is Rule 2:19. On November 16, 2004 (69 FR 67062), 
the EPA took final action to delete the rule and carried forward the 
typographical error in regulatory text found at 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(6)(xxiii)(A). We are proposing in this action to correct the 
regulatory text at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(6)(xxiii)(A) to indicate that 
Shasta County AQMD Rule 2:19, rather than Rule 2:22, has been deleted 
without replacement.

Siskiyou County APCD

    Typographical Error in Connection with Approval of Siskiyou County 
APCD Rules Submitted on March 18, 1987: On April 12, 1989 (54 FR 
14648), the EPA took final action to approve certain Siskiyou County 
APCD rules submitted on March 18, 1987. We codified the approval at 40 
CFR 52.220(c)(172) but, due to a typographical error, listed the 
submittal date as ``March 11, 1987,'' instead of the correct date of 
March 18, 1987. We are proposing in this action to correct the 
regulatory text at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(172) to identify ``March 18, 1987'' 
as the submittal date for the rules listed under that paragraph.

South Coast AQMD

    Rescission of Orange County APCD Regulation VI (Orchard or Citrus 
Grove Heaters): Orange County APCD Regulation VI includes the following 
rules: Rule 100 (Definitions), Rule 101 (Use and Sale of Orchard 
Heaters), Rule 102 (Permit Required), Rule 103 (Transfer of Permits), 
Rule 105 (Application for Permits), Rule 106 (Action on Applications), 
Rule 107 (Standards for Granting Permits), Rule 108 (Conditional 
Approval), Rule 109 (Denial of Applications), Rule 110 (Appeals), Rule 
120 (Fees), Rule 122 (Classification of Orchard Heaters), Rule 123 
(Class I Heaters Designated--Permits), Rule 124 (Class II Heaters 
Designated--Permits), Rule 126 (Identification of Heaters), Rule 127 
(Maintenance of Heaters), Rule 128 (Classification of Undesignated 
Heaters) and Rule 130 (Prohibitions). California submitted Orange 
County APCD Regulation VI on February 21, 1972, and the EPA approved 
the regulation on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). On June 30, 1972, 
California submitted an amended definition in Rule 100 and submitted 
amended versions of Rules 101 and 102, and the EPA approved the 
amendments on September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812). Rule 120 was deleted 
without replacement at 67 FR 2573 (January 18, 2002), but the other 
Regulation VI rules remain in the SIP.
    In an action affecting the South Coast AQMD published at 43 FR 
25684 (June 14, 1978), the EPA indicated: ``The changes to Regulation 
VI, Orchard Grove Heaters, contained in the above mentioned submittals 
and being acted upon by this notice include total replacement of county 
rules by California Health and Safety Code sections covering Orchard 
Heaters.'' 43 FR at 25685. However, the regulatory text deleting 
Regulation VI without replacement was not included in the final rule, 
and thus, Orange County APCD Regulation VI remains part of the 
applicable SIP.\3\ In this action, we are proposing to add regulatory 
text deleting Orange County Regulation VI, as approved on May 31, 1972 
and September 22, 1972, consistent with our action as described in the 
preamble to the June 14, 1978 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In contrast, in a September 8, 1978 final rule, the EPA 
included similar preamble text concerning an analogous Regulation VI 
adopted by Los Angeles County APCD and Riverside County APCD, but 
added specific regulatory text to delete Regulation VI in the 
Southeast Desert portions of Los Angeles County and Riverside 
County. See 43 FR 40011, at 40012 and 40014 (September 8, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tehama County APCD

    Publisher's Error in Connection with Deletion without Replacement 
of San Diego County APCD Rule 41: On June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34641), the 
EPA took final action to delete without replacement certain district 
rules that had been approved in error, including San Diego County APCD 
Rule 41 (Annual Permit Renewal Fees), which was submitted on July 25, 
1973 and approved on May 11, 1977. The amendatory instructions in the 
June 27, 1997 final rule called for publishing the corresponding 
regulatory text at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(21)(vi)(B), which relates to San 
Diego County APCD rules; however, due to a publisher's error, the 
corresponding regulatory text was published at 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(21)(vii)(B), which sets forth regulatory text for Tehama 
County APCD rules. On March 23, 1999 (64 FR 13916), the missing 
paragraph (40 CFR 52.220(c)(21)(vi)(B)) was added but the erroneous 
publication at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(21)(vii)(B) was left in place. In this 
action, we propose to remove 40 CFR 52.220(c)(21)(vii)(B) from the CFR.

