Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Eastern Kern, Imperial, Placer, and Yolo-Solano; Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 73316-73320 [2012-29535]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73316
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
State
submittal
date
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
Applicable geographic area
*
*
2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 1997 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) standard.
.
*
*
Baltimore, Maryland 1997 PM2.5
nonattainment area.
3. In § 52.1075, paragraph (n) is added
to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1075
Base year emissions inventory.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) EPA approves as a revision to the
Maryland State Implementation Plan the
2002 base year emissions inventory for
the Baltimore, Maryland 1997 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment
area submitted by the Maryland
Department of Environment on June 6,
2008. The 2002 base year emissions
inventory includes emissions estimates
that cover the general source categories
of point sources, non-road mobile
sources, area sources, on-road mobile
sources, and biogenic sources. The
pollutants that comprise the inventory
are nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), PM2.5,
coarse particles (PM10), ammonia (NH3),
and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
[FR Doc. 2012–29610 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
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
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Dec 07, 2012
Jkt 229001
6/8/08
EPA approval date
*
*
12/10/12 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
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 preconstruction 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 (Air3), 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
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Additional
explanation
*
§ 52.1075(n)
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
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
73317
submitted to EPA by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule No.
EKAPCD ...........
ICAPCD .............
PCAPCD ...........
YSAQMD ...........
210.4
904
518
3.24
Rule title
Prevention
Prevention
Prevention
Prevention
of
of
of
of
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
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 preconstruction 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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Dec 07, 2012
Jkt 229001
Deterioration
Deterioration
Deterioration
Deterioration
Adopted
........................................................................
(PSD) Permit Program ...................................
(PSD) Permit Program ...................................
........................................................................
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
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1/12/2012
12/20/2011
2/10/2011
6/13/2012
Submitted
4/25/2012
2/23/2012
6/21/2011
7/3/2012
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
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
73318
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Dec 07, 2012
Jkt 229001
‘‘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 EPAissued 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
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 preconstruction 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
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
III. EPA’s Final Action
EPA is approving the following CARB
submittals into the California SIP to
establish a PSD permit program for preconstruction 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);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Dec 07, 2012
Jkt 229001
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73319
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]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising the introductory text of
paragraphs (c)(391) and (c)(411).
■ b. By adding new paragraphs
(c)(391)(i)(C), (c)(391)(ii), (c)(411)(i)(E),
(c)(411)(ii), (c)(419), and (c)(420).
■
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
73320
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Dec 07, 2012
Jkt 229001
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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 52.270 is amended by
adding new paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7),
(b)(8), and (b)(9) to read as follows:
§ 52.270
quality.
Significant deterioration of air
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(6) The PSD program for the Placer
County Air Pollution Control District
(PCAPCD), as incorporated by reference
in § 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 § 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
§ 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 § 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 § 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 YoloSolano Air Quality Management
District, as incorporated by reference in
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0513; FRL–9749–6]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; California; South Coast Air
Quality Management District;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration;
Greenhouse Gases
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking final action
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD or
District) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP
revision incorporates District Rule
1714—Prevention of Significant
Deterioration for Greenhouse Gases into
the California SIP. The submitted
revision is a permitting rule that
contains the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit program
applicable to new and modified major
stationary sources of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) as required by Part C of title I
of the Clean Air Act. In addition, upon
the effective date of this action, the
District is no longer subject to the
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) at 40
CFR 52.21 as it pertains to GHGs.
DATES: This rule is effective on January
9, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0513 for
this action. Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are 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 at
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., 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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
]]>Agencies
[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
