Approval, Disapproval, and Limited Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits, 61794-61799 [2014-24506]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
61794
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
identifiable event, whether or not that
decision coincides with an actual
discharge; (2) placing a 36-month time
limit on a creditor’s defined policy for
discharging a debt under § 1.6050P–
1(b)(2)(i)(G); (3) prohibiting creditors
from issuing Forms 1099–C while
collection activities are ongoing or
while the creditor is considering selling
the debt; and (4) requiring creditors to
issue corrected Forms 1099–C if they
engage in subsequent collection
activities or receive a payment on the
debt.
Because the revisions suggested by
this commenter would not require
information reporting only upon an
actual discharge of indebtedness, the
revisions would not eliminate the
problems associated with issuance of
Forms 1099–C under the 36-month rule.
Adopting these changes could increase,
not decrease, confusion, because they
would modify another identifiable
event, § 1.6050P–1(b)(2)(i)(G), to require
that a debtor’s policy for discharging
debt incorporate a 36-month discharge
rule. Additionally, as explained in this
preamble, requiring creditors to issue
corrected Forms 1099–C would neither
improve tax compliance nor reduce
debtors’ confusion. Eliminating the 36month rule for information reporting
purposes, moreover, is likely to lead
courts to cease using it as an identifiable
event for purposes of determining when
an actual discharge occurs, thereby
eliminating the issue of the IRS being
precluded from assessing tax on
discharge of indebtedness before the
information return has been issued.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Effective Date
Sections 1.6050P–1(b)(2)(i)(H),
1.6050P–1(b)(2)(iv), and 1.6050P–
1(b)(2)(v) would be removed on the date
these regulations are published as final
regulations in the Federal Register.
Conforming amendments to § 1.6050P–
1(h)(1) necessary as a result of the
removal of the above-referenced
sections would be effective on the same
date.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this notice
of proposed rulemaking is not a
significant regulatory action as defined
in Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order
13563. Therefore, a regulatory
assessment is not required. It also has
been determined that section 553(b) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these
regulations. Because the regulations do
not impose a collection of information
on small entities, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Oct 14, 2014
Jkt 235001
not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of
the Code, this notice of proposed
rulemaking has been submitted to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration for comment
on its impact on small business.
Comments and Requests for a Public
Hearing
Before these proposed regulations are
adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any
comments that are submitted timely to
the IRS as prescribed in this preamble
under the ADDRESSES heading. The
Treasury Department and the IRS
request comments on all aspects of the
proposed rules. All comments will be
available at www.regulations.gov or
upon request.
A public hearing will be scheduled if
requested by any person who timely
submits comments. If a public hearing is
scheduled, notice of the date, time, and
place for the hearing will be published
in the Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these
proposed regulations is Hollie Marx of
the Office of Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration).
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.6050P–1 is amended
by:
■ a. Removing paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(H),
(b)(2)(iv), and (b)(2)(v).
■ b. Revising paragraph (h).
The revision reads as follows:
■
§ 1.6050P–1 Information reporting for
discharge of indebtedness by certain
entities.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Effective/applicability date. The
rules in this section apply to discharges
of indebtedness after December 21,
1996, except paragraphs (e)(1) and (3) of
this section, which apply to discharges
of indebtedness after December 31,
1994, and except paragraph (e)(5) of this
section, which applies to discharges of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
indebtedness occurring after December
31, 2004.
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014–24392 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0746; FRL–9917–79–
Region–9]
Approval, Disapproval, and Limited
Approval and Disapproval of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
California; Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District; Stationary
Source Permits
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing action on
seven permitting rules submitted as a
revision to the Monterey Bay Unified
Air Pollution Control District
(MBUAPCD or District) portion of the
applicable state implementation plan
(SIP) for the State of California. We are
proposing to disapprove one rule, we
are proposing a limited approval and
limited disapproval of one rule, we are
proposing to repeal one rule, and we are
proposing to approve the remaining four
permitting rules. The submitted
revisions include new and amended
rules governing the issuance of permits
for stationary sources, including review
and permitting of minor sources, and
major sources and major modifications
under part C of title I of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). The intended effect of these
proposed actions is to update the
applicable SIP with current MBUAPCD
permitting rules and to set the stage for
remedying certain deficiencies in these
rules. If finalized as proposed, the
limited disapproval actions would
trigger an obligation for EPA to
promulgate a Federal Implementation
Plan unless California submits and we
approve SIP revisions that correct the
deficiencies within two years of the
final action.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before November 14,
2014.
SUMMARY:
Submit comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R09–OAR–2014–0746, by one of the
following methods:
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
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.
Deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation.
Instructions: All comments 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.
www.regulations.gov 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: 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), 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Yannayon, by phone: (415) 972–
3534 or by email at yannayon.laura@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittals
A. Which rules did the State submit?
B. What are the existing MBUAPCD rules
governing stationary source permits in
the California SIP?
C. What is the purpose of this proposed
rule?
