Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Sources Permits, 41895-41899 [2017-18623]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have
determined that it is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. This rule
involves a safety zone that lasts for less
than a month in duration and has
designated times where the channel will
be open for vessel traffic and traffic will
be able to transit. It is categorically
excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the
Commandant Instruction. A Record of
Environmental Consideration (REC)
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T05–0843 to read as
follows:
■
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
§ 165.T05–0843 Safety Zone, Dredging;
Shark River, NJ.
(a) Definitions. As used in this
section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard petty officer,
warrant or commissioned officer on
board a Coast Guard vessel and or on
board another Federal, State, or local
law enforcement vessel assisting the
Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay with
enforcement of the safety zone.
(b) Location. The following areas are
safety zone: All waters from latitude
40°10′54.20″ N., longitude 74°1′51.05″
W., bounded by the eastern side of the
channel and the western side of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
channel, north, to latitude 40°11′6.87″
N., longitude 74°1′53.54″ W., in the
Shark River, in Neptune City, NJ. These
coordinates are based on the World
Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)
horizontal datum reference.
(c) Regulations. The general safety
zone regulations found in § 165.23
apply to the safety zone created by this
temporary section.
(1) All vessels and persons are
prohibited from entering into or moving
within the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section while it is
subject to enforcement, unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Delaware Bay, or by his designated
representative.
(2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter
or pass through the safety zone must
contact the Captain of the Port,
Delaware Bay, or his designated
representative to seek permission to
transit the area. The Captain of the Port,
Delaware Bay can be contacted at
telephone number 215–271–4807 or on
Marine Band Radio VHF Channel 16
(156.8 MHz).
(3) Vessels may transit this portion of
the Shark River from September 5, 2017,
through September 23, 2017, weekly,
from 9 p.m. on Thursdays through 9
a.m. on Mondays. During the periods
when the channel is open mariners are
urged to transit at their slowest safe
speed, with no wake, no meeting or
passing of other vessels, and proceed
with caution after passing arrangements
have been made. Mariners must
communicate clearly, and in advance,
with the dredge via VHF 6 or 13.
(4) This section applies to all vessels
except those engaged in the following
operations: Enforcing laws, servicing
aids to navigation and emergency
response vessels.
(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast
Guard may be assisted by Federal, State
and local agencies in the patrol and
enforcement of the zone.
(e) Enforcement periods. This section
will be enforced weekly, from 9 a.m. on
Mondays through 9 p.m. on Thursdays,
from September 5, 2017, through
September 23, 2017, unless cancelled
earlier by the Captain of the Port.
Dated: August 30, 2017.
Scott E. Anderson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2017–18732 Filed 9–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41895
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0621; FRL–9965–89–
Region 9]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan; Imperial County
Air Pollution Control District;
Stationary Sources Permits
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing action on a
revision to the Imperial County Air
Pollution Control District (ICAPCD or
District) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). We are
finalizing a conditional approval of one
rule. This rule updates and revises the
District’s New Source Review (NSR)
permitting program for new and
modified sources of air pollution.
DATES: This rule is effective on October
5, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket No.
EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0621. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although it may be listed in the
index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thien Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947–4120, nguyen.thien@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
Definitions
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
(i) The word or initials CAA mean or
refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
41896
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
the agency with jurisdiction over
stationary sources within Imperial
County.
(vii) The initials NSR mean or refer to
New Source Review.
(viii) The initials SIP mean or refer to
State Implementation Plan.
(ix) The initials TSD mean or refer to
Technical Support Document.
(ii) The initials CARB mean or refer to
the California Air Resources Board.
(iii) The initials CFR mean or refer to
Code of Federal Regulations.
(iv) The initials or words EPA, we, us
or our mean or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(v) The initials FIP mean or refer to
Federal Implementation Plan.
(vi) The word or initials ICAPCD or
District mean or refer to the Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District,
I. Proposed Action
On June 12, 2017, the EPA proposed
a conditional approval of Rule 207 (New
and Modified Stationary Source Review;
as noted in Table 1) submitted by CARB
for incorporation into the ICAPCD
portion of the California SIP. 82 FR
26883.1 Table 1 also lists the dates the
rule was adopted by ICAPCD and
submitted by CARB, which is the
governor’s designee for California SIP
submittals.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED NSR RULE
Rule No.
Rule title
Adopted/revised
Submitted
207 ..........................
New and Modified Stationary Source Review ................
10/22/13
1/21/14
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 30-day public comment period. During
this period we received two comments,
one posted anonymously and one from
the Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD). Copies of each comment letter
have been added to the docket for this
action and are accessible at
www.regulations.gov. We have
summarized the comments received and
provided a response to the comments
below.
Comment 1: ‘‘keep standards in place.
we all want clean air to breathe.’’
