Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution; Interference With Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirement, 48002-48006 [2011-19898]
Download as PDF
48002
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(TSCA) section 5(e) consent order for
this substance. The NCEL is 0.1 mg/m3
as an 8-hour time-weighted average.
Persons who wish to pursue NCELs as
an alternative to the § 721.63 respirator
may request to do as under § 721.30.
Persons whose § 721.30 requests to use
the NCELs approach are approved by
EPA will receive NCELs provisions
comparable to those listed in the
corresponding section 5(e) consent
order.
(ii) Hazard communication program.
Requirements as specified in § 721.72
(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (concentration set at
0.1 percent), (f), (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii),
(g)(1)(vii), (g)(1)(ix), (g)(2), (g)(3),
(g)(4)(iii), and (g)(5).
(iii) Release to water. Requirements as
specified in § 721.90(a)(1), (b)(1), and
(c)(1).
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph.
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in § 721.125
(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (k)
are applicable to manufacturers,
importers, and processors of this
chemical substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
[FR Doc. 2011–20021 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0211; FRL–9446–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
California; Interstate Transport of
Pollution; Interference With Prevention
of Significant Deterioration
Requirement
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is finalizing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of California on
November 17, 2007, to address the
‘‘transport SIP’’ provisions of Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or
standards) and the 1997 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that
each SIP contain, among other things,
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
adequate measures prohibiting
emissions of air pollutants in amounts
which will interfere with any other
State’s measures required under title I,
part C of the CAA to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality. EPA is
approving California’s SIP revision with
respect to those Districts that implement
SIP-approved permit programs meeting
the approval criteria and simultaneously
disapproving California’s SIP revision
with respect to those Districts that do
not implement SIP-approved permit
programs meeting the approval criteria,
as discussed in our May 31, 2011
proposed rule (76 FR 31263).
DATES: This final rule is effective
September 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under EPA–R09–
OAR–2011–0211. The index to the
docket for this action is available
electronically at https://
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 available in either
location (e.g., confidential business
information (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.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory
Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, (415) 972–3227,
mays.rory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
I. Summary of the Proposed Actions
On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31263), EPA
proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval of a SIP revision submitted
by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) on November 17, 2007, to
address the ‘‘transport SIP’’ provisions
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 Transport
SIP). Specifically, EPA proposed a
limited approval and limited
disapproval of the 2007 Transport SIP
with respect to the requirement in CAA
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that each SIP
contain adequate measures prohibiting
emissions of air pollutants in amounts
which will interfere with any other
State’s measures required under title I,
part C of the CAA to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality. We refer to
this requirement as ‘‘element (3)’’ of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
A. Proposed Action With Respect to
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
We proposed the following actions
with respect to element (3) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. For nine
Districts 1 that are designated
nonattainment and classified under
subpart 2 of part D, title I of the CAA
and that have SIP-approved
nonattainment area new source review
(NNSR) programs meeting the approval
criteria discussed in our May 31, 2011
proposed rule, we proposed to approve
the 2007 Transport SIP.
For three Districts 2 with
nonattainment areas classified under
subpart 2 for which NNSR SIP revisions
were necessary to meet the approval
criteria, we proposed to approve the
2007 Transport SIP if we finalized
approval of the required NNSR SIP
revisions by our July 10, 2011 Consent
Decree deadline for final action on
element (3) of the 2007 Transport SIP.3
Alternatively, for any of these Districts
for which we could not approve the
required NNSR SIP revision by our July
10, 2011 deadline, we proposed to
disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with
respect to element (3) of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and to promulgate a limited
NNSR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) addressing the relevant
requirements.
For two Districts 4 with ‘‘former
subpart 1’’ nonattainment areas that
implement SIP-approved NNSR
programs meeting the approval criteria,
1 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management
District (AQMD), Bay Area AQMD, El Dorado
County Air Pollution Control District (APCD),
Imperial County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, San
Joaquin Valley APCD, South Coast AQMD, Ventura
County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD.
2 Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, and
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD.