II. EPA’s Evaluation
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
1. Minor Source Permits
2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
3. Nonattainment New Source Review
4. Section 110(l) of the Act
61795
5. Conclusion
III. Public Comment and Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittals
A. Which rules did the State submit?
On December 13, 2000, March 21,
2001, October 16, 2002, and April 20,
2011, the MBUAPCD submitted
amended regulations to EPA for
approval as revisions to the MBUAPCD
portion of the California SIP under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
Collectively, the submitted regulations
comprise the District’s current program
for preconstruction review and
permitting of new or modified
stationary sources. These SIP revision
submittals, referred to herein as the ‘‘SIP
submittal’’ or ‘‘submitted rules,’’
represent a minor update to the
District’s preconstruction review and
permitting program and are intended to
satisfy the requirements under part C
(prevention of significant deterioration)
(PSD) of title I of the Act as well as the
general preconstruction review
requirements for minor sources under
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act (minor
NSR).
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by
this proposal with the dates that they
were adopted by the District and
submitted to EPA by the California Air
Resources Board, which is the
governor’s designee for California SIP
submittals.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED NSR RULES
Rule No.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
200
203
204
206
207
208
212
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Permits Required ...........................................................................................................................
Application ......................................................................................................................................
Cancellation of Applications ...........................................................................................................
Standards for Granting Applications ..............................................................................................
Review of New or Modified Sources .............................................................................................
Standards for Granting Permits to Operate (Request to Repeal) .................................................
Public Availability of Emission Data ...............................................................................................
Each of these submittals was deemed
by operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, six months after the date of
submittal. These criteria must be met
before formal EPA review. Each of these
submittals includes evidence of public
notice and adoption of the regulation.
While we can act only on the most
recently submitted version of each
regulation (which supersedes earlier
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Adopted or
amended
Rule title
16:48 Oct 14, 2014
Jkt 235001
submitted versions), we have reviewed
materials provided with previous
submittals. Our technical support
document (TSD) provides additional
background information on each of the
submitted rules.
B. What are the existing MBUAPCD
rules governing stationary source
permits in the California SIP?
Table 2 lists the rules that make up
the existing SIP-approved rules for new
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12/13/00
10/16/02
3/21/01
3/21/01
4/20/11
12/13/00
10/16/02
Submitted
5/8/01
12/12/02
5/31/01
5/31/01
5/12/11
5/8/01
12/12/02
or modified stationary sources in
MBUAPCD. All of these rules, except for
Rule 200, would be replaced or
otherwise deleted from the SIP by the
submitted set of rules listed in table 1
if EPA were to take final action as
proposed herein.
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
61796
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—EXISTING SIP RULES
Rule No.
200
204
206
207
208
212
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Permits Required ...........................................................................................................................
Cancellation of Applications ...........................................................................................................
Standards for Granting Applications ..............................................................................................
Review of New or Modified Sources .............................................................................................
Standards for Granting Permits to Operate (Request to Repeal) .................................................
Public Availability of Emission Data ...............................................................................................
C. What is the purpose of this proposed
rule?
The purpose of this proposed rule is
to present our evaluation under the
CAA and EPA’s regulations of the
submitted rules adopted by the District
as identified in table 1. We provide our
reasoning in general terms below but
provide more detailed analysis in our
TSD, which is available in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking.
II. EPA’s Evaluation
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
EPA has reviewed the rules submitted
by MBUAPCD governing PSD and minor
NSR for stationary sources for
compliance with the CAA’s general
requirements for SIPs in CAA section
110(a)(2), EPA’s regulations for
stationary source permitting programs
in 40 CFR part 51, sections 51.160
through 51.164 and 51.166, and the
CAA requirements for SIP revisions in
CAA section 110(l).1 As described
below, EPA is proposing a combination
of actions consisting of disapproval of
Rule 200 (Permits), limited approval
and limited disapproval of Rule 207
(Review of New or Modified Sources),
repeal of Rule 208 (Standards for
Granting Permits to Operate) and
approval of Rules 203, 204, 206 and 212.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
With respect to procedures, CAA
sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that
revisions to a SIP be adopted by the
State after reasonable notice and public
hearing. EPA has promulgated specific
procedural requirements for SIP
revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
These requirements include publication
of notices, by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area, of a
public hearing on the proposed
1 CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be
subject to reasonable notice and public hearing
prior to adoption and submittal by States to EPA
and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision
that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
SIP approval
date
Rule title
17:58 Oct 14, 2014
Jkt 235001
revisions, a public comment period of at
least 30 days, and an opportunity for a
public hearing.
Based on our review of the public
process documentation included in the
various submittals, we find that
MBUAPCD has provided sufficient
evidence of public notice and
opportunity for comment and public
hearings prior to adoption and submittal
of these rules to EPA.
With respect to substantive
requirements, we have evaluated each
submitted rule in accordance with the
CAA and regulatory requirements that
apply to: (1) General preconstruction
review programs for minor sources
under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act
and 40 CFR 51.160–164, and (2) PSD
permit programs under part C of title I
of the Act and 40 CFR 51.166. For the
most part, the submitted rules satisfy
the applicable requirements for these
permit programs and would strengthen
the applicable SIP by updating the
regulations and adding requirements to
address new or revised PSD permitting
requirements promulgated by EPA in
the last several years, but the submitted
rules also contain specific deficiencies
which prevent full approval. Below, we
discuss generally our evaluation of
MBUAPCD’s submitted rules and the
deficiencies that are the basis for our
proposed action on these rules. Our TSD
contains a more detailed evaluation and
recommendations for program
improvements.
