Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Placer County Air Pollution Control District and Feather River Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits, 58460-58462 [2013-23096]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
58460
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
• 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 Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this 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, 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Sep 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: June 26, 2013.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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
adding paragraphs (c)(361)(i)(A)(3),
(c)(363)(i)(E), (c)(366)(i)(B)(4),
(c)(404)(i)(C)(2) and (c)(423)(i)(D)(2) to
read as follows:
■
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(361) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(3) Rule 339, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and
Mobile Equipment Coating Operations,’’
revised on June 19, 2008.
*
*
*
*
*
(363) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District.
(1) Rule 74.18, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and
Mobile Equipment Coating Operations,’’
revised on November 11, 2008.
*
*
*
*
*
(366) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(4) Rule 1151, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and
Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line
Coating Operations,’’ amended on
December 2, 2005.
*
*
*
*
*
(404) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Rule 74.19, ‘‘Graphic Arts,’’
revised on June 14, 2011.
*
*
*
*
*
(423) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0094; FRL–9833–1]
Revision of Air Quality Implementation
Plan; California; Placer County Air
Pollution Control District and Feather
River Air Quality Management District;
Stationary Source Permits
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule and technical
amendment.
EPA is finalizing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of two
permitting rules submitted by California
as a revision to the Placer County Air
Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and
Feather River Air Quality Management
District (FRAQMD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions were proposed in
the Federal Register on February 22,
2013 and concern construction and
modification of stationary sources of air
pollution within each District. We are
approving local rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA). Final
approval of these rules makes the rules
federally enforceable and corrects
program deficiencies identified in a
previous EPA rulemaking (76 FR 44809,
July 27, 2011). EPA is also making a
technical amendment to the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect this
previous rulemaking, which removed an
obsolete provision from the California
SIP.
SUMMARY:
Subpart F—California
*
[FR Doc. 2013–23062 Filed 9–23–13; 8:45 am]
AGENCY:
■
§ 52.220
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(2) Rule 1151, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and
Mobile Equipment Coating Operations,’’
amended on June 19, 2012.
*
*
*
*
*
This rule is effective on October
24, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0094 for
this action. Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents are
listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available
only at the hard copy location (e.g.,
copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\24SER1.SGM
24SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
58461
I. Proposed Action
On February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12267),
EPA proposed a limited approval and
limited disapproval of the following
rules that were submitted for
incorporation into the California SIP.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule #
PCAPCD .........................................................
FRAQMD .........................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
We proposed a limited approval
because we determined that these rules
improve the SIP and are largely
consistent with the applicable CAA
requirements. We simultaneously
proposed a limited disapproval because
some rule provisions do not satisfy the
requirements of section 110 and part D
of the Act. Specifically:
• Both rules are missing a component
of the definition for the term ‘‘Regulated
NSR Pollutant,’’ as it relates to PM2.5
condensable emissions.
• Placer County Rule 502 is not
supported by a justification for the
stated PM2.5 interpollutant offset ratios.
• Feather River Rule 10.1 contains
certain language in new Sections B.4
and B.5 that entirely exempts from
regulation pollutants when EPA
redesignates the area from
nonattainment to attainment. As
worded, the provision is too broad, in
that it exempts such pollutants from all
the requirements of Section E of the
rule, rather than just those provisions
which apply to major sources of
nonattainment pollutants.
Our proposed rule and related
Technical Support Document (TSD)
contain more information on the basis
for this rulemaking and on our
evaluation of the submitted rules.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this
period, we received one comment from
Harold Peterson of Huntsville, Alabama.
We summarize the comment and
provide our response below.
Comment: The commenter opposed
what he described as EPA’s ‘‘proposal to
terminate sanction clocks with respect
to the July 27, 2011 ruling,’’ and
explained that although ‘‘it makes sense
to stay the sanctions and pause the
clock while the amended Rules 502 and
10.1 are being reviewed, . . . to remove
all sanctions based on a limited
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Sep 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
502
10.1
Rule title
New Source Review .......................................
New Source Review .......................................
approval/disapproval of the new rules
[would be] inconsistent with the July 27
ruling to impose sanctions based on
another limited approval/disapproval.’’
The commenter stated that ‘‘[a] more
logical approach would be to start a new
18 month clock based on the February
22, 2013 [rulemaking].’’ The commenter
also stated that ‘‘a new clock may
already have been put in place in
another docket’’ and that, if so, he
would find EPA’s proposed action
acceptable ‘‘pending the inclusion of a
reference to the other docket.’’