Tuolumne County APCD

    Reinstatement of Tuolumne County APCD Rule 516 (Excluding Paragraph 
(C)): On June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34641), the EPA took final action to 
correct certain errors in previous actions on SIPs and SIP revisions by 
deleting without replacement the affected local rules. With respect to 
a rule that was adopted by the Tuolumne County APCD, submitted by 
California on October 23, 1981, and approved by the EPA on May 27, 1982 
(47 FR 23159), we added a paragraph, i.e., (c)(103)(xvii)(B), to 40 CFR 
52.220 (Identification of plan) that states: ``Previously approved on 
May 27, 1982 and now deleted without replacement Rule 516.'' 62 FR at 
34647. However, in our proposed error correction, 61 FR 38664, at 38680 
(July 25, 1996), we indicated that the rule we intended to delete was 
Rule 516 (``Emergency Variance Procedures''), but the correct title of 
Rule 516 is ``Upset and Breakdown Conditions,'' and ``Emergency 
Variance Procedures'' is the title of one of the paragraphs, i.e., 
paragraph (C), of Rule 516. Thus, we intended to delete only paragraph 
(C) of Rule 516 but erroneously indicated in the final rule that we 
were deleting without replacement the entire rule. Accordingly, we 
propose to amend paragraph (c)(103)(xvii)(B) to refer only to paragraph 
(C) of Rule 516.

Ventura County APCD

    Erroneous Regulatory Text for Approval of Rescission of Ventura 
County APCD Rule 18: On December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76567), the EPA took 
final action approving certain rules and rule rescissions adopted by 
the Ventura County APCD establishing procedures and criteria for 
issuing permits to new or modified stationary sources, including the 
rescission of Rule 18 (Permit to Operate--Application Required for 
Existing Equipment). The specific version of Rule 18 for which we 
approved rescission was submitted on June 30, 1972 and approved on 
September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812); however, we erroneously added the 
corresponding regulatory text to 40 CFR 52.220(b), which lists rules 
submitted on February 21, 1972 and approved on

[[Page 22391]]

May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). The regulatory text belongs under 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(6)(xxiv). In this action, we propose to redesignate the 
regulatory text accordingly.
    Inadvertent Failure to Include Introductory Text for Approval of 
Ventura County APCD Rule 74.6: On July 1, 1982 (47 FR 28617), the EPA 
took final action to approve Ventura County APCD Rule 74.6 (Surface 
Cleaning and Degreasing). In our final rule, we codified our approval 
of Rule 74.6 at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(82)(i)(A) but inadvertently failed to 
add introductory text specifying the date of submittal. In this action, 
we propose to add introductory text to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(82) specifying 
a submittal date of May 1, 1980.
    Inadvertent Failure to Remove Listing of Sacramento Metropolitan 
AQMD Rules 70, 73, 96 and 111 from Paragraph Listing Ventura County 
APCD Rules: Rules 70, 73, 96 and 111 are among a set of Sacramento 
Metropolitan AQMD rules that were approved at 42 FR 28122 (June 2, 
1977); corrected at 42 FR 42219 (August 22, 1977). In the June 2, 1977 
action, the EPA codified the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD rules on 
which the Agency was taking action at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(24)(x)(A)-(E). 
The August 22, 1977 action corrected the list of Sacramento 
Metropolitan AQMD rules for which the EPA had taken action and 
recodified the action at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(24)(viii)(A). The August 22, 
1977 inadvertently failed to delete the original codification of the 
action on the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD rules at 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(24)(x). Since then, the EPA has taken action on certain 
Ventura County APCD rules and codified those actions at 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(24)(x)(A) and (B), but subparagraphs (C)-(E) remain in the 
CFR and now appear as if they are Ventura County APCD rules. In this 
action, we are proposing to remove and reserve subparagraphs (C)-(E) 
under 40 CFR 52.220(c)(24)(x).
    Inadvertent Failure to Codify Approval of Rescission of Ventura 
County APCD Rule 74.6.3: The EPA approved certain rules adopted by the 
Ventura County APCD, including Rule 74.6.3 (Conveyorized Degreasers) at 
65 FR 45294 (July 21, 2000). We codified our approval of these rules at 
40 CFR 52.220(c)(241)(i)(C). On October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61561), we 
approved revisions to certain Ventura County APCD rules, including the 
rescission of Rule 74.6.3. In the October 25, 2005 direct final rule, 
we explained that Rule 74.6.3 was being rescinded because there are 
currently no conveyorized degreasers operating in Ventura County. 70 FR 
61561, at 61562. However, we inadvertently failed to codify the 
rescission of Rule 74.6.3 in the regulatory portion of the final rule. 
In this action, we are proposing to add regulatory text to codify our 
approval of the rescission of Rule 74.6.3 by adding a paragraph to that 
effect at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(241)(i)(C).