1. Minor Source Permits
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act
requires that each SIP include a program
to provide for ‘‘regulation of the
modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas
covered by the plan as necessary to
assure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved, including a
permit program as required in parts C
and D’’ of title I of the Act. Thus, in
addition to the permit programs
required in parts C and D of title I of the
Act, which apply to new or modified
‘‘major’’ stationary sources of pollutants,
each SIP must include a program to
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7/1/99
7/1/99
7/13/87
2/4/00
7/13/87
7/13/87
FEDERAL
REGISTER
Citation
64 FR 35577
64 FR 35577
52 FR 26148
65 FR 5433
52 FR 26148
52 FR 26148
provide for the regulation of the
construction and modification of any
stationary source within the areas
covered by the plan as necessary to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved.
These general pre-construction
requirements are commonly referred to
as ‘‘minor NSR’’ and are subject to
EPA’s implementing regulations in 40
CFR 51.160–51.164.
Rules 200—Permits Required, 203—
Application, 204—Cancellation of
Applications, 206—Standards for
Granting Applications, 207—Review of
New or Modified Sources, and 212—
Public Availability of Emission Data,
contain the requirements for review and
permitting of individual minor
stationary sources in MBUAPCD. Except
for Rule 200, these regulations satisfy
the statutory and regulatory
requirements for minor NSR programs.
The changes the District made to the
rules listed above were largely
administrative in nature and provide
additional clarity to the rules. However,
language added to Rule 200 in Part 4
conflicts with the provisions of 40 CFR
52.23 which provides that all permit
conditions issued under an EPAapproved permit program which are
incorporated into the SIP, are federally
enforceable conditions subject to
enforcement under section 113 of the
CAA. Thus, the default enforcement
status of permit conditions issued as
part of a federally approved permit
program is that they are federally
enforceable, regardless of the origin of
the authority for the conditions. Because
the new language in Rule 200, Part 4,
explicitly contravenes the provisions
contained in 40 CFR 52.23, the revisions
to Rule 200 cannot be approved into the
SIP. Therefore EPA is proposing to
disapprove submitted Rule 200—
Permits Required. If we finalize our
action as proposed, the current SIP
approved version of Rule 200—Permits
Required will remain in effect. (64 FR
35577 July 1, 1999).
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration
Part C of title I of the Act contains the
provisions for the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) of air
quality in areas designated ‘‘attainment’’
or ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for the NAAQS,
including preconstruction permit
requirements for new major sources or
major modifications proposing to
construct in such areas. EPA’s
regulations for PSD permit programs are
found in 40 CFR 51.166. MBUAPCD is
currently designated as ‘‘attainment’’ or
‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for all
NAAQS pollutants.
Rule 207 contains the requirements
for review and permitting of minor and
PSD sources in MBUAPCD. This Rule
satisfies most of the statutory and
regulatory requirements for PSD permit
programs, but Rule 207 also contains
several deficiencies that form the basis
for our proposed limited disapproval, as
discussed below.
First, 40 CFR 51.161(a) requires the
District to provide an opportunity for
public comment on proposed permit
actions. In addition, 40 CFR 51.161(d)
specifies that a public notice must be
provided for all lead point sources, as
defined in 40 CFR 51.100(k). The
provisions of Sections 6.9 and 4.2
provide specific public notice emission
rate thresholds to determine when
public notice is required. The rule
provides thresholds for all NAAQS
pollutants except PM2.5 and lead. To
correct this deficiency, the District
should add public notice emission
thresholds for both pollutants.
Second, the definitions of ‘‘Major
Stationary Source’’ and ‘‘Major
Modification to an Existing Source’’ do
not include the specific applicability
thresholds provided in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(1) and (2), respectively, for
these terms. Instead both definitions
provide a general reference to the ‘‘. . .
threshold levels provided by the federal
Clean Air Act . . .’’ to be used to
determine the emission thresholds that
constitute a Major Stationary Source
and Major Modification to an Existing
Source. This general reference is not
sufficient to satisfy the requirement to
provide definitions for these terms
which are ‘‘more stringent, or at least as
stringent, in all respects as the
corresponding definitions. . . .’’ To
correct the deficiency, the District
should add the threshold levels
provided in the 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1) and
(2) to its definitions.
Third, the definition in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(2) provides that a
modification is ‘‘major’’ if it would
result in a ‘‘significant emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Oct 14, 2014
Jkt 235001
increase’’ and a ‘‘significant net
emissions increase’’ of a pollutant,
whereas the definition in Rule 207
provides that a modification is ‘‘major’’
if it may result in a ‘‘potential to emit’’
greater than the threshold levels
provided by the federal CAA for the area
designation and pollutant. This rule
language means that only increases
above the existing potential to emit
levels are considered emission increases
when determining if a project will result
in a major modification. This
calculation methodology is inconsistent
with federal requirements in 40 CFR
51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c) and (d), which
specify that emission increases from a
modification must be based on the
difference between post-project
projected actual or potential emissions
and pre-project actual emissions. Using
the Rule 207 definition, a project that
would be considered a major
modification under federal regulations,
may not be considered a major
modification at an existing source under
Rule 207. The District should correct
this deficiency by including an
applicability test equivalent to the test
provided in 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7) to its
rule.