3 See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA (Case No.
4:09–CV–02453–CW), Consent Decree dated
November 10, 2009, as amended by Notice of
Stipulated Extensions to Consent Decree Deadlines,
dated April 28, 2011 (establishing July 10, 2011
deadline for final action on element (3) of the 2007
Transport SIP). The July 10, 2011 deadline was
further extended to July 29, 2011 by Notice of
Stipulated Extension to Consent Decree Deadlines,
dated July 7, 2011.
4 Eastern Kern APCD and San Diego County
APCD.
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
we proposed to approve the 2007
Transport SIP.
For seven Districts 5 with ‘‘former
subpart 1’’ nonattainment areas that do
not yet have SIP-approved NNSR
programs, we proposed to disapprove
the 2007 Transport SIP but to determine
that implementation of the provisions of
40 CFR part 51, Appendix S (‘‘The
Interpretative Rule’’) 6 during this
interim period pending EPA’s final
subpart 2 classifications of these areas
adequately addresses the requirements
of element (3) of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and, therefore, discharges
EPA’s obligation to promulgate a FIP for
these limited purposes.
For Monterey Bay Unified APCD
(‘‘Monterey’’), which is designated
unclassifiable/attainment and has a SIPapproved Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program meeting
the approval criteria, we proposed to
approve the 2007 Transport SIP.
For two Districts 7 with unclassifiable/
attainment areas for which we recently
approved PSD SIP revisions meeting the
approval criteria by direct final rule, we
proposed to approve the 2007 Transport
SIP. Alternatively, we proposed to
disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP if
either of these direct final rules were
withdrawn and would not become
effective by our July 10, 2011 Consent
Decree deadline, in which case we
would promulgate a limited PSD FIP for
the relevant District based on the
provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 identifying
NOX as an ozone precursor.
For North Coast Unified AQMD
(‘‘North Coast’’), we proposed to
disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP and
to promulgate a limited PSD FIP for
NOX emission sources only, as
discussed in our May 31, 2011 proposed
rule. By separate action published in
today’s Federal Register, EPA finalized
that limited PSD FIP for North Coast.8
For the rest of the State, which is
designated unclassifiable/attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
subject to the Federal PSD program in
40 CFR 52.21, we proposed to
disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but
to determine that no further action is
5 Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD,
Calaveras County APCD, Feather River AQMD,
Mariposa County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD,
and Tuolumne County APCD.
6 Note that the waiver provisions in section VI of
40 CFR part 51 Appendix S no longer apply. See
Phase 2 Rule, 75 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) and
NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009)
(vacating EPA’s elimination of the 18-month
limitation in 40 CFR part 52.24(k) with respect to
the waiver provisions in section VI of 40 CFR part
51 Appendix S).
7 Mendocino County AQMD and Northern
Sonoma County APCD.
8 See fn. 3 above.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
required to address element (3) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has
already promulgated a PSD FIP for these
areas.
B. Proposed Action With Respect to
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
We proposed the following actions
with respect to element (3) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. For two Districts 9 that are
designated nonattainment, we proposed
to approve the 2007 Transport SIP based
on a determination that implementation
of The Interpretative Rule during the
SIP-development period adequately
addresses the requirements of element
(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
For five Districts 10 that are designated
unclassifiable/attainment and that have
SIP-approved PSD programs meeting the
approval criteria discussed above, we
proposed to approve the 2007 Transport
SIP.
For the rest of the State, which is
designated unclassifiable/attainment
and subject to the Federal PSD program
in 40 CFR 52.21, we proposed to
disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but
to determine that no further action is
required to address element (3) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has
already promulgated a PSD FIP for these
areas.
C. Proposed Action With Respect to
Greenhouse Gases
Finally, with respect to PSD authority
to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs), we
proposed to take the following actions.
For three Districts 11 that were subject to
the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule (75 FR
82536, December 30, 2010), we
proposed to fully approve the 2007
Transport SIP with respect to element
(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) based
on letters from each District. These
letters clarified that the 2007 Transport
SIP should be read, with respect to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), to reflect each
of their PSD programs as they are
currently federally approved as a result
of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule.