Response 1: The EPA did not propose
to remove any standards. Instead, as
explained in our proposed rulemaking,
our action concerns ICAPCD Rule 207.
Rule 207 implements a federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
Conditional Approval.
preconstruction permit program for new
and modified minor sources of regulated
NSR pollutants, and new and modified
major sources of regulated NSR
pollutants for which the area is
designated nonattainment. This action
will not remove or alter the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, which
are the federal standards promulgated
by the EPA to protect air quality. As
explained in our technical support
document (TSD), dated November 28,
2016, in the rulemaking docket,2 this
action will update ICAPCD’s SIPapproved preconstruction permitting
program, including lower emission
thresholds at which projects will trigger
requirements for Lowest Achievable
Emission Reductions and offsets. TSD at
20. These updates to ICAPCD’s
preconstruction permitting program will
promote air quality protection,
consistent with current federal
requirements.
Comment 2: CBD stated that, ‘‘the
EPA’s conditional approval of the
proposed Rule 207 is not valid because
the commitment letter submitted by the
District does not provide for specific
enforceable measures to regulate
ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor as
required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13).’’ CBD
stated that the District’s commitment
letter is neither specific nor enforceable
but merely commits to revise the
definitions of the terms ‘‘precursor’’ and
‘‘significant.’’ CBD stated that the
District’s commitment lacks information
on what the revision will entail, how
the revision will satisfy the mandatory
requirement to include ammonia as a
PM2.5 precursor, how the revision will
create enforceable mechanisms to
control ammonia, and how the revision
will meet CAA section 110(l)
requirements to not interfere with
attainment and reasonable further
progress of the NAAQS. CBD proposed
certain specific measures and controls
technologies, and stated that because
the District’s commitment letter did not
include these measures or any other
measures, the commitment measures
cannot be properly enforced. CBD stated
that the unspecified commitment puts
the public at risk because the public
cannot fully inform themselves as to
whether the District is meeting its legal
duties to protect public health. CBD
stated that because the EPA must deny
the District’s Rule 207 proposal, the
EPA is obligated to implement a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) that will
mandate ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor
and cure the Rule 207 deficiency within
two years.
Response 2: The EPA disagrees with
the comment. As explained further
below, the EPA believes the record
supports conditional approval of Rule
207 because the State has committed to
correct the deficiency in Rule 207
identified by EPA in the November 2016
TSD within one year of this final action.
As explained in our proposed action,
Rule 207 implements a federal
preconstruction permit program for new
and modified minor sources of regulated
NSR pollutants, and new and modified
major sources of regulated NSR
pollutants for which the area is
designated nonattainment. Rule 207
authorizes ICAPCD to issue permits that
will contain emission limits, and
associated monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements, consistent
with the EPA’s requirements for such
programs as set forth in CAA sections
110(a)(2), 172 and 173, and applicable
2 We included the November 28, 2016 TSD in the
rulemaking docket in connection with our previous
Rule 207 satisfies the statutory and
regulatory requirements for a general
NSR permit program as set forth in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(c) and 40 CFR
51.160—51.164, and the statutory and
regulatory requirements for a
nonattainment NSR permit program for
moderate ozone and serious PM10,
nonattainment areas as set forth in the
applicable provisions of part D of title
I of the Act (sections 172 and 173), in
40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307. For
a moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area,
Rule 207 mostly satisfies these
requirements; however, we have
determined that it does not satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13),
which requires ammonia to be regulated
as a PM2.5 precursor. The state
committed to revise the rule to correct
this deficiency in Rule 207, and, based
on those assertions, EPA proposed
conditional approval of the rule.
1 Previously, the EPA proposed a limited
approval and limited disapproval of Rule 207. 81
FR 91895. (December 19, 2016)
Proposed action
proposed limited approval and limited disapproval
of Rule 207. See 81 FR 91895 (December 19, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
regulatory provisions such as 40 CFR
51.160–51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307.
The EPA’s proposed conditional
approval of Rule 207 explained our
determination that Rule 207 largely
satisfies the statutory and regulatory
requirements for an NSR permit
program. We noted, however, one area
in which Rule 207 was deficient.
