Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0933-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Placer County Air Pollution Control District; General Permit Requirements, New Source Review
Posted Date: 2023-07-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 140 (Monday, July 24, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47409-47413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15346]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0933; FRL-11004-01-R9]

Air Plan Revisions; California; Placer County Air Pollution 
Control District; General Permit Requirements, New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action 
on two permitting rules submitted as a revision to the Placer County 
Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD or ``District'') portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are proposing an 
approval of one rule and proposing a limited approval and limited 
disapproval of the second rule. These revisions concern the District's 
New Source Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources 
of air pollution under title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action 
updates the District's applicable SIP with revised rules that the 
District has amended to address deficiencies identified in a previous 
limited approval and limited disapproval action, as well as other 
updates related to NSR requirements. We are taking comments on this 
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0933 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. 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 the 
disclosure of which 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a 
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability 
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Po-Chieh Ting, EPA Region IX, Air-3-1, 
75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3191 or 
by email at [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the 
dates on which they were adopted by the District and the date on which 
they were submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB), which is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Rule No.                                Rule title              Adopted date   Submitted date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
501...........................................  General Permit Requirements.....      04/08/2021      10/06/2021
502...........................................  New Source Review...............      08/12/2021      10/06/2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47410]]

    On April 6, 2022, the submittal for Rules 501 and 502 was deemed 
complete by operation of law.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    The SIP-approved versions of Rules 501 and 502 are identified in 
Table 2.

                                           Table 2--SIP Approved Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SIP approval    Federal Register
                  Rule No.                               Rule title                 date            citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
501.........................................  General Permit Requirements....      04/20/2020        85 FR 21777
502.........................................  New Source Review..............      09/29/2014        79 FR 58263
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the EPA finalizes the actions proposed herein, these rules will 
be replaced in the SIP by the submitted rules listed in Table 1. 
Additionally, as described below, the EPA's final approval of Rule 501 
will resolve our limited disapproval of Rule 501 from our 2020 
rulemaking action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 21777 (April 20, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The submitted rules constitute part of the District's current 
program for preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified 
stationary sources under its jurisdiction. The rule revisions that are 
the subject of this action represent an update to the District's 
preconstruction review and permitting program and are intended to 
satisfy the 2015 ozone NAAQS NSR program requirements under part D of 
title I of the Act (``nonattainment NSR'' or ``NNSR''), the general 
preconstruction review requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the 
Act (``minor NSR''), and related EPA regulations.
    Minor NSR requirements are generally applicable to permitted 
sources, wherever located, while NNSR requirements apply only within 
areas designated as nonattainment for one or more NAAQS. A portion of 
Placer County is within the Sacramento Metro, CA ozone nonattainment 
area, which is classified as ``Severe'' for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and as 
Serious for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\2\ A portion of Placer County is also 
within the Sacramento nonattainment area for the 2006 fine particle 
(PM2.5) NAAQS with a Moderate classification.\3\ The 
remaining areas within Placer County are designated attainment or 
unclassifiable for all other NAAQS. Therefore, in addition to being 
subject to the requirements for minor NSR at section 110(a)(2)(C) of 
the Act, the District is required to adopt and implement a SIP-approved 
NNSR permitting program that applies to new or modified major 
stationary sources of ozone precursors, PM2.5, and 
PM2.5 precursors within the corresponding portions of the 
Placer County designated nonattainment under part D of title I of the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 77 FR 30087 (May 21, 2012); 86 FR 59648 (October 28, 2021). 
Sacramento Metro is also classified as Severe nonattainment for the 
revoked 1979 and 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 60 FR 20237 (April 25, 1995); 
75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010).
    \3\ 74 FR 58687 (November 13, 2009); 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 501 and Rule 502 provide requirements and procedures for 
review of new stationary sources of air pollution and modification and 
operation of existing stationary sources of air pollution, through the 
issuance of permits under the minor NSR and NNSR programs. 
Additionally, the submitted rules address each of the four deficiencies 
identified in the EPA's 2020 limited disapproval of the previous 
submitted version of Rule 501.\4\ Specifically, the revisions to Rule 
501 address our findings that the previous Rule 501: (1) did not fully 
satisfy the requirements at 40 CFR 51.160(b) regarding a permitting 
agency's authority to deny a permit if a proposed project will cause a 
violation of the SIP or interfere with attainment or maintenance of a 
NAAQS; (2) did not fully satisfy requirements at 40 CFR 51.164 relating 
to stack height procedures; and (3) relied on definitions in Rule 504, 
``Emission Reduction Credits,'' which is not SIP-approved. The 
submitted Rule 502 addresses our finding that the previous Rule 501 did 
not fully satisfy the public notice requirements at 40 CFR 51.161 for 
new or modified emissions units located in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin 
portion of Placer County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 85 FR 21777 (April 20, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District has also further amended Rule 502 to ensure compliance 
with NNSR permitting program requirements and recent federal court 
rulings that have become effective since Rule 502 was last approved 
into the SIP in 2014, as well as additional amendments not specifically 
required for approval into the SIP, but which provide streamlining and 
clarifying revisions. The District also added provisions to Rule 502 to 
implement the visibility protection provisions in CAA section 169A and 
40 CFR 51.307(b).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Such sources are required to perform a visibility impact 
analysis consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.307(a) and 40 
CFR 51.166(o), (p)(1) through (2) and (q). See 40 CFR 51.307(c). 40 
CFR 51.307(d) also provides for States to require monitoring of 
visibility in any Federal Class I area near the proposed new major 
stationary source or major modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted rules?