For Monterey, which has confirmed
that its SIP provides GHG PSD
permitting authority at thresholds
9 San Joaquin Valley APCD and the South Coast
Air Basin portion of South Coast AQMD.
10 Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay
Unified APCD, North Coast Unified AQMD,
Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD.
11 Mendocino County AQMD, Northern Sonoma
County APCD, and North Coast Unified AQMD.
Note that footnote 24 of our proposed rule (76 FR
31263 at 31268) incorrectly identifies Monterey Bay
Unified APCD instead of Northern Sonoma County
APCD as one of the three Districts that were subject
to the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule but that our
Technical Support Document correctly identifies
the relevant Districts.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48003
consistent with the Tailoring Rule, we
proposed to fully approve the 2007
Transport SIP with respect to element
(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
For Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
(‘‘Sacramento’’), which was subject to
the PSD GHG SIP Call (75 FR 77698,
December 13, 2010), we proposed to
fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP
with respect to element (3) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) if Sacramento’s
corrective SIP revision to address GHG
permitting requirements received EPA
approval.
For all other areas in California,
which are subject to the Federal PSD
program in 40 CFR 52.21, we proposed
to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP
but to determine that no further action
is required to address element (3) of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA
has already promulgated a PSD FIP for
these areas.
For a more detailed explanation of our
evaluation of the 2007 Transport SIP
with respect to element (3) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and of the
rationale for our proposed actions,
please see our May 31, 2011 proposed
rule and related Technical Support
Document (76 FR 31263).
II. EPA’s Response to Comments
Our May 31, 2011 proposed rule
provided for a 30-day comment period.
We did not receive any public
comments in response to the proposed
rule.
III. Final Action
Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of
the CAA, EPA is finalizing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of the
2007 Transport SIP submitted by CARB
on November 17, 2007. We are
finalizing a limited approval and
limited disapproval action because the
2007 Transport SIP is not separable with
respect to individual California
Districts, and because, although the
submittal as a whole strengthens the SIP
and meets the applicable CAA
requirements for certain Districts, it
does not meet the applicable
requirements for certain other Districts,
as discussed in Section I of this final
rule and in our May 31, 2011 proposed
rule.
Specifically, we are approving the
2007 Transport SIP as meeting the
requirements of element (3) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to
the following areas:
• Twelve Districts 12 that implement
SIP-approved NNSR or PSD programs
12 Antelope Valley AQMD, Bay Area AQMD, El
Dorado County APCD, Imperial County APCD,
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
Continued
08AUR1
48004
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
meeting the approval criteria for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS;
• Three Districts 13 for which we have
recently approved the required NNSR
SIP revisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (see 76 FR 43183, July 20, 2011
(Final rule, Sacramento Metropolitan
AQMD NNSR and PSD SIP revisions);
and Final rule, ‘‘Revisions to the
California State Implementation Plan,
Placer County Air Pollution Control
District and Feather River Air Quality
Management District,’’ signed June 30,
2011);
• Two Districts 14 for which we have
recently approved the required PSD SIP
revisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (see 76 FR 26192 (May 6,
2011));
• Five Districts 15 that implement SIPapproved PSD programs meeting the
approval criteria for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS;
• Four Districts 16 that implement
SIP-approved PSD programs meeting the
approval criteria for greenhouse gases
(GHGs); and
• One District (Sacramento) for which
we have recently approved the required
PSD SIP revision for GHGs (see 76 FR
43183, July 20, 2011 (Final rule,
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD NNSR
and PSD SIP revisions)).
We are simultaneously disapproving
the 2007 Transport SIP for failure to
meet the requirements of element (3) of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect
to the following areas:
• Seven Districts 17 with ‘‘former
subpart 1’’ ozone nonattainment areas
that do not yet have SIP-approved
NNSR programs meeting the approval
criteria for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS;
• One District (North Coast) for which
EPA has not yet approved a PSD SIP
revision meeting the approval criteria
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and
• All areas in the State that are
subject to the Federal PSD program in
40 CFR 52.21 for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and/
Mojave Desert AQMD, San Joaquin Valley APCD,
South Coast AQMD, Ventura County APCD, YoloSolano AQMD, Eastern Kern APCD, San Diego
County APCD, and Monterey Bay Unified APCD.
