Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 20295-20296 [2017-08666]
Download as PDF
20295
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Branch (Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109–3912;
(617) 918–1046; mcconnell.robert@
epa.gov.
In the
Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this action rule,
no further activity is contemplated. If
EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the
Rules Section of this Federal Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: December 27, 2016.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New
England.
[FR Doc. 2017–08644 Filed 4–28–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0096; FRL–9961–55–
Region 9]
Approval of California Air Plan
Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution
Control District and Imperial County
Air Pollution Control District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the Eastern Kern Air
Pollution Control District (EKAPCD)
and Imperial County Air Pollution
Control District (ICAPCD) portions of
the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions were
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) in response to
EPA’s May 22, 2015 finding of
substantial inadequacy and SIP call for
certain provisions in the SIP related to
affirmative defenses applicable to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is
proposing approval of the SIP revisions
because the Agency has determined that
they are in accordance with the
requirements for SIP provisions under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
May 31, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2017–0096 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office
Chief at Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be removed or edited
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
SUMMARY:
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947–4125, vineyard.christine@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing today?
II. What is the background for the EPA’s
proposed action?
III. Why is the EPA proposing this action?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing
today?
The EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the California SIP. The
revisions will remove from the EKAPCD
and ICAPCD portions of the California
SIP provisions related to affirmative
defenses that sources could assert in the
event of enforcement actions for
violations of SIP requirements during
SSM events. Removal of the affirmative
defense provisions from the SIP will
make the EKAPCD and ICAPCD
portions of the SIP consistent with CAA
requirements with respect to this issue.
EKAPCD and ICAPCD are retaining the
affirmative defenses solely for state law
purposes, outside of the EPA approved
SIP. Removal of the affirmative defenses
from the SIP is also consistent with the
EPA policy for exclusion of ‘‘state law
only’’ provisions from SIPs, and will
serve to minimize any potential
confusion about the inapplicability of
the affirmative defense provisions in
federal court enforcement actions. Table
1 lists the rules addressed by this
proposal with the dates on which each
rule was rescinded by the EKAPCD or
ICAPCD and submitted by CARB in
response to EPA’s final action entitled
‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response
to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement
and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy
Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls
To Amend Provisions Applying to
Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,’’
80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015), hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘SSM SIP Action.’’
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule #
EKAPCD .................................
ICAPCD ..................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Apr 28, 2017
Rule title
111
111
Jkt 241001
Rescinded
Equipment Breakdown ...........................................................
Equipment Breakdown ...........................................................
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM
01MYP1
11/10/16
09/22/15
Submitted
12/06/16
03/28/16
20296
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
On January 12, 2017, the EPA
determined that the submittal for
EKAPCD Rule 111 met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
and on September 28, 2016, the
submittal for ICAPCD Rule 111 was
deemed complete by operation of law
under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The
completeness criteria must be met
before formal EPA review of the
submittals for approvability in
accordance with applicable CAA
requirements.
II. What is the background for the
EPA’s proposed action?
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(5), the EPA published the
final SSM SIP Action finding that
certain SIP provisions in 36 states were
substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements and called on those states
to submit SIP revisions to address those
inadequacies. 80 FR 33839. As required
by the CAA, the EPA established a
reasonable deadline (not to exceed 18
months) by which the affected states
must submit such SIP revisions. In
accordance with the SSM SIP Action,
states were required to submit corrective
revisions to their SIPs by November 22,
2016. The EPA’s reasoning, legal
authority, and responsibility under the
CAA for issuing the SIP call to
California can be found in the SSM SIP
Action.
In the SSM SIP Action, the EPA
determined that EKAPCD Rule 111 and
ICAPCD Rule 111 include elements of
an affirmative defense for excess
emissions during malfunctions.
Specifically, EKAPCD Rule 111 and
ICAPCD Rule 111 contain affirmative
defense provisions that preclude
enforcement for excess emissions that
would otherwise constitute a violation
of the applicable SIP emission
limitations. The EPA concluded that
EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule
111 operate to alter or affect the
jurisdiction of federal courts in the
event of an enforcement action, contrary
to the enforcement structure of the CAA
in section 113 and section 304. See 80
FR 33972 (June 12, 2015).
On March 28, 2016 and December 6,
2016, ICAPCD and EKAPCD,
respectively, made submittals in
response to the SSM SIP Action. As
noted above, the EPA found these
submittals complete on September 28,
2016 and January 12, 2017, respectively.
In the submittals, EKAPCD and ICAPCD
requested that EPA revise the California
SIP by removing EKAPCD Rule 111 and
ICAPCD Rule 111 in their entirety from
the California SIP. This approach is
consistent with the EPA’s interpretation
of CAA requirements for SIP provisions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Apr 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
III. Why is the EPA proposing this
action?
In the SSM SIP Action, the EPA made
a finding of substantial inadequacy and
issued a SIP call with respect to
EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule
111 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).
In response, CARB submitted SIP
revisions requesting the EPA to remove
EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule
111 from the California SIP in their
entirety. Affirmative defense provisions
like these are inconsistent with CAA
requirements and removal of these
provisions would strengthen the SIP.
This action, if finalized, would remove
the affirmative defense provisions from
the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of
the EPA-approved SIP for California.