Fourth, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23) for the
term ‘‘significant’’ contains three
separate paragraphs ((i), (ii) and (iii)).
While Rule 207 does not provide a
specific definition for this term, we have
determined that the emission thresholds
provided in Table 4.1.1 of the rule
provide an alternative definition that is
at least as stringent as the provisions in
paragraph (i). Paragraph (ii) specifies the
definition of significant for any
regulated NSR pollutant not listed in
paragraph (i). We could not find any
Rule 207 provisions that would satisfy
the paragraph (ii) definition of
significant. Paragraph (iii) defines ‘‘any
emissions rate or any net emissions
increase [NEI] associated with a major
stationary source or major modification,
which would construct within 10
kilometers [6 miles] of a Class I area,
and have an impact on such area equal
to or greater than 1 mg/m3 (24-hour
average)’’ as significant. While the
provisions of Section 4.5, Protection of
Class I Areas appear to satisfy the
requirements for this definition by
providing a range of 15 miles, impact
levels of 1 mg/m3 (24-hour average) or
less for various pollutants, and a net
emission increase threshold of zero, it
provides for the calculation of a ‘‘net
emission increase’’ in a manner entirely
inconsistent with the 40 CFR
51.166(b)(3) definition of this term.
EPA’s definition only allows
contemporaneous emission increases
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61797
and decreases (typically occurring
within the last 5 years) to be used in
determining the NEI from a project,
whereas the definition of NEI in Section
2.36 requires the use of all emission
increases and decreases since the
specified baseline date for each
pollutant. Except for PM2.5, these dates
are between 20 and 30 years old. The
District should correct this deficiency
by including all of the provisions found
in 40 CFR 51.166(23)(iii) in Rule 207.
Fifth, Rule 207 does not contain a
provision to satisfy the requirement of
40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iii) which requires
the District to provide the opportunity
for a public hearing to consider a
proposed permit action. The District
should correct this deficiency by
including the opportunity for a public
hearing for proposed permit actions in
Rule 207.
Finally, Rule 207 does not contain
any provisions to satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and
(2) which require permit programs to
include specific language providing that
(1) ‘‘. . . approval to construct shall not
relieve any owner or operator of the
responsibility to comply fully with
applicable provisions of the plan and
any other requirements under local,
State or Federal law’’ and (2) that if
‘‘. . . a particular source or
modification becomes a major stationary
source or major modification solely by
virtue of a relaxation in any enforceable
limitation which was established after
August 7, 1980, on the capacity of the
source or modification otherwise to emit
a pollutant, such as a restriction on
hours of operation, then the
requirements . . .’’ of the PSD program
shall apply to the source or modification
as though construction had not yet
commenced on the source or
modification. This deficiency should be
corrected by adding the language found
in 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2).
Compared to the existing SIP
approved PSD program in Rule 207
(approved February 4, 2000), however,
submitted Rule 207 represents an
overall strengthening of the District’s
PSD program, in large part because the
rule includes updated PSD provisions to
regulate new or modified major
stationary sources of PM2.5 emissions,
which is unregulated under the existing
SIP PSD program. Because submitted
Rule 207 strengthens the SIP, we are
proposing a limited approval and
limited disapproval based on the
deficiencies listed above.
3. Nonattainment New Source Review
The CAA defines ‘‘nonattainment
areas’’ as air quality planning areas that
exceed the primary or secondary
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
61798
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
NAAQS for the given criteria pollutant.
The MBUAPCD is not designated
nonattainment for any NAAQS,
although the District was classified as
nonattainment in the past. Because the
MBUAPCD is not currently classified
nonattainment for any NAAQS, we are
not evaluating the submitted rules for
approval under 40 CFR 51.165, which
contains the requirements for
nonattainment NSR programs. To the
extent some rules contain provisions
typically associated with nonattainment
NSR programs (e.g. offset provisions),
we are approving those provisions only
for purposes of the District’s minor NSR
program.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Section 110(l) of the Act
Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from
approving a revision of a plan if the
revision would ‘‘interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress . . . or any other applicable
requirement of [the Act].’’
MBUAPCD is currently designated
attainment or unclassifiable/attainment
for all NAAQS pollutants. We are
unaware of any reliance by the District
on the continuation of any aspect of the
permit-related rules in the MBUAPCD
portion of the California SIP for the
purpose of continued attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. Our
approval of the MBUAPCD SIP
submittal (and supersession of the
existing SIP rules) would strengthen the
applicable SIP in some specific respects
and would relax the SIP in other
specific respects. Taken in its entirety,
we find that the SIP revision represents
a strengthening of MBUAPCD’s minor
NSR and PSD programs compared to the
existing SIP rules that we approved in
1987, 1999 and 2000, and that our
approval of the SIP submittal would not
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or
any other applicable requirement of the
Act.
Given all these considerations and in
light of the air quality improvements in
MBUAPCD, we propose to conclude
that our approval of these updated NSR
regulations into the California SIP
would not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or
any other applicable requirement of the
Act.
5. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above and
explained further in our TSD, we find
that the submitted rules satisfy most of
the applicable CAA and regulatory
requirements for the District’s minor
NSR and PSD permit programs under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and part C of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Oct 14, 2014
Jkt 235001
title I of the Act. However, Rule 207
contains certain deficiencies that
prevent us from proposing a full
approval and we are proposing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of that
Rule. We do so based also on our
finding that, while Rule 207 does not
meet all of the applicable requirements,
the Rule represents an overall
strengthening of the SIP by clarifying
and enhancing the permitting
requirements for major and minor
stationary sources in MBUAPCD. We are
also proposing a full disapproval of Rule
200. We are proposing to approve the
District’s request to repeal Rule 208
from the SIP. Finally, we are proposing
a full approval of the remaining four
permitting rules.
III. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA
and for the reasons provided above, EPA
is proposing a limited approval and
limited disapproval of Rule 207, a full
disapproval of Rule 200 and approval of
the remaining revisions to the
MBUAPCD portion of the California SIP
that governs the issuance of permits for
stationary sources under the jurisdiction
of the MBUAPCD, including review and
permitting of major sources and major
modifications under part C of title I of
the CAA. Specifically, EPA is proposing
an action on MBUAPCD regulations
listed in table 1, above, as a revision to
the MBUAPCD portion of the California
SIP.
EPA is proposing this action because,
although we find that the new and
amended rules meet most of the
applicable requirements for such permit
programs and that the SIP revisions
improve the existing SIP, we have found
certain deficiencies that prevent full
approval of Rule 207, as explained
further in this preamble and in the TSD
for this rulemaking. The intended effect
of the proposed approval and limited
approval and limited disapproval
portions of this action is to update the
applicable SIP with current MBUAPCD
permitting regulations 2 and to set the
stage for remedying deficiencies in these
regulations.
If finalized as proposed, the limited
disapproval of Rule 207 would trigger
an obligation for EPA to promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan unless the
State of California corrects the
deficiencies, and EPA approves the
related plan revisions, within two years
of the final action.
2 Final approval of the rules in table 1, except
Rule 200, would supersede all of the rules in the
existing California SIP as listed in table 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposed action for 30
days following publication in the
Federal Register.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
This proposed action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the
EO.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed action under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of
itself create any new information
collection burdens but simply
disapproves certain State requirements
for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of
today’s proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not impose any
requirements or create impacts on small
entities. This proposed action under
section 110 and subchapter I, part C of
the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of
itself create any new requirements but
simply disapproves certain State
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules
requirements for inclusion into the SIP.
Accordingly, it affords no opportunity
for EPA to fashion for small entities less
burdensome compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables or
exemptions from all or part of the rule.
Therefore, this proposed action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of this proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector.’’ EPA
has determined that the proposed
disapproval and limited disapproval
portions of this action does not include
a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more
to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements
under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This proposed action does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it
merely disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP
and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Oct 14, 2014
Jkt 235001
Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this proposed action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed action does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP EPA
is proposing to disapprove would not
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.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This proposed action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory
action based on health or safety risks
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). These proposed
actions under section 110 and
subchapter I, part C of the Clean Air Act
will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion
into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61799
The EPA believes that this action is
not subject to requirements of Section
12(d) of NTTAA because application of
those requirements would be
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 30, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014–24506 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0178; FRL–9917–85–
Region–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
California; Sacramento Metro Area;
Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standard
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
California to provide for attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard (‘‘standard’’ or
NAAQS) in the Sacramento Metro
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61794-61799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24506]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0746; FRL-9917-79-Region-9]
Approval, Disapproval, and Limited Approval and Disapproval of
Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on seven permitting rules submitted as a revision to the Monterey Bay
Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD or District) portion of
the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of
California. We are proposing to disapprove one rule, we are proposing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of one rule, we are proposing
to repeal one rule, and we are proposing to approve the remaining four
permitting rules. The submitted revisions include new and amended rules
governing the issuance of permits for stationary sources, including
review and permitting of minor sources, and major sources and major
modifications under part C of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
intended effect of these proposed actions is to update the applicable
SIP with current MBUAPCD permitting rules and to set the stage for
remedying certain deficiencies in these rules. If finalized as
proposed, the limited disapproval actions would trigger an obligation
for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan unless California
submits and we approve SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies
within two years of the final action.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 14,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0746, by one of the following methods:
[[Page 61795]]
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. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation.
Instructions: All comments 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.
www.regulations.gov 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: 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), 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, by phone: (415) 972-
3534 or by email at yannayon.laura@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittals
A. Which rules did the State submit?
B. What are the existing MBUAPCD rules governing stationary
source permits in the California SIP?
C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
1. Minor Source Permits
2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
3. Nonattainment New Source Review
4. Section 110(l) of the Act
5. Conclusion
III. Public Comment and Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittals
A. Which rules did the State submit?
On December 13, 2000, March 21, 2001, October 16, 2002, and April
20, 2011, the MBUAPCD submitted amended regulations to EPA for approval
as revisions to the MBUAPCD portion of the California SIP under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Collectively, the submitted regulations
comprise the District's current program for preconstruction review and
permitting of new or modified stationary sources. These SIP revision
submittals, referred to herein as the ``SIP submittal'' or ``submitted
rules,'' represent a minor update to the District's preconstruction
review and permitting program and are intended to satisfy the
requirements under part C (prevention of significant deterioration)
(PSD) of title I of the Act as well as the general preconstruction
review requirements for minor sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the
Act (minor NSR).