13 Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, and
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD.
14 Mendocino County AQMD and Northern
Sonoma County APCD.
15 Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay
Unified AQMD, North Coast Unified AQMD,
Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD.
16 Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay
Unified APCD, North Coast Unified AQMD, and
Northern Sonoma County APCD.
17 Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD,
Calaveras County APCD, Feather River AQMD,
Northern Sierra AQMD, Mariposa County APCD,
and Tuolumne County APCD.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
or GHGs, where the California SIP
remains deficient with respect to PSD
requirements.
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final
disapproval of a submittal that
addresses a requirement of part D, title
I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or
is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in
CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a
sanctions clock. The 2007 Transport SIP
was not submitted to meet either of
these requirements. Therefore, this final
limited disapproval does not trigger a
sanctions clock.
Disapproval of a required SIP revision
also triggers the requirement under CAA
section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a
FIP no later than 2 years from the date
of the disapproval unless the State
corrects the deficiency, and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision before the Administrator
promulgates such FIP. For the seven
Districts with ‘‘former subpart 1’’ ozone
nonattainment areas for which we are
disapproving the 2007 Transport SIP
(because they do not yet have SIPapproved NNSR programs meeting the
approval criteria for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS), we are finalizing
our proposal to conclude that current
implementation of The Interpretative
Rule in these areas adequately addresses
the requirements of element (3) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS and, therefore,
discharges EPA’s obligation to
promulgate a FIP for these limited
purposes.
For all other Districts for which we
are disapproving the 2007 Transport
SIP, with the exception of North Coast,
EPA has already incorporated into the
applicable SIP the provisions of the
Federal PSD program contained in 40
CFR 52.21 and, therefore, has no further
obligation to promulgate a FIP to
address the requirements of element (3)
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
With respect to North Coast, which
implements a PSD program that does
not currently satisfy element (3) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS, by separate action
published in today’s Federal Register,
EPA finalized a limited PSD FIP, as
discussed herein and in our May 31,
2011 proposed rule. That limited PSD
FIP will apply only until EPA approves
the required PSD SIP revision for this
area.18
18 We note that CARB submitted a PSD SIP
revision for North Coast Unified AQMD on
February 28, 2011 to address, among other things,
the requirement to identify NOX as an ozone
precursor.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Finally, with respect to the five
Districts 19 for which NNSR or PSD SIP
revisions were necessary to meet the
transport SIP approval criteria for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, we are not
finalizing the limited NNSR/PSD FIPs
that we had proposed in the alternative
to codify in 40 CFR sections 52.233,
52.270(b)(3)(iv), and 52.270(b)(4)(iv).
We are approving the 2007 Transport
SIP for these Districts based on our final
approval of the required SIP revisions,
as discussed in Section I of this final
rule and in our May 31, 2011 proposed
rule.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because SIP approvals and
limited approvals/limited disapprovals
under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the Clean Air Act do not create any
new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because this
limited approval/limited disapproval
action does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal
19 Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD,
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Mendocino
County AQMD, and Northern Sonoma County
APCD.
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed
into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a budgetary impact statement to
accompany any proposed or final rule
that includes a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Under section
205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the limited
approval/limited disapproval action
promulgated today does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more
to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action
approves pre-existing requirements
under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive
Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
48005
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This rule 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves in part and
disapproves in part a State plan
implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
rulemaking.
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045, because it
approves in part and disapproves in part
a State plan implementing a Federal
requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. To comply with NTTAA,
EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary
consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available
and applicable when developing
programs and policies unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are
inapplicable to this action. Today’s
action does not require the public to
perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.
K. Congressional Review Act
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 rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
48006
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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).
L. Petitions for Review of This Action
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by October 7, 2011.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0211; FRL–9448–5]
Limited Federal Implementation Plan;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration;
California; North Coast Unified Air
Quality Management District
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
paragraph (c)(386)(ii)(A)(4) to read as
follows:
■
Identification of plan.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(386) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(4) 2007 Transport SIP at pages 21–22
(Attachment A) (‘‘Evaluation of
interference with Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Measures of
any other State’’).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 52.283 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:
Interstate Transport.