The EPA is proposing to find that these
revisions are consistent with CAA
requirements and that they adequately
address the specific SIP deficiencies
that the EPA identified in the SSM SIP
Action with respect to the EKAPCD and
ICAPCD portions of the California SIP.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
California SIP revisions removing
EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule
111 from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD
portions of the California SIP. The EPA
is proposing approval of the SIP
revisions because the Agency has
determined that they are in accordance
with the requirements for SIP provisions
under the CAA. The EPA is not
reopening the SSM SIP Action in this
action and is taking comment only on
whether this SIP revision is consistent
with CAA requirements and whether it
addresses the ‘‘substantial inadequacy’’
of the specific California SIP provisions
identified in the SSM SIP Action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve
SIP submissions that comply 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, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve state
requests as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
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 the 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, the SIP is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 29, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017–08666 Filed 4–28–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM
01MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20295-20296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08666]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0096; FRL-9961-55-Region 9]
Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air
Pollution Control District and Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District
(EKAPCD) and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD)
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
in response to EPA's May 22, 2015 finding of substantial inadequacy and
SIP call for certain provisions in the SIP related to affirmative
defenses applicable to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is proposing approval of the SIP
revisions because the Agency has determined that they are in accordance
with the requirements for SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act).
DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 31, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0096 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew
Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or
edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4125, vineyard.christine@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing today?
II. What is the background for the EPA's proposed action?
III. Why is the EPA proposing this action?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing today?
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California SIP.
The revisions will remove from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the
California SIP provisions related to affirmative defenses that sources
could assert in the event of enforcement actions for violations of SIP
requirements during SSM events. Removal of the affirmative defense
provisions from the SIP will make the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the
SIP consistent with CAA requirements with respect to this issue. EKAPCD
and ICAPCD are retaining the affirmative defenses solely for state law
purposes, outside of the EPA approved SIP. Removal of the affirmative
defenses from the SIP is also consistent with the EPA policy for
exclusion of ``state law only'' provisions from SIPs, and will serve to
minimize any potential confusion about the inapplicability of the
affirmative defense provisions in federal court enforcement actions.
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates on
which each rule was rescinded by the EKAPCD or ICAPCD and submitted by
CARB in response to EPA's final action entitled ``State Implementation
Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of
EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess
Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR
33839 (June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as the ``SSM SIP Action.''
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule # Rule title Rescinded Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EKAPCD............................. 111 Equipment Breakdown........ 11/10/16 12/06/16
ICAPCD............................. 111 Equipment Breakdown........ 09/22/15 03/28/16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20296]]
On January 12, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for
EKAPCD Rule 111 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, and on September 28, 2016, the submittal for ICAPCD Rule
111 was deemed complete by operation of law under 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V. The completeness criteria must be met before formal EPA
review of the submittals for approvability in accordance with
applicable CAA requirements.
II. What is the background for the EPA's proposed action?
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA
published the final SSM SIP Action finding that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and
called on those states to submit SIP revisions to address those
inadequacies. 80 FR 33839. As required by the CAA, the EPA established
a reasonable deadline (not to exceed 18 months) by which the affected
states must submit such SIP revisions. In accordance with the SSM SIP
Action, states were required to submit corrective revisions to their
SIPs by November 22, 2016. The EPA's reasoning, legal authority, and
responsibility under the CAA for issuing the SIP call to California can
be found in the SSM SIP Action.
In the SSM SIP Action, the EPA determined that EKAPCD Rule 111 and
ICAPCD Rule 111 include elements of an affirmative defense for excess
emissions during malfunctions. Specifically, EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD
Rule 111 contain affirmative defense provisions that preclude
enforcement for excess emissions that would otherwise constitute a
violation of the applicable SIP emission limitations. The EPA concluded
that EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 operate to alter or affect the
jurisdiction of federal courts in the event of an enforcement action,
contrary to the enforcement structure of the CAA in section 113 and
section 304. See 80 FR 33972 (June 12, 2015).
On March 28, 2016 and December 6, 2016, ICAPCD and EKAPCD,
respectively, made submittals in response to the SSM SIP Action. As
noted above, the EPA found these submittals complete on September 28,
2016 and January 12, 2017, respectively. In the submittals, EKAPCD and
ICAPCD requested that EPA revise the California SIP by removing EKAPCD
Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 in their entirety from the California SIP.
This approach is consistent with the EPA's interpretation of CAA
requirements for SIP provisions.
III. Why is the EPA proposing this action?
In the SSM SIP Action, the EPA made a finding of substantial
inadequacy and issued a SIP call with respect to EKAPCD Rule 111 and
ICAPCD Rule 111 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). In response, CARB
submitted SIP revisions requesting the EPA to remove EKAPCD Rule 111
and ICAPCD Rule 111 from the California SIP in their entirety.
Affirmative defense provisions like these are inconsistent with CAA
requirements and removal of these provisions would strengthen the SIP.
This action, if finalized, would remove the affirmative defense
provisions from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the EPA-approved SIP
for California. The EPA is proposing to find that these revisions are
consistent with CAA requirements and that they adequately address the
specific SIP deficiencies that the EPA identified in the SSM SIP Action
with respect to the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the California SIP.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the California SIP revisions
removing EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD
portions of the California SIP. The EPA is proposing approval of the
SIP revisions because the Agency has determined that they are in
accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the CAA. The
EPA is not reopening the SSM SIP Action in this action and is taking
comment only on whether this SIP revision is consistent with CAA
requirements and whether it addresses the ``substantial inadequacy'' of
the specific California SIP provisions identified in the SSM SIP
Action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve
SIP submissions that comply 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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state
requests as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed 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 the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 29, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-08666 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P