Yolo-Solano AQMD

    Publisher's Error in Connection with Approval of Yolo-Solano AQMD 
Rules Submitted on February 25, 1980: On June 18, 1982 (47 FR 26379), 
the EPA took direct final action to approve certain revisions to the 
Yolo-Solano AQMD portion of the California SIP. In the direct final 
rule, we approved Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules 3.4.1 (Standards for Granting 
Applications), 3.4.2 (Conditional Approval), and 3.13 (Public Review 
and Comment for Application for Authority to Construct) and codified 
the approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(54)(iv)(C). However, due to a 
publisher's error, the codification of the approval of the three rules 
was repeated at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(54)(v)(C) as if they were rules 
adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. We are proposing to delete 
the erroneous regulatory text now found at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(54)(v)(C).
    Inadvertent Failure to Codify Approval of Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules 
3.4.1 and 3.4.2: On June 18, 1982 (47 FR 26379), the EPA took direct 
final action to approve certain revisions to the Yolo-Solano AQMD 
portion of the California SIP. In the direct final rule, we approved 
Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules 3.4.1 (Standards for Granting Applications), 
3.4.2 (Conditional Approval), and 3.13 (Public Review and Comment for 
Application for Authority to Construct) and codified the approval at 40 
CFR 52.220(c)(54)(iv)(C). However, in response to the direct final 
rule, we received adverse comment concerning our approval of Rules 
3.4.1 and 3.4.2, and on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 28988), we withdrew their 
approval. Later than year, we took final action to approve Rules 3.4.1 
and 3.4.2 after consideration of public comment, 48 FR 52712 (November 
22, 1983), but failed to add corresponding regulatory text in 40 CFR 
52.220(c)(54)(iv). In this action, we propose to add a new paragraph, 
40 CFR 52.220(c)(54)(iv)(E), codifying our 1983 approval of Yolo-Solano 
AQMD Rules 3.4.1 and 3.4.2.
    Publisher's Error in Connection with Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules 
Submitted on October 15, 1979: On December 9, 1981 (46 FR 60202), the 
EPA took final action to approve certain revisions to the Fresno County 
APCD portion of the California SIP that had been submitted on October 
15, 1979, including Rules 301 (Permit Fees), 302 (Permit Fee Schedules) 
and 305 (Hearing Board Fees). We codified the approval of these Fresno 
County APCD rules at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(xv)(B). However, due to a 
publisher's error, the codification of the approval of the three rules 
was repeated at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(xix)(B) as if they were rules 
adopted by the Yolo-Solano AQMD. We are proposing to delete the 
erroneous regulatory text now found at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(xix)(B).

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    The EPA has reviewed the rules listed in table 1 above and 
determined that they were previously approved into the applicable 
California SIP in error. Deletion of these rules will not relax the 
applicable SIP and is consistent with the Act. Therefore, under section 
110(k)(6) of the CAA, the EPA is proposing to delete the rules listed 
in table 1 above and any earlier versions of these rules from the 
individual air pollution control district portions of the California 
SIP. These rules include general nuisance provisions, Federal NSPS or 
NESHAP requirements, hearing board procedures, variance provisions, and 
local fee provisions. We are also proposing to make certain other 
corrections to fix errors in previous rulemakings on California SIP 
revisions as described in section V above. We will accept comments from 
the public on this proposal until May 22, 2020.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, for the most part, the EPA is proposing to delete 
rules that were previously incorporated by reference from the 
applicable California SIP. However, we are also proposing to include in 
a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by 
reference of rules not previously incorporated. In accordance with 
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference certain San Diego County APCD and Yolo-Solano AQMD rules, as 
described in section V of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will 
continue to make, these documents generally available electronically 
through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA 
office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more 
information).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a

[[Page 22392]]

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 approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely corrects errors in previous 
rulemakings and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the 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, 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. In those areas of 
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 30, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-07531 Filed 4-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P