(a) * * * (3) The requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding
interference with any other state’s
measures required under title I, part C
18:19 Aug 05, 2011
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is finalizing a limited
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for
the North Coast Unified Air Quality
Management District (NCUAQMD)
portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). We
proposed this action simultaneously
with our proposed limited approval and
limited disapproval of a SIP revision
submitted by California to address the
‘‘transport SIP’’ provisions of Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or
standards) and the 1997 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS (2007 Transport
SIP) (76 FR 31263, May 31, 2011). This
limited FIP establishes Federal
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting requirements for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission sources
only in the NCUAQMD.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective on September 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0211 for
this action. Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
SUMMARY:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
40 CFR Part 52
Dated: July 25, 2011.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
§ 52.283
[FR Doc. 2011–19898 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and
Volatile organic compounds.
§ 52.220
of the Clean Air Act to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality,
except that these requirements are not
fully met in the Air Pollution Control
Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality
Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in
ths paragraph.
(i) Amador County APCD
(ii) Butte County AQMD
(iii) Calaveras County APCD
(iv) Feather River AQMD
(v) Northern Sierra AQMD
(vi) Mariposa County APCD
(vii) Tuolumne County APCD
(viii) North Coast Unified AQMD
(ix) All other areas in California that are
subject to the Federal PSD program as
provided in 40 CFR 52.270.
*
*
*
*
*
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents are listed at https://www.
regulations.gov, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard
copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g.,
Confidential Business Information). To
inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal
business hours with the contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory
Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31263), EPA
proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval of California’s 2007
Transport SIP with respect to the
requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that each SIP contain
adequate measures prohibiting
emissions of air pollutants in amounts
which will interfere with other States’
measures required under title I, part C
of the CAA to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality. We refer to
this requirement as ‘‘element (3)’’ of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Simultaneously,
EPA proposed a limited FIP for the
NCUAQMD to address certain
requirements of ‘‘element (3)’’ of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) that California’s 2007
Transport SIP failed to satisfy. EPA
proposed this limited FIP because of a
statutory duty that we were obligated
under the terms of a Consent Decree to
meet by July 10, 2011, unless we
approved a SIP meeting the applicable
requirements by that date.1 This
Consent Decree deadline has been
extended by stipulation to July 29,
2011.2
Specifically, for the NCUAQMD, we
proposed to disapprove California’s
1 See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA (Case No.
4:09–CV–02453–CW), Consent Decree dated
November 10, 2009, as amended by Notice of
Stipulated Extensions to Consent Decree Deadlines,
dated April 28, 2011, and Notice of Stipulated
Extension to Consent Decree Deadline, dated July
7, 2011.
2 See ibid.
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48002-48006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19898]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0211; FRL-9446-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution; Interference
With Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of
California on November 17, 2007, to address the ``transport SIP''
provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or
standards) and the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that each SIP
contain, among other things, adequate measures prohibiting emissions of
air pollutants in amounts which will interfere with any other State's
measures required under title I, part C of the CAA to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality. EPA is approving California's
SIP revision with respect to those Districts that implement SIP-
approved permit programs meeting the approval criteria and
simultaneously disapproving California's SIP revision with respect to
those Districts that do not implement SIP-approved permit programs
meeting the approval criteria, as discussed in our May 31, 2011
proposed rule (76 FR 31263).
DATES: This final rule is effective September 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under EPA-R09-
OAR-2011-0211. The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at https://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 available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (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.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3227,
mays.rory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we'',
``us'', and ``our'' refer to EPA.
I. Summary of the Proposed Actions
On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31263), EPA proposed a limited approval and
limited disapproval of a SIP revision submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) on November 17, 2007, to address the ``transport
SIP'' provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 Transport SIP).