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the District and submitted to EPA by the
California Air Resources Board, which is the governor's designee for
California SIP submittals.
Table 1--Submitted NSR Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted or
Rule No. Rule title amended Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
200................. Permits Required.. 12/13/00 5/8/01
203................. Application....... 10/16/02 12/12/02
204................. Cancellation of 3/21/01 5/31/01
Applications.
206................. Standards for 3/21/01 5/31/01
Granting
Applications.
207................. Review of New or 4/20/11 5/12/11
Modified Sources.
208................. Standards for 12/13/00 5/8/01
Granting Permits
to Operate
(Request to
Repeal).
212................. Public 10/16/02 12/12/02
Availability of
Emission Data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of these submittals was deemed by operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, six months after
the date of submittal. These criteria must be met before formal EPA
review. Each of these submittals includes evidence of public notice and
adoption of the regulation. While we can act only on the most recently
submitted version of each regulation (which supersedes earlier
submitted versions), we have reviewed materials provided with previous
submittals. Our technical support document (TSD) provides additional
background information on each of the submitted rules.
B. What are the existing MBUAPCD rules governing stationary source
permits in the California SIP?
Table 2 lists the rules that make up the existing SIP-approved
rules for new or modified stationary sources in MBUAPCD. All of these
rules, except for Rule 200, would be replaced or otherwise deleted from
the SIP by the submitted set of rules listed in table 1 if EPA were to
take final action as proposed herein.
[[Page 61796]]
Table 2--Existing SIP Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
Rule No. Rule title SIP approval Register
date Citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
200................. Permits Required.. 7/1/99 64 FR 35577
204................. Cancellation of 7/1/99 64 FR 35577
Applications.
206................. Standards for 7/13/87 52 FR 26148
Granting
Applications.
207................. Review of New or 2/4/00 65 FR 5433
Modified Sources.
208................. Standards for 7/13/87 52 FR 26148
Granting Permits
to Operate
(Request to
Repeal).
212................. Public 7/13/87 52 FR 26148
Availability of
Emission Data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
The purpose of this proposed rule is to present our evaluation
under the CAA and EPA's regulations of the submitted rules adopted by
the District as identified in table 1. We provide our reasoning in
general terms below but provide more detailed analysis in our TSD,
which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
II. EPA's Evaluation
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
EPA has reviewed the rules submitted by MBUAPCD governing PSD and
minor NSR for stationary sources for compliance with the CAA's general
requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA's regulations for
stationary source permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, sections
51.160 through 51.164 and 51.166, and the CAA requirements for SIP
revisions in CAA section 110(l).\1\ As described below, EPA is
proposing a combination of actions consisting of disapproval of Rule
200 (Permits), limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 207
(Review of New or Modified Sources), repeal of Rule 208 (Standards for
Granting Permits to Operate) and approval of Rules 203, 204, 206 and
212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal
by States to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision
that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require
that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice
and public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural
requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These
requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area, of a public hearing on the proposed
revisions, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an
opportunity for a public hearing.
Based on our review of the public process documentation included in
the various submittals, we find that MBUAPCD has provided sufficient
evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public
hearings prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to EPA.
With respect to substantive requirements, we have evaluated each
submitted rule in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements
that apply to: (1) General preconstruction review programs for minor
sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.160-164,
and (2) PSD permit programs under part C of title I of the Act and 40
CFR 51.166. For the most part, the submitted rules satisfy the
applicable requirements for these permit programs and would strengthen
the applicable SIP by updating the regulations and adding requirements
to address new or revised PSD permitting requirements promulgated by
EPA in the last several years, but the submitted rules also contain
specific deficiencies which prevent full approval. Below, we discuss
generally our evaluation of MBUAPCD's submitted rules and the
deficiencies that are the basis for our proposed action on these rules.
Our TSD contains a more detailed evaluation and recommendations for
program improvements.
1. Minor Source Permits
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires that each SIP include a
program to provide for ``regulation of the modification and
construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the
plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards
are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D''
of title I of the Act. Thus, in addition to the permit programs
required in parts C and D of title I of the Act, which apply to new or
modified ``major'' stationary sources of pollutants, each SIP must
include a program to provide for the regulation of the construction and
modification of any stationary source within the areas covered by the
plan as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. These general
pre-construction requirements are commonly referred to as ``minor NSR''
and are subject to EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.160-
51.164.
Rules 200--Permits Required, 203--Application, 204--Cancellation of
Applications, 206--Standards for Granting Applications, 207--Review of
New or Modified Sources, and 212--Public Availability of Emission Data,
contain the requirements for review and permitting of individual minor
stationary sources in MBUAPCD. Except for Rule 200, these regulations
satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for minor NSR
programs. The changes the District made to the rules listed above were
largely administrative in nature and provide additional clarity to the
rules. However, language added to Rule 200 in Part 4 conflicts with the
provisions of 40 CFR 52.23 which provides that all permit conditions
issued under an EPA-approved permit program which are incorporated into
the SIP, are federally enforceable conditions subject to enforcement
under section 113 of the CAA. Thus, the default enforcement status of
permit conditions issued as part of a federally approved permit program
is that they are federally enforceable, regardless of the origin of the
authority for the conditions. Because the new language in Rule 200,
Part 4, explicitly contravenes the provisions contained in 40 CFR
52.23, the revisions to Rule 200 cannot be approved into the SIP.