EPA Response: To the extent the
commenter intended to state that EPA
does not have a basis for terminating all
sanctions clocks associated with
PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule
10.1 and that EPA’s current action
should, instead, start a new 18-month
sanctions clock based on the new rule
deficiencies identified in our February
22, 2013 proposal, we agree. As
explained in our February 22, 2013
proposed rule and in our simultaneous
interim final determination to stay and
defer sanctions based on that proposal,
the amended versions of PCAPCD Rule
502 and FRAQMD Rule 10.1 that
California submitted in 2011 and 2012,
respectively, corrected the deficiencies
identified in our July 27, 2011
disapproval action but contained new
deficiencies that were the basis for a
new limited disapproval and associated
sanctions clock. See 78 FR 12267, 12269
second column (‘‘If EPA finalizes the
limited approval and limited
disapproval action, as proposed, then a
sanctions clock, and EPA’s obligation to
promulgate a Federal implementation
plan, would be triggered. . . .’’); see
also 78 FR 12243 (stating that EPA was
proposing a limited approval/limited
disapproval because the amended rules
‘‘correct the deficiencies identified in
our July 27, 2011 disapproval action,
but other revisions have created new
deficiencies.’’). EPA also stated that the
interim final determination to stay and
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Amended
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10/13/11
2/7/12
Submitted
11/18/11.
9/21/12.
defer ‘‘sanctions associated with
PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule
10.1 (as adopted 2010 and 2009
respectively) [was] based on our
concurrent proposal to approve the
State’s SIP revision as correcting the
deficiencies that initiated sanctions’’
(emphasis added). 78 FR 12243, 12244.
Consistent with our proposal, we are
clarifying in this final rule that the effect
of this action is to terminate only those
sanctions clocks that were triggered by
our July 27, 2011 final limited approval
and limited disapproval of PCAPCD
Rule 502, as adopted in 2010, and
FRAQMD Rule 10.1, as adopted in 2009
(76 FR 44809, docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2011–0461), and to start a new
sanctions clock based on the new rule
deficiencies identified in our February
22, 2013 proposal on the amended rules,
as adopted in 2011 and 2012 (78 FR
12267, docket number EPA–R09–OAR–
2013–0094). This is because, although
EPA has determined that the amended
rules submitted by the State in 2011 and
2012 correct the deficiencies forming
the basis of EPA’s July 27, 2011 limited
disapproval, EPA has identified new,
unrelated rule deficiencies in the
amended rules that form the basis of a
new limited disapproval that we are
finalizing today. See 40 CFR 52.31(d)
(sanction application sequencing). The
commenter correctly notes that these
two rulemakings have separate public
dockets, as discussed above.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that
change our assessment that submitted
PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule
10.1 satisfy the applicable CAA
requirements in part. Therefore, under
CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) and
for the reasons set forth in our February
22, 2013 proposed rule, we are
finalizing a limited approval and
limited disapproval of PCAPCD Rule
502 (as amended October 31, 2011) and
FRAQMD Rule 10.1 (as amended
E:\FR\FM\24SER1.SGM
24SER1
58462
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 24, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
February 7, 2012). This action
incorporates the submitted rules into
the PCAPCD and FRAQMD portions of
the California SIP and makes them
federally enforceable.
We are also making a technical
amendment to 40 CFR 52.220 to remove
a previous SIP rule, PCAPCD Rule 508,
from the PCAPCD portion of the
California SIP, consistent with EPA’s
final rule at 76 FR 44809 (July 27, 2011).
As explained in the proposal for this
2011 rulemaking, both EPA and the
District had intended for Rule 502 to
replace the preexisting NSR program in
Rule 508, which EPA had approved into
the SIP in 1982. See 76 FR 28945 (May
19, 2011).1 In the regulatory text
codifying this final action, however,
EPA incorporated Rule 502 into the SIP
but neglected to remove Rule 508. See
76 FR at 44811. We are making a
technical amendment to 40 CFR 52.220
to correct this error by removing Rule
508 from the PCAPCD portion of the
California SIP. This technical
amendment makes no change to the
substance of our July 27, 2011 final
action or to today’s final limited
approval and limited disapproval of
amended PCAPCD Rule 502 and
FRAQMD Rule 10.1.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements, in part, and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that
reason, this final 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.);
1 EPA’s Technical Support Document for this
proposal stated incorrectly that Rule 508 had
previously been approved into the SIP on May 18,
1981 at 46 FR 27115. See U.S. EPA, Region IX,
Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the California SIP, Placer
County Air Pollution Control District, Rule 502
(New Source Review), May 6, 2011, at 1. The
correct cite and date for this previous SIP action is
47 FR 29536 (July 7, 1982).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Sep 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this final 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, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Environmental
protection, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: June 28, 2013.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
■
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(52)(xiii)(G),
(c)(80)(i)(G), (c)(416)(i)(C) and
(c)(423)(i)(F) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(52) * * *
(xiii) * * *
(G) Previously approved on July 7,
1982 in paragraph (c)(52)(xiii)(C) of this
section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 508.