Specifically, EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval
of the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to the requirement in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that each SIP contain adequate measures
prohibiting emissions of air pollutants in amounts which will interfere
with any other State's measures required under title I, part C of the
CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. We refer to
this requirement as ``element (3)'' of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
A. Proposed Action With Respect to 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
We proposed the following actions with respect to element (3) of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For nine
Districts \1\ that are designated nonattainment and classified under
subpart 2 of part D, title I of the CAA and that have SIP-approved
nonattainment area new source review (NNSR) programs meeting the
approval criteria discussed in our May 31, 2011 proposed rule, we
proposed to approve the 2007 Transport SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AQMD), Bay
Area AQMD, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District (APCD),
Imperial County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, San Joaquin Valley APCD,
South Coast AQMD, Ventura County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For three Districts \2\ with nonattainment areas classified under
subpart 2 for which NNSR SIP revisions were necessary to meet the
approval criteria, we proposed to approve the 2007 Transport SIP if we
finalized approval of the required NNSR SIP revisions by our July 10,
2011 Consent Decree deadline for final action on element (3) of the
2007 Transport SIP.\3\ Alternatively, for any of these Districts for
which we could not approve the required NNSR SIP revision by our July
10, 2011 deadline, we proposed to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP
with respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS and to promulgate a limited NNSR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing the relevant requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, and Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD.
\3\ See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA (Case No. 4:09-CV-02453-
CW), Consent Decree dated November 10, 2009, as amended by Notice of
Stipulated Extensions to Consent Decree Deadlines, dated April 28,
2011 (establishing July 10, 2011 deadline for final action on
element (3) of the 2007 Transport SIP). The July 10, 2011 deadline
was further extended to July 29, 2011 by Notice of Stipulated
Extension to Consent Decree Deadlines, dated July 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For two Districts \4\ with ``former subpart 1'' nonattainment areas
that implement SIP-approved NNSR programs meeting the approval
criteria,
[[Page 48003]]
we proposed to approve the 2007 Transport SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Eastern Kern APCD and San Diego County APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For seven Districts \5\ with ``former subpart 1'' nonattainment
areas that do not yet have SIP-approved NNSR programs, we proposed to
disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but to determine that implementation
of the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S (``The Interpretative
Rule'') \6\ during this interim period pending EPA's final subpart 2
classifications of these areas adequately addresses the requirements of
element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and, therefore, discharges
EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP for these limited purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD, Calaveras County
APCD, Feather River AQMD, Mariposa County APCD, Northern Sierra
AQMD, and Tuolumne County APCD.
\6\ Note that the waiver provisions in section VI of 40 CFR part
51 Appendix S no longer apply. See Phase 2 Rule, 75 FR 71612
(November 29, 2005) and NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009)
(vacating EPA's elimination of the 18-month limitation in 40 CFR
part 52.24(k) with respect to the waiver provisions in section VI of
40 CFR part 51 Appendix S).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Monterey Bay Unified APCD (``Monterey''), which is designated
unclassifiable/attainment and has a SIP-approved Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program meeting the approval criteria,
we proposed to approve the 2007 Transport SIP.
For two Districts \7\ with unclassifiable/attainment areas for
which we recently approved PSD SIP revisions meeting the approval
criteria by direct final rule, we proposed to approve the 2007
Transport SIP. Alternatively, we proposed to disapprove the 2007
Transport SIP if either of these direct final rules were withdrawn and
would not become effective by our July 10, 2011 Consent Decree
deadline, in which case we would promulgate a limited PSD FIP for the
relevant District based on the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 identifying
NOX as an ozone precursor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For North Coast Unified AQMD (``North Coast''), we proposed to
disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP and to promulgate a limited PSD FIP
for NOX emission sources only, as discussed in our May 31,
2011 proposed rule. By separate action published in today's Federal
Register, EPA finalized that limited PSD FIP for North Coast.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See fn. 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the rest of the State, which is designated unclassifiable/
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and subject to the Federal
PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, we proposed to disapprove the 2007
Transport SIP but to determine that no further action is required to
address element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has
already promulgated a PSD FIP for these areas.