Therefore EPA is proposing to disapprove submitted Rule 200--Permits
Required. If we finalize our action as proposed, the current SIP
approved version of Rule 200--Permits Required will remain in effect.
(64 FR 35577 July 1, 1999).
[[Page 61797]]
2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Part C of title I of the Act contains the provisions for the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in areas
designated ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'' for the NAAQS,
including preconstruction permit requirements for new major sources or
major modifications proposing to construct in such areas. EPA's
regulations for PSD permit programs are found in 40 CFR 51.166. MBUAPCD
is currently designated as ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' for all NAAQS pollutants.
Rule 207 contains the requirements for review and permitting of
minor and PSD sources in MBUAPCD. This Rule satisfies most of the
statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs, but Rule
207 also contains several deficiencies that form the basis for our
proposed limited disapproval, as discussed below.
First, 40 CFR 51.161(a) requires the District to provide an
opportunity for public comment on proposed permit actions. In addition,
40 CFR 51.161(d) specifies that a public notice must be provided for
all lead point sources, as defined in 40 CFR 51.100(k). The provisions
of Sections 6.9 and 4.2 provide specific public notice emission rate
thresholds to determine when public notice is required. The rule
provides thresholds for all NAAQS pollutants except PM2.5
and lead. To correct this deficiency, the District should add public
notice emission thresholds for both pollutants.
Second, the definitions of ``Major Stationary Source'' and ``Major
Modification to an Existing Source'' do not include the specific
applicability thresholds provided in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1) and (2),
respectively, for these terms. Instead both definitions provide a
general reference to the ``. . . threshold levels provided by the
federal Clean Air Act . . .'' to be used to determine the emission
thresholds that constitute a Major Stationary Source and Major
Modification to an Existing Source. This general reference is not
sufficient to satisfy the requirement to provide definitions for these
terms which are ``more stringent, or at least as stringent, in all
respects as the corresponding definitions. . . .'' To correct the
deficiency, the District should add the threshold levels provided in
the 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1) and (2) to its definitions.
Third, the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2) provides that a
modification is ``major'' if it would result in a ``significant
emissions increase'' and a ``significant net emissions increase'' of a
pollutant, whereas the definition in Rule 207 provides that a
modification is ``major'' if it may result in a ``potential to emit''
greater than the threshold levels provided by the federal CAA for the
area designation and pollutant. This rule language means that only
increases above the existing potential to emit levels are considered
emission increases when determining if a project will result in a major
modification. This calculation methodology is inconsistent with federal
requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c) and (d), which specify that
emission increases from a modification must be based on the difference
between post-project projected actual or potential emissions and pre-
project actual emissions. Using the Rule 207 definition, a project that
would be considered a major modification under federal regulations, may
not be considered a major modification at an existing source under Rule
207. The District should correct this deficiency by including an
applicability test equivalent to the test provided in 40 CFR
51.166(a)(7) to its rule.
Fourth, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23) for the term ``significant'' contains
three separate paragraphs ((i), (ii) and (iii)). While Rule 207 does
not provide a specific definition for this term, we have determined
that the emission thresholds provided in Table 4.1.1 of the rule
provide an alternative definition that is at least as stringent as the
provisions in paragraph (i). Paragraph (ii) specifies the definition of
significant for any regulated NSR pollutant not listed in paragraph
(i). We could not find any Rule 207 provisions that would satisfy the
paragraph (ii) definition of significant. Paragraph (iii) defines ``any
emissions rate or any net emissions increase [NEI] associated with a
major stationary source or major modification, which would construct
within 10 kilometers [6 miles] of a Class I area, and have an impact on
such area equal to or greater than 1 [mu]g/m\3\ (24-hour average)'' as
significant. While the provisions of Section 4.5, Protection of Class I
Areas appear to satisfy the requirements for this definition by
providing a range of 15 miles, impact levels of 1 [mu]g/m\3\ (24-hour
average) or less for various pollutants, and a net emission increase
threshold of zero, it provides for the calculation of a ``net emission
increase'' in a manner entirely inconsistent with the 40 CFR
51.166(b)(3) definition of this term. EPA's definition only allows
contemporaneous emission increases and decreases (typically occurring
within the last 5 years) to be used in determining the NEI from a
project, whereas the definition of NEI in Section 2.36 requires the use
of all emission increases and decreases since the specified baseline
date for each pollutant. Except for PM2.5, these dates are
between 20 and 30 years old. The District should correct this
deficiency by including all of the provisions found in 40 CFR
51.166(23)(iii) in Rule 207.
Fifth, Rule 207 does not contain a provision to satisfy the
requirement of 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iii) which requires the District to
provide the opportunity for a public hearing to consider a proposed
permit action. The District should correct this deficiency by including
the opportunity for a public hearing for proposed permit actions in
Rule 207.
