Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0732-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Approvals of Air Quality Implementation Plans: California; Eastern Kern, Imperial, Placer, and Yolo-Solano; Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Posted Date: 2012-12-10T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73316-73320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29535]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0732; FRL-9739-5]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Eastern 
Kern, Imperial, Placer, and Yolo-Solano; Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action on revisions to the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 
EPA is approving four permitting rules submitted for the Eastern Kern 
Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD), Imperial County Air Pollution 
Control District (ICAPCD), Placer County Air Pollution Control District 
(PCAPCD), and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) 
portions of the California SIP. The State of California is required 
under part C of title I of the Act to adopt and implement a SIP-
approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. 
We are revising the SIP to incorporate EKAPCD Rule 210.4--Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration, ICAPCD Rule 904--Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program, PCAPCD Rule 518--Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program, and YSAQMD Rule 3.24--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The approval of these rules 
will establish a PSD permit program in each District for pre-
construction review of certain new and modified major stationary 
sources in attainment or unclassifiable areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 8, 2013, and the 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 8, 
2013, unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 9, 2013. If 
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in 
the Federal Register informing the public that this rule, or the 
relevant provisions of the rule, will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0732, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments received will be included in the public 
docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through 
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 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 below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, Permits Office (AIR-3), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3811, 
beckham.lisa@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation
    A. How is EPA evaluating these rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Significant Impact Levels for PM2.5.
    D. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD Permits
    E. What action is EPA finalizing?
    F. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules on which we are taking action along with 
the dates on which they were adopted or amended by the applicable local 
agency and

[[Page 73317]]

submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency            Rule No.                  Rule title                    Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EKAPCD.........................      210.4  Prevention of Significant Deterioration...    1/12/2012    4/25/2012
ICAPCD.........................        904  Prevention of Significant Deterioration      12/20/2011    2/23/2012
                                             (PSD) Permit Program.
PCAPCD.........................        518  Prevention of Significant Deterioration       2/10/2011    6/21/2011
                                             (PSD) Permit Program.
YSAQMD.........................       3.24  Prevention of Significant Deterioration...    6/13/2012     7/3/2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 
40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of these rules in the SIP. However, 
EKAPCD originally adopted EKAPCD Rule 210.4 on September 9, 1984 and 
amended it on November 18, 1985, and September 2, 1999. We are only 
taking action on the currently submitted version of each rule as listed 
in Table 1.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to adopt and submit 
regulations for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the 
primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 
Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 
110(a)(2)(J) require such state plans to meet the applicable 
requirements of section 165 relating to a pre-construction permit 
program for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality 
and visibility protection. The purpose of the rule submittals that are 
addressed in this action is to establish and implement a pre-
construction PSD permit program as required by section 165 of the CAA 
for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in 
attainment areas. Because the State of California does not currently 
have a SIP-approved PSD program within EKAPCD, ICAPCD, PCAPCD, and 
YSAQMD (referred to hereinafter as the ``Districts''), EPA is currently 
the PSD permitting authority for each District. Inclusion of these 
rules into the SIP transfers PSD permitting authority from EPA to the 
Districts. EPA will assume the role of overseeing the PSD permitting 
program within each District.