B. Proposed Action With Respect to 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
We proposed the following actions with respect to element (3) of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For
two Districts \9\ that are designated nonattainment, we proposed to
approve the 2007 Transport SIP based on a determination that
implementation of The Interpretative Rule during the SIP-development
period adequately addresses the requirements of element (3) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ San Joaquin Valley APCD and the South Coast Air Basin
portion of South Coast AQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For five Districts \10\ that are designated unclassifiable/
attainment and that have SIP-approved PSD programs meeting the approval
criteria discussed above, we proposed to approve the 2007 Transport
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, North
Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the rest of the State, which is designated unclassifiable/
attainment and subject to the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, we
proposed to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but to determine that no
further action is required to address element (3) of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has already promulgated a PSD FIP for these
areas.
C. Proposed Action With Respect to Greenhouse Gases
Finally, with respect to PSD authority to regulate greenhouse gases
(GHGs), we proposed to take the following actions. For three Districts
\11\ that were subject to the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule (75 FR 82536,
December 30, 2010), we proposed to fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP
with respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) based on
letters from each District. These letters clarified that the 2007
Transport SIP should be read, with respect to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), to reflect each of their PSD programs as they are
currently federally approved as a result of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Mendocino County AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD, and
North Coast Unified AQMD. Note that footnote 24 of our proposed rule
(76 FR 31263 at 31268) incorrectly identifies Monterey Bay Unified
APCD instead of Northern Sonoma County APCD as one of the three
Districts that were subject to the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule but that
our Technical Support Document correctly identifies the relevant
Districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Monterey, which has confirmed that its SIP provides GHG PSD
permitting authority at thresholds consistent with the Tailoring Rule,
we proposed to fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to
element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
For Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD (``Sacramento''), which was
subject to the PSD GHG SIP Call (75 FR 77698, December 13, 2010), we
proposed to fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to
element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) if Sacramento's corrective
SIP revision to address GHG permitting requirements received EPA
approval.
For all other areas in California, which are subject to the Federal
PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, we proposed to disapprove the 2007
Transport SIP but to determine that no further action is required to
address element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has
already promulgated a PSD FIP for these areas.
For a more detailed explanation of our evaluation of the 2007
Transport SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and of the rationale for our proposed actions, please
see our May 31, 2011 proposed rule and related Technical Support
Document (76 FR 31263).
II. EPA's Response to Comments
Our May 31, 2011 proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment
period. We did not receive any public comments in response to the
proposed rule.
III. Final Action
Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, EPA is finalizing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of the 2007 Transport SIP
submitted by CARB on November 17, 2007. We are finalizing a limited
approval and limited disapproval action because the 2007 Transport SIP
is not separable with respect to individual California Districts, and
because, although the submittal as a whole strengthens the SIP and
meets the applicable CAA requirements for certain Districts, it does
not meet the applicable requirements for certain other Districts, as
discussed in Section I of this final rule and in our May 31, 2011
proposed rule.
Specifically, we are approving the 2007 Transport SIP as meeting
the requirements of element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
respect to the following areas:
Twelve Districts \12\ that implement SIP-approved NNSR or
PSD programs
[[Page 48004]]
meeting the approval criteria for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Antelope Valley AQMD, Bay Area AQMD, El Dorado County APCD,
Imperial County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, San Joaquin Valley APCD,
South Coast AQMD, Ventura County APCD, Yolo-Solano AQMD, Eastern
Kern APCD, San Diego County APCD, and Monterey Bay Unified APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Districts \13\ for which we have recently approved
the required NNSR SIP revisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 76
FR 43183, July 20, 2011 (Final rule, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD NNSR
and PSD SIP revisions); and Final rule, ``Revisions to the California
State Implementation Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control District
and Feather River Air Quality Management District,'' signed June 30,
2011);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, and Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Districts \14\ for which we have recently approved the
required PSD SIP revisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 76 FR
26192 (May 6, 2011));
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five Districts \15\ that implement SIP-approved PSD
programs meeting the approval criteria for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified AQMD, North
Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four Districts \16\ that implement SIP-approved PSD
programs meeting the approval criteria for greenhouse gases (GHGs); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, North
Coast Unified AQMD, and Northern Sonoma County APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One District (Sacramento) for which we have recently
approved the required PSD SIP revision for GHGs (see 76 FR 43183, July
20, 2011 (Final rule, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD NNSR and PSD SIP
revisions)).