    The EPA reviewed the submitted rules for compliance with CAA 
requirements for: (1) stationary source preconstruction permitting 
programs as set forth in CAA part D, including sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
172(c)(5), 173, 182, and 189; (2) the review and modification of major 
sources in accordance with 40 CFR 51.160-51.165 as applicable in a 
Severe ozone and Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area (the 
area's highest applicable classifications); (3) the review of new major 
stationary sources or major modifications located in a designated 
nonattainment area that may have an impact on visibility in any 
Mandatory Class I Federal area, in accordance with CAA section 169A and 
40 CFR 51.307; (4) SIPs in general as set forth in CAA sections 
110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(A); \6\ and (5) SIP revisions as set 
forth in CAA section 110(l) \7\ and 193.\8\ For Rule 501, which was the 
subject of our 2020 limited approval/limited disapproval, we have

[[Page 47411]]

focused on our analysis on revisions made in the most recent submittal. 
We reviewed both rules to determine whether they address the 
deficiencies identified in our 2020 limited disapproval of Rule 501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted 
to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable.
    \7\ CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to 
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal 
by States to the EPA and prohibits the EPA from approving any SIP 
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other 
applicable requirement of the CAA.
    \8\ CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-
approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in 
a nonattainment area, unless the modification ensures equivalent or 
greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP 
be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. 
Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the 
October 6, 2021 submittal of Rules 501 and 502, we find that the 
District has provided sufficient evidence of public notice, opportunity 
for comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 
rules to the EPA.
    With respect to the substantive requirements found in CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(C), 172(c)(5), 173, 182, 189, and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165, we 
have evaluated the rules in accordance with the applicable CAA 
statutory and regulatory requirements for NNSR permit programs under 
part D of title I of the Act based on the area's Severe ozone and 
Moderate PM2.5 classifications.\9\ Except for the 
deficiencies discussed in Section II.C. of this preamble, we find that 
Rule 502 satisfies these requirements. We have also determined that 
Rule 502 satisfies the related visibility requirements in 40 CFR 
51.307. In addition, we have determined that Rules 501 and 502 satisfy 
the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) that regulations submitted 
to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An NNSR program that satisfies the requirements of the Act 
and the EPA's regulations for Severe ozone nonattainment areas also 
satisfies the NNSR program requirements for lower classifications, 
including the NNSR program requirements applicable to the District 
based on its Serious classification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to correcting the deficiencies in our 2020 limited 
disapproval of Rule 501, we find that submitted Rules 501 and 502 
address these deficiencies and satisfy all minor NSR program 
requirements.
    Additionally, we have concluded that our action would comply with 
CAA section 110(l) because our approval of Rule 501 and limited 
approval of Rule 502 will not interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other CAA 
applicable requirement. Similarly, we find that our action is 
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 193 because our 
approval of Rule 501 and limited approval of Rule 502 will not relax 
any pre-November 15, 1990 requirement in the SIP, and therefore changes 
to the SIP resulting from this action ensure greater or equivalent 
emission reductions of the nonattainment pollutants and their 
precursors in the District.
    For more information about how the rules and our proposed approval 
satisfy the applicable requirements, please see the technical support 
document (TSD) found in the docket for this action.

