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 If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.