We are simultaneously disapproving the 2007 Transport SIP for
failure to meet the requirements of element (3) of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the following areas:
Seven Districts \17\ with ``former subpart 1'' ozone
nonattainment areas that do not yet have SIP-approved NNSR programs
meeting the approval criteria for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD, Calaveras County
APCD, Feather River AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Mariposa County
APCD, and Tuolumne County APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One District (North Coast) for which EPA has not yet
approved a PSD SIP revision meeting the approval criteria for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS; and
All areas in the State that are subject to the Federal PSD
program in 40 CFR 52.21 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and/or GHGs, where the California SIP remains
deficient with respect to PSD requirements.
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA (CAA
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call)
starts a sanctions clock. The 2007 Transport SIP was not submitted to
meet either of these requirements. Therefore, this final limited
disapproval does not trigger a sanctions clock.
Disapproval of a required SIP revision also triggers the
requirement under CAA section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later
than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects
the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. For the seven
Districts with ``former subpart 1'' ozone nonattainment areas for which
we are disapproving the 2007 Transport SIP (because they do not yet
have SIP-approved NNSR programs meeting the approval criteria for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS), we are finalizing our proposal to conclude
that current implementation of The Interpretative Rule in these areas
adequately addresses the requirements of element (3) of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and, therefore,
discharges EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP for these limited
purposes.
For all other Districts for which we are disapproving the 2007
Transport SIP, with the exception of North Coast, EPA has already
incorporated into the applicable SIP the provisions of the Federal PSD
program contained in 40 CFR 52.21 and, therefore, has no further
obligation to promulgate a FIP to address the requirements of element
(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
With respect to North Coast, which implements a PSD program that
does not currently satisfy element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, by separate action published in
today's Federal Register, EPA finalized a limited PSD FIP, as discussed
herein and in our May 31, 2011 proposed rule. That limited PSD FIP will
apply only until EPA approves the required PSD SIP revision for this
area.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ We note that CARB submitted a PSD SIP revision for North
Coast Unified AQMD on February 28, 2011 to address, among other
things, the requirement to identify NOX as an ozone
precursor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with respect to the five Districts \19\ for which NNSR or
PSD SIP revisions were necessary to meet the transport SIP approval
criteria for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, we are not finalizing the
limited NNSR/PSD FIPs that we had proposed in the alternative to codify
in 40 CFR sections 52.233, 52.270(b)(3)(iv), and 52.270(b)(4)(iv). We
are approving the 2007 Transport SIP for these Districts based on our
final approval of the required SIP revisions, as discussed in Section I
of this final rule and in our May 31, 2011 proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD, Mendocino County AQMD, and Northern Sonoma County
APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals and limited approvals/
limited disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because
this limited approval/limited disapproval action does not create any
new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal
[[Page 48005]]
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval
action promulgated today does not include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under
State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves in part and disapproves in part a State plan
implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive
Order do not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves in
part and disapproves in part a State plan implementing a Federal
requirement.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
K. Congressional Review Act
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 rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in
[[Page 48006]]
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).
L. Petitions for Review of This Action
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 7, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: July 25, 2011.
Keith Takata,
Acting 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.
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by paragraph (c)(386)(ii)(A)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(386) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(4) 2007 Transport SIP at pages 21-22 (Attachment A) (``Evaluation
of interference with Prevention of Significant Deterioration Measures
of any other State'').
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.283 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.283 Interstate Transport.
(a) * * * (3) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
regarding interference with any other state's measures required under
title I, part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality, except that these requirements are not
fully met in the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality
Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in ths paragraph.
(i) Amador County APCD
(ii) Butte County AQMD
(iii) Calaveras County APCD
(iv) Feather River AQMD
(v) Northern Sierra AQMD
(vi) Mariposa County APCD
(vii) Tuolumne County APCD
(viii) North Coast Unified AQMD
(ix) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-19898 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P