C. What are the rule deficiencies?

    The EPA identified five deficiencies in Rule 502. These 
deficiencies relate to the requirements of CAA sections 173(a), 173, 
182(c), and 302(z), and 40 CFR 51.165(a), as summarized below:
    1. Rule 502 does not contain provisions to restrict permitting when 
the EPA finds the SIP is not being adequately implemented in the area, 
as required under CAA section 173(a)(4).
    2. The definition of the term ``Major Modification'' in Section 231 
of the rule does not correctly apply the CAA section 182(c)(6) 
requirements regarding aggregation of net emission increases and 
incorrectly specifies use of potential to emit as the basis for 
calculating emission increases.
    3. The rule does not contain the definition of ``Federal Land 
Manager'' from 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xlii).
    4. The definition of the term ``Major Stationary Source--Sacramento 
Air Basin'' in Section 229 of the rule does not specify a major source 
threshold for ammonia, which is a PM2.5 precursor, as 
required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13). Similarly, the definition of the term 
``Major Modification'' in Section 231 of the rule is deficient because 
it relies on the section 229 definition.
    5. The definition of ``Sacramento Valley Air Basin'' in Section 251 
does not include a small area that is included in the federal 
definition of the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area. 
Therefore, the rule is deficient because it does not apply the 
PM2.5 NNSR program requirements to this area, as required 
under CAA section 173.
    Our TSD contains a more detailed discussion of our analysis of Rule 
502 and an explanation for each deficiency.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD also includes recommendations for additional clarifying 
revisions for the District to consider when it next revises Rule 502.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing 
a full approval of Rule 501 because it corrects the previously 
identified deficiencies and continues to satisfy the applicable 
administrative statutory and regulatory provisions governing regulation 
of stationary sources under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
    Additionally, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the 
Act, the EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
Rule 502 because it fulfills most of the relevant CAA requirements, and 
strengthens the SIP, but also contains five deficiencies. We have 
concluded that our limited approval of the submitted rule would comply 
with the relevant CAA requirements, including provisions of CAA 
sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 173, 182, 189, and 193, and 
40 CFR 51.160-51.165 and 51.307.
    If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be codified 
through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a (Identification of plan--in part). 
This action would incorporate the submitted rules into the SIP, 
including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval is 
limited because the EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited 
disapproval of the rule under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). In 
conjunction with the EPA's SIP approval of the District's visibility 
provisions for sources subject to the NNSR program as meeting the 
relevant requirements of 40 CFR 51.307, this action would also revise 
the regulatory provision at 40 CFR 52.281(d) concerning the 
applicability of the visibility Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) at 40 
CFR 52.28 as it pertains to California, to provide that this FIP does 
not apply to sources subject to review under the District's SIP-
approved NNSR program.
    If finalized as proposed, our limited disapproval action would 
trigger an obligation on the EPA to promulgate a FIP unless the State 
corrects the deficiencies, and the EPA approves the related plan 
revisions, within two years of the final action. Additionally, because 
the deficiencies relate to NNSR requirements under part D of title I of 
the Act, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in 
the designated ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Placer 
County 18 months after the effective date of a final limited 
disapproval, and the highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) 
would apply in the areas six months after the offset sanction is 
imposed. Section 179 sanctions will not be imposed under the CAA if the 
State submits, and we approve, prior to the implementation of the 
sanctions, a SIP revision that corrects the deficiencies

[[Page 47412]]

that we identify in our final action. The EPA intends to work with the 
District to correct the deficiencies in a timely manner.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until 
August 23, 2023.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the rules listed in Table 1 of this preamble, which implement 
the District's NSR permitting program for new and modified sources of 
air pollution and further described in Sections I and II of this 
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials 
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office 
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review State choices, 
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action proposes a limited approval and 
limited disapproval of State law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State 
law.
    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any 
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian 
Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction, and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes a limited 
approval and limited disapproval of State law as meeting federal 
requirements. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health does 
not apply to this action.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean 
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ 
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of 
this action, it is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the 
air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required 
as part of this action, and there is no information in the record 
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving 
environmental justice for

[[Page 47413]]

people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 13, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-15346 Filed 7-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P