*
*
*
*
*
(80) * * *
(i) * * *
(G) Previously approved on June 23,
1982 in paragraph (c)(80)(i)(E) of this
section and now deleted without
replacement: Rule 508.
*
*
*
*
*
(416) New and amended regulations
were submitted on November 18, 2011,
by the Governor’s Designee.
(i) Incorporation by Reference.
(C) Placer County Air Pollution
Control District.
(1) Rule 502, ‘‘New Source Review,’’
as amended on October 13, 2011.
*
*
*
*
*
(423) New and amended regulations
were submitted on September 21, 2012,
by the Governor’s Designee.
(i) Incorporation by Reference.
(F) Feather River Air Quality
Management District.
(1) Rule 10.1, ‘‘New Source Review,’’
as amended on February 6, 2012.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–23096 Filed 9–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0451; FRL–9901–
22Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 Lead
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Whenever new or revised
SUMMARY:
■
PO 00000
Subpart F—California
E:\FR\FM\24SER1.SGM
24SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58460-58462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23096]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0094; FRL-9833-1]
Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Placer
County Air Pollution Control District and Feather River Air Quality
Management District; Stationary Source Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule and technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of two permitting rules submitted by California as a revision to the
Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Feather River
Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the
Federal Register on February 22, 2013 and concern construction and
modification of stationary sources of air pollution within each
District. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA). Final
approval of these rules makes the rules federally enforceable and
corrects program deficiencies identified in a previous EPA rulemaking
(76 FR 44809, July 27, 2011). EPA is also making a technical amendment
to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect this previous
rulemaking, which removed an obsolete provision from the California
SIP.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 24, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0094 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents 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
[[Page 58461]]
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12267), EPA proposed a limited approval
and limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for
incorporation into the California SIP.
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAPCD................................ 502 New Source Review....... 10/13/11 11/18/11.
FRAQMD................................ 10.1 New Source Review....... 2/7/12 9/21/12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these
rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the applicable
CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval
because some rule provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section
110 and part D of the Act. Specifically:
Both rules are missing a component of the definition for
the term ``Regulated NSR Pollutant,'' as it relates to PM2.5
condensable emissions.
Placer County Rule 502 is not supported by a justification
for the stated PM2.5 interpollutant offset ratios.
Feather River Rule 10.1 contains certain language in new
Sections B.4 and B.5 that entirely exempts from regulation pollutants
when EPA redesignates the area from nonattainment to attainment. As
worded, the provision is too broad, in that it exempts such pollutants
from all the requirements of Section E of the rule, rather than just
those provisions which apply to major sources of nonattainment
pollutants.
Our proposed rule and related Technical Support Document (TSD)
contain more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our
evaluation of the submitted rules.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received one comment from Harold Peterson of
Huntsville, Alabama. We summarize the comment and provide our response
below.
Comment: The commenter opposed what he described as EPA's
``proposal to terminate sanction clocks with respect to the July 27,
2011 ruling,'' and explained that although ``it makes sense to stay the
sanctions and pause the clock while the amended Rules 502 and 10.1 are
being reviewed, . . . to remove all sanctions based on a limited
approval/disapproval of the new rules [would be] inconsistent with the
July 27 ruling to impose sanctions based on another limited approval/
disapproval.'' The commenter stated that ``[a] more logical approach
would be to start a new 18 month clock based on the February 22, 2013
[rulemaking].'' The commenter also stated that ``a new clock may
already have been put in place in another docket'' and that, if so, he
would find EPA's proposed action acceptable ``pending the inclusion of
a reference to the other docket.''