II. EPA's Evaluation

A. How is EPA evaluating these rules?

    The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the submitted 
rules include CAA sections 110(a), 110(l), and 165 and part 51, section 
166 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 51.166). 
Section 110(a) requires, among other things, that SIP rules be 
enforceable, while section 110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP 
revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirements 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. Section 165 of 
the CAA requires states to adopt a pre-construction permitting program 
for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in 
attainment or unclassifiable areas. 40 CFR 51.166 establishes the 
specific requirements for SIP-approved PSD permit programs that must be 
met to satisfy the requirements of section 165 of the CAA.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    With some exclusions and revisions, EKAPCD Rule 210.4, ICAPCD Rule 
904, PCAPCD Rule 518, and YSAQMD Rule 3.24 incorporate by reference 
EPA's PSD permit program at 40 CFR 52.21, as of January 12, 2012, 
December 20, 2011, February 10, 2011, and July 12, 2012, respectively. 
We generally consider EPA's PSD permit program to be consistent with 
the criteria in 40 CFR 51.166. However, we conducted a review of each 
rule to ensure that all requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 were met. Our 
evaluations are available as an attachment to the technical support 
document (TSD) for this rulemaking. We also reviewed the revisions the 
Districts made to the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 that were incorporated 
by reference into each rule, such as revising certain terms and 
definitions to reflect the fact that the Districts, rather than the 
EPA, will be the PSD permitting authority. Based on our evaluation we 
have concluded each rule meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 for a 
PSD program.
    Specifically, EKAPCD Rule 210.4 makes significant revisions to the 
applicability procedures and definitions for major modification, actual 
emissions, baseline actual emission, and net emissions increase as 
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2) and (b). EKAPCD Rule 
210.4 also excludes the Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) 
provisions contained in 40 CFR 52.21(aa). These revisions are intended 
to implement a PSD program that does not contain the 2002 NSR Reform 
provisions (see generally 67 FR 80,185 (Dec. 31, 2002)). Based on our 
evaluation of Rule 210.4 and the EKAPCD's Staff Report, we have 
concluded that Rule 210.4 is at least as stringent, in all respects, as 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 for a PSD program. A more detailed 
discussion of those revisions and our analysis are in the TSD for this 
rulemaking.
    We note that three of the District rules under consideration in 
this action also rely on existing SIP-approved permit application 
processing requirements, which are found in EKAPCD Rule 210.1, ICAPCD 
Rule 206, and PCAPCD Rule 502, for meeting some of the PSD program 
requirements.
    We also reviewed clarifying information provided by the Districts 
in letters dated July 19, 2012 (EKAPCD), July 10, 2012 (ICAPCD), July 
6, 2012 (PCAPCD), and August 7, 2012 (YSAQMD). Based on our review of 
the Districts' rules as well as these clarification letters, we have 
determined that the Districts' PSD SIP rules are acceptable under CAA 
sections 110(a), 110(l) and 165 and 40 CFR 51.166. EPA's TSD for this 
rulemaking has more information about these rules, including our 
evaluation and recommendation to approve them into the SIP.

C. Significant Impact Levels for PM2.5

    Eastern Kern Rule 210.4, Imperial Rule 904, and Placer Rule 518 
incorporate by reference the PM2.5 significant impact levels 
(SILs) found in 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). Yolo-Solano Rule 3.24 does not 
incorporate these PM2.5 SILs, by reference or otherwise. 
Consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2), these PM2.5 SILs are an 
optional portion of the PSD permitting program. However, EPA's 
authority to implement the PM2.5 SILs for PSD purposes is 
currently subject to litigation, Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 10-1413 
(D.C. Circuit). As a result, EPA has come to recognize that the 
regulatory text it adopted in 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40

[[Page 73318]]

CFR 52.21(k)(2) does not accurately reflect EPA's intent, because the 
text does not afford permitting authorities sufficient discretion to 
deny sources use of the SILs where their use would lead to a new 
violation of the NAAQS or increment. In our response brief to the Court 
in this litigation, EPA requested that the Court remand and vacate 40 
CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2) so that we may initiate a 
rulemaking to make revisions to the regulatory text.
    Paragraph (k)(1) of 40 CFR section 52.21 requires that sources 
applying for a new PSD permit demonstrate that any allowable emission 
increases from the proposed source or modification, in conjunction with 
all other applicable emissions increases or reductions, will not cause 
or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or any applicable increment. 
In the preamble to the 2010 final rule adding the (k)(2) provision to 
section 52.21, EPA advised that, ``notwithstanding the existence of a 
SIL, permitting authorities should determine when it may be appropriate 
to conclude that even a de minimis impact will `cause or contribute' to 
an air quality problem and to seek remedial action from the proposed 
new source or modification.'' Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC), 75 FR 64,864, 64,892 (Oct. 
20, 2010). In another passage of the preamble to the 2010 final rule, 
EPA also observed that ``the use of a SIL may not be appropriate when a 
substantial portion of any NAAQS or increment is known to be 
consumed.'' Id. at 64,894.
    We requested clarification from EKAPCD, PCAPCD, and ICAPCD 
concerning their interpretation of their respective rules that 
incorporate by reference 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). Consistent with the 
statements by EPA in the preamble to the 2010 final rule, EKAPCD, 
PCAPCD, and ICAPCD confirmed that they do not interpret section 
52.21(k)(2) to preclude them from exercising the discretion to 
determine when it may be appropriate to conclude that even a de minimis 
impact on air quality (an impact below the PM2.5 SIL values) 
will cause or contribute to an air quality problem and to seek remedial 
action from the proposed new source or modification. See clarification 
letters from EKAPCD dated August 21, 2012, from ICAPCD dated August 21, 
2012, and from PCAPCD dated August 20, 2012. Based on this 
interpretation, each of these Districts has clarified that it will not 
read section 52.21(k)(2) as an absolute ``safe harbor,'' but will 
exercise discretion to determine whether a particular application of 
the PM2.5 SILs is appropriate when a substantial portion of 
the PM2.5 NAAQS or increment is known to be consumed. These 
Districts have also clarified that they retain the discretion to 
require additional information from a permit applicant as needed to 
assure that the source will not cause or contribute to a violation of 
any NAAQS or applicable increment pursuant to section 52.21(k)(1).
    Based on these clarifications provided by EKAPCD, PCAPCD, and 
ICAPCD, we find that these Districts' PSD rules are approvable and 
consistent with the Act and the requirements for a PSD program.

D. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD Permits

    The Districts have also requested approval to exercise their 
authority, as applicable, to administer the PSD program with respect to 
those sources located in the Districts that have existing PSD permits 
issued by EPA. This would include authority to conduct general 
administration of these existing permits, authority to process and 
issue any and all subsequent PSD permit actions relating to such 
permits (e.g., modifications, amendments, or revisions of any nature), 
and authority to enforce such permits. Pursuant to the criteria under 
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA, we have determined that these 
districts have the authority, personnel, and funding to implement the 
PSD program within each District for existing EPA-issued permits. Upon 
the effective date of our approval of the Districts' PSD programs into 
the SIP, the EPA-issued PSD permits will be transferred to each 
District, as applicable. A list of these EPA-issued permits is provided 
as an attachment to the TSD for this action. In addition, any PSD 
permit applications submitted to EPA for which EPA has not yet proposed 
a permit decision upon the effective date of this action will also be 
transferred to the applicable District upon the effective date of this 
rule.

E. What action is EPA finalizing?

    EPA is finalizing a SIP revision for the Eastern Kern, Imperial 
County, Placer County, and Yolo-Solano portions of the California SIP. 
This SIP revision will be codified in 40 CFR 52.220 by incorporating by 
reference the District PSD rules listed in Table 1. In addition, the 
letters from the Districts to EPA described elsewhere in this preamble 
that provide certain clarifications concerning the Districts' rules 
will be included as additional material in 40 CFR 52.220. The 
regulatory text addressing this action also makes it clear that EPA is 
relying, in part, on the clarifications provided in the Districts' 
clarification letters in taking this final approval action. As such, 
the Districts' implementation of the PSD program in a manner consistent 
with these clarifications is a pre-condition of today's final approval 
of this PSD SIP revision. This SIP revision provides a federally 
approved and enforceable mechanism for the District to issue pre-
construction PSD permits for certain new and modified major stationary 
sources subject to PSD review within the Districts. The regulatory text 
at 40 CFR 52.270 will also be revised so that these Districts are no 
longer a part of California's Federal Implementation Plan for the PSD 
program.

F. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no 
adverse comments. As discussed above, this approval action will 
transfer PSD permitting program responsibility and authority from EPA 
to the Districts, which will generally continue to implement the PSD 
program consistent with 40 CFR section 52.21 as incorporated by 
reference into the Districts' rules. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' 
section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a 
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve this SIP 
revision should relevant adverse comments be filed on this direct final 
rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any 
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further 
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of 
this document.
    This rule will be effective February 8, 2013 without further notice 
unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by January 9, 
2013. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this 
direct final rule will not take effect. All public comments received 
would then be addressed in any subsequent final rule based on the 
proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on a 
distinct provision of this rule and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions 
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. In such 
case, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the

[[Page 73319]]

Federal Register indicating which provisions we are withdrawing. The 
provisions that are not withdrawn will become effective on the date set 
out above, notwithstanding adverse comment on any other provision.