Finally, Rule 207 does not contain any provisions to satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2) which require permit
programs to include specific language providing that (1) ``. . .
approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the
responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan
and any other requirements under local, State or Federal law'' and (2)
that if ``. . . a particular source or modification becomes a major
stationary source or major modification solely by virtue of a
relaxation in any enforceable limitation which was established after
August 7, 1980, on the capacity of the source or modification otherwise
to emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on hours of operation, then
the requirements . . .'' of the PSD program shall apply to the source
or modification as though construction had not yet commenced on the
source or modification. This deficiency should be corrected by adding
the language found in 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2).
Compared to the existing SIP approved PSD program in Rule 207
(approved February 4, 2000), however, submitted Rule 207 represents an
overall strengthening of the District's PSD program, in large part
because the rule includes updated PSD provisions to regulate new or
modified major stationary sources of PM2.5 emissions, which
is unregulated under the existing SIP PSD program. Because submitted
Rule 207 strengthens the SIP, we are proposing a limited approval and
limited disapproval based on the deficiencies listed above.
3. Nonattainment New Source Review
The CAA defines ``nonattainment areas'' as air quality planning
areas that exceed the primary or secondary
[[Page 61798]]
NAAQS for the given criteria pollutant. The MBUAPCD is not designated
nonattainment for any NAAQS, although the District was classified as
nonattainment in the past. Because the MBUAPCD is not currently
classified nonattainment for any NAAQS, we are not evaluating the
submitted rules for approval under 40 CFR 51.165, which contains the
requirements for nonattainment NSR programs. To the extent some rules
contain provisions typically associated with nonattainment NSR programs
(e.g. offset provisions), we are approving those provisions only for
purposes of the District's minor NSR program.
4. Section 110(l) of the Act
Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a revision of a plan if
the revision would ``interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any
other applicable requirement of [the Act].''
MBUAPCD is currently designated attainment or unclassifiable/
attainment for all NAAQS pollutants. We are unaware of any reliance by
the District on the continuation of any aspect of the permit-related
rules in the MBUAPCD portion of the California SIP for the purpose of
continued attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Our approval of the
MBUAPCD SIP submittal (and supersession of the existing SIP rules)
would strengthen the applicable SIP in some specific respects and would
relax the SIP in other specific respects. Taken in its entirety, we
find that the SIP revision represents a strengthening of MBUAPCD's
minor NSR and PSD programs compared to the existing SIP rules that we
approved in 1987, 1999 and 2000, and that our approval of the SIP
submittal would not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
Given all these considerations and in light of the air quality
improvements in MBUAPCD, we propose to conclude that our approval of
these updated NSR regulations into the California SIP would not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any
other applicable requirement of the Act.
5. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above and explained further in our TSD, we
find that the submitted rules satisfy most of the applicable CAA and
regulatory requirements for the District's minor NSR and PSD permit
programs under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and part C of title I of the
Act. However, Rule 207 contains certain deficiencies that prevent us
from proposing a full approval and we are proposing a limited approval
and limited disapproval of that Rule. We do so based also on our
finding that, while Rule 207 does not meet all of the applicable
requirements, the Rule represents an overall strengthening of the SIP
by clarifying and enhancing the permitting requirements for major and
minor stationary sources in MBUAPCD. We are also proposing a full
disapproval of Rule 200. We are proposing to approve the District's
request to repeal Rule 208 from the SIP. Finally, we are proposing a
full approval of the remaining four permitting rules.
III. Public Comment and Proposed Action
Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA and for the reasons provided
above, EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
Rule 207, a full disapproval of Rule 200 and approval of the remaining
revisions to the MBUAPCD portion of the California SIP that governs the
issuance of permits for stationary sources under the jurisdiction of
the MBUAPCD, including review and permitting of major sources and major
modifications under part C of title I of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is
proposing an action on MBUAPCD regulations listed in table 1, above, as
a revision to the MBUAPCD portion of the California SIP.
EPA is proposing this action because, although we find that the new
and amended rules meet most of the applicable requirements for such
permit programs and that the SIP revisions improve the existing SIP, we
have found certain deficiencies that prevent full approval of Rule 207,
as explained further in this preamble and in the TSD for this
rulemaking. The intended effect of the proposed approval and limited
approval and limited disapproval portions of this action is to update
the applicable SIP with current MBUAPCD permitting regulations \2\ and
to set the stage for remedying deficiencies in these regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Final approval of the rules in table 1, except Rule 200,
would supersede all of the rules in the existing California SIP as
listed in table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If finalized as proposed, the limited disapproval of Rule 207 would
trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation
Plan unless the State of California corrects the deficiencies, and EPA
approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the final
action.
We will accept comments from the public on this proposed action for
30 days following publication in the Federal Register.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., because this proposed action under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's
proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed action under section 110 and subchapter I, part C of the Clean
Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply disapproves certain State
[[Page 61799]]
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no
opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from
all or part of the rule. Therefore, this proposed action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval and limited
disapproval portions of this action does not include a Federal mandate
that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector. This action proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements
under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly,
no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP EPA is proposing to disapprove would not 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed
action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). These proposed actions under
section 110 and subchapter I, part C of the Clean Air Act will not in-
and-of itself create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain
State requirements for inclusion into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 30, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-24506 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