EPA Response: To the extent the commenter intended to state that
EPA does not have a basis for terminating all sanctions clocks
associated with PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule 10.1 and that EPA's
current action should, instead, start a new 18-month sanctions clock
based on the new rule deficiencies identified in our February 22, 2013
proposal, we agree. As explained in our February 22, 2013 proposed rule
and in our simultaneous interim final determination to stay and defer
sanctions based on that proposal, the amended versions of PCAPCD Rule
502 and FRAQMD Rule 10.1 that California submitted in 2011 and 2012,
respectively, corrected the deficiencies identified in our July 27,
2011 disapproval action but contained new deficiencies that were the
basis for a new limited disapproval and associated sanctions clock. See
78 FR 12267, 12269 second column (``If EPA finalizes the limited
approval and limited disapproval action, as proposed, then a sanctions
clock, and EPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal implementation
plan, would be triggered. . . .''); see also 78 FR 12243 (stating that
EPA was proposing a limited approval/limited disapproval because the
amended rules ``correct the deficiencies identified in our July 27,
2011 disapproval action, but other revisions have created new
deficiencies.''). EPA also stated that the interim final determination
to stay and defer ``sanctions associated with PCAPCD Rule 502 and
FRAQMD Rule 10.1 (as adopted 2010 and 2009 respectively) [was] based on
our concurrent proposal to approve the State's SIP revision as
correcting the deficiencies that initiated sanctions'' (emphasis
added). 78 FR 12243, 12244.
Consistent with our proposal, we are clarifying in this final rule
that the effect of this action is to terminate only those sanctions
clocks that were triggered by our July 27, 2011 final limited approval
and limited disapproval of PCAPCD Rule 502, as adopted in 2010, and
FRAQMD Rule 10.1, as adopted in 2009 (76 FR 44809, docket number EPA-
R09-OAR-2011-0461), and to start a new sanctions clock based on the new
rule deficiencies identified in our February 22, 2013 proposal on the
amended rules, as adopted in 2011 and 2012 (78 FR 12267, docket number
EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0094). This is because, although EPA has determined
that the amended rules submitted by the State in 2011 and 2012 correct
the deficiencies forming the basis of EPA's July 27, 2011 limited
disapproval, EPA has identified new, unrelated rule deficiencies in the
amended rules that form the basis of a new limited disapproval that we
are finalizing today. See 40 CFR 52.31(d) (sanction application
sequencing). The commenter correctly notes that these two rulemakings
have separate public dockets, as discussed above.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment that
submitted PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule 10.1 satisfy the applicable
CAA requirements in part. Therefore, under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) and for the reasons set forth in our February 22, 2013 proposed
rule, we are finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
PCAPCD Rule 502 (as amended October 31, 2011) and FRAQMD Rule 10.1 (as
amended
[[Page 58462]]
February 7, 2012). This action incorporates the submitted rules into
the PCAPCD and FRAQMD portions of the California SIP and makes them
federally enforceable.
We are also making a technical amendment to 40 CFR 52.220 to remove
a previous SIP rule, PCAPCD Rule 508, from the PCAPCD portion of the
California SIP, consistent with EPA's final rule at 76 FR 44809 (July
27, 2011). As explained in the proposal for this 2011 rulemaking, both
EPA and the District had intended for Rule 502 to replace the
preexisting NSR program in Rule 508, which EPA had approved into the
SIP in 1982. See 76 FR 28945 (May 19, 2011).\1\ In the regulatory text
codifying this final action, however, EPA incorporated Rule 502 into
the SIP but neglected to remove Rule 508. See 76 FR at 44811. We are
making a technical amendment to 40 CFR 52.220 to correct this error by
removing Rule 508 from the PCAPCD portion of the California SIP. This
technical amendment makes no change to the substance of our July 27,
2011 final action or to today's final limited approval and limited
disapproval of amended PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule 10.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's Technical Support Document for this proposal stated
incorrectly that Rule 508 had previously been approved into the SIP
on May 18, 1981 at 46 FR 27115. See U.S. EPA, Region IX, Technical
Support Document for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
California SIP, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Rule
502 (New Source Review), May 6, 2011, at 1. The correct cite and
date for this previous SIP action is 47 FR 29536 (July 7, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements, in part, and does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this final 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 Clean Air Act; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this final 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, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 28, 2013.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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 by adding paragraphs (c)(52)(xiii)(G),
(c)(80)(i)(G), (c)(416)(i)(C) and (c)(423)(i)(F) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(52) * * *
(xiii) * * *
(G) Previously approved on July 7, 1982 in paragraph
(c)(52)(xiii)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 508.
* * * * *
(80) * * *
(i) * * *
(G) Previously approved on June 23, 1982 in paragraph (c)(80)(i)(E)
of this section and now deleted without replacement: Rule 508.
* * * * *
(416) New and amended regulations were submitted on November 18,
2011, by the Governor's Designee.
(i) Incorporation by Reference.
(C) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 502, ``New Source Review,'' as amended on October 13,
2011.
* * * * *
(423) New and amended regulations were submitted on September 21,
2012, by the Governor's Designee.
(i) Incorporation by Reference.
(F) Feather River Air Quality Management District.
(1) Rule 10.1, ``New Source Review,'' as amended on February 6,
2012.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-23096 Filed 9-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