III. EPA's Final Action

    EPA is approving the following CARB submittals into the California 
SIP to establish a PSD permit program for pre-construction review of 
certain new and modified major stationary sources in attainment or 
unclassifiable areas: CARB's 4/25/2012 submittal of EKAPCD Rule 210.4--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; CARB's 2/23/2012 submittal of 
ICAPCD Rule 904--Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit 
Program; CARB's 6/21/2011 submittal of PCAPCD Rule 518--Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program; and CARB's 7/3/2012 
submittal of YSAQMD Rule 3.24--Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

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). Thus, in reviewing SIP 
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they 
meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed 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 of California 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. 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 action 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. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by February 8, 2013. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 25, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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 as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text of paragraphs (c)(391) and 
(c)(411).
0
b. By adding new paragraphs (c)(391)(i)(C), (c)(391)(ii), 
(c)(411)(i)(E), (c)(411)(ii), (c)(419), and (c)(420).

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (391) New and amended regulations were submitted on June 21, 2011 
by the Governor's designee. Final approval of these regulations is 
based, in part, on the clarifications contained in letters dated July 
6, 2012 and August 20, 2012 from the Placer County Air Pollution 
Control District regarding specific implementation of parts of the 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
    (i) * * *
    (C) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 518, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
Permit Program,'' adopted on February 10, 2011.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD).
    (1) Letter dated July 6, 2012 from Thomas J. Christofk, PCAPCD, to 
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 518 and 40 CFR 51.166.
    (2) Letter dated August 20, 2012 from Thomas Christofk, PCAPCD, to 
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 518 and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2).
* * * * *
    (411) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were 
submitted on February 23, 2012. Final approval of these regulations is 
based, in part, on the clarifications contained in letters

[[Page 73320]]

dated July 10, 2012 and August 21, 2012 from the Imperial County Air 
Pollution Control District regarding specific implementation of parts 
of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
    (i) * * *
    (E) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 904, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
Permit Program,'' revised on December 20, 2011.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD).
    (1) Letter dated July 10, 2012 from Brad Poiriez, ICAPCD, to 
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 904 and 40 CFR 51.166.
    (2) Letter dated August 21, 2012 from Brad Poiriez, ICAPCD, to 
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 904 and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2).
* * * * *
    (419) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were 
submitted on April 25, 2012. Final approval of these regulations is 
based, in part, on the clarifications contained in letters dated July 
19, 2012 and August 21, 2012 from the Eastern Kern Air Pollution 
Control District regarding specific implementation of parts of the 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 210.4, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' 
adopted on January 12, 2012.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD).
    (1) Letter dated July 19, 2012 from David L. Jones, EKAPCD, to 
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 40 CFR 51.166.
    (2) Letter dated August 21, 2012 from David L. Jones, EKAPCD, to 
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2).
    (420) A new regulation for the following APCD was submitted on July 
3, 2012. Final approval of this regulation is based, in part, on the 
clarifications contained in a letter dated August 7, 2012 from the 
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District regarding specific 
implementation of parts of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
program.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 3.24, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' adopted 
on June 13, 2012.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD).
    (1) Letter dated August 7, 2012 from Mat Ehrhardt, YSAQMD, to 
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 40 CFR 51.166.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.270 is amended by adding new paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), 
(b)(8), and (b)(9) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.270  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) The PSD program for the Placer County Air Pollution Control 
District (PCAPCD), as incorporated by reference in Sec.  
52.220(c)(391), is approved under part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air 
Act. For PSD permits previously issued by EPA pursuant to Sec.  52.21 
to sources located in the PCAPCD, this approval includes the authority 
for the PCAPCD to conduct general administration of these existing 
permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent permit 
actions relating to such permits, and authority to enforce such 
permits.
    (7) The PSD program for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control 
District, as incorporated by reference in Sec.  52.220(c)(411), is 
approved under part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act.
    (8) The PSD program for the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control 
District (EKAPCD), as incorporated by reference in Sec.  
52.220(c)(419), is approved under part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air 
Act. For PSD permits previously issued by EPA pursuant to Sec.  52.21 
to sources located in the EKAPCD, this approval includes the authority 
for the EKAPCD to conduct general administration of these existing 
permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent permit 
actions relating to such permits, and authority to enforce such 
permits.
    (9) The PSD program for the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management 
District, as incorporated by reference in Sec.  52.220(c)(420), is 
approved under part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2012-29535 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P