Specifically, our proposed action noted
that Rule 207 does not adequately
regulate ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor
as required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13).3
Our proposed action explained that
additional information on this issue
could be found in our TSD.4
Our TSD explains that Rule 207,
section B, contains various definitions
necessary to implement the
preconstruction permitting program set
forth in the rule. TSD at 4. The TSD
states that Rule 207’s definition of the
term ‘‘precursor’’ explicitly applies to
two of four PM2.5 precursors, NOX and
SOx, and indirectly applies to a third
PM2.5 precursor, VOCs. Id. at 10. With
respect to the fourth PM2.5 precursor,
ammonia, the TSD states that the Rule
207 definition of ‘‘precursor’’ does not
satisfy regulatory requirements. Id. at
10–11. The TSD notes that ICAPCD
adopted Rule 207 in October 2013, prior
to EPA’s revisions to our PM2.5
regulations, including revisions relevant
to the regulation of PM2.5 precursors.5 In
particular, the TSD notes that Rule 207
requires regulation of ammonia as a
PM2.5 precursor ‘‘if ammonia is
determined to be a necessary part of the
PM2.5 control strategy in the attainment
demonstration approved by USEPA in
the SIP.’’ Id. In other words, Rule 207
in its current form does not regulate
ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor absent a
finding by EPA that regulation of
ammonia is a necessary component of
ICAPCD’s strategy to attain the PM2.5
NAAQS. This presumption against
regulating ammonia as a precursor
absent a determination that regulation is
3 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13) provides: ‘‘The plan shall
require that the control requirements of this section
applicable to major stationary sources and major
modifications of PM2.5 shall also apply to major
stationary sources and major modifications of PM2.5
precursors in a PM2.5 nonattainment area, except
that a reviewing authority may exempt new major
stationary sources and major modifications of a
particular precursor from the requirements of this
section for PM2.5 if the NNSR precursor
demonstration submitted to and approved by the
Administrator shows that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the standard in the area. Any demonstration
submitted for the Administrator’s review must meet
the conditions for a NNSR precursor demonstration
as set forth in § 51.1006(a)(3).’’
4 See also, 82 FR 91897.
5 See FN 3; see also, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standard: State
Implementation Plan Requirements.’’ 81 FR 58010,
58151 (August 24, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
necessary for attainment was rejected by
the Court of Appeals for District of
Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 706
F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Following the
NRDC decision, EPA revised its
regulatory requirements, (specifically,
by promulgating 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13)),
to require regulation of ammonia as a
PM2.5 precursor unless EPA determines
that such regulation is not necessary.6
As explained above, our proposed
conditional approval of Rule 207
applies the correct standard pertaining
to ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor and
appropriately identifies Rule 207’s
definition of precursor as deficient on
the basis that it does not meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13).
As stated in our TSD, the remedy for
Rule 207’s deficient definition of
‘‘precursor’’ is either a revision to the
definition of ‘‘precursor’’ or a
demonstration that regulation of
ammonia is not necessary to attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS, consistent with the
EPA’s requirements for such
demonstrations at 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(3).
TSD at 10–11. Similarly, our proposed
conditional approval of Rule 207
identified our authority under CAA
section 110(k)(4) to conditionally
approve a plan revision based on a
commitment by the State to adopt
specific enforceable measures by a date
certain but no later than one year after
the effective date of final action. We also
explained that the enforceable measures
that the State must submit are revisions
that regulate ammonia as a PM2.5
precursor and that the District had in
fact submitted such a letter.7
As noted by the commenter,
ICAPCD’s letter commits to submit a
revised Rule 207 that will revise the
definitions of the terms ‘‘precursor’’ and
‘‘significant’’.8 The record for this action
6 Id.
7 The rulemaking docket for our proposed action
includes the following documents relevant to the
State’s commitment pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(4): (1) a letter dated May 17, 2017 from
Karen Magliano, Chief of the Air Quality Planning
and Science Division, California Air Resources
Board (CARB) to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9; (2) a letter dated May
16, 2017 from Matt Dessert, Air Pollution Control
Officer (APCO), ICAPCD to Carol Sutkus, Manager,
CARB; and (3) a letter dated May 16, 2017 from
Matt Dessert APCO ICAPCD to Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
CARB is the state agency responsible for adopting
and revising the California SIP and for submitting
SIP revisions to the EPA. We are clarifying that the
State’s commitment ‘‘to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain’’ pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(4) is comprised of all three
documents.
8 The District also indicated its intent to revise
Rule 207’s definition of the term ‘‘significant.’’ Rule
207’s definition of ‘‘significant’’ also fails to include
ammonia, and therefore requires revision for
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41897
demonstrates that EPA identified a
deficiency in Rule 207 based on the
definition of ‘‘precursor’’ not properly
regulating ammonia as far back as
December 19, 2016, when EPA proposed
a limited approval/limited disapproval
of Rule 207 and included the TSD in the
publicly available rulemaking docket.9
As explained above and in our TSD, the
only reason that Rule 207 is deficient
with respect to federal requirements for
NSR permit programs (specifically, 40
CFR 51.165(a)(13)) is that certain
definitions in Rule 207 mean that the
rule does not properly regulate
ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor.
Therefore, the most logical approach to
remedy the identified deficiency is to
revise the definitions for these terms as
the TSD advises. The State and the
District committed to implement the
changes necessary to correct the
deficiency.
We do not agree with the commenter
that ICAPCD’s commitment to remedy
the deficiencies in Rule 207’s
definitions of ‘‘precursor’’ or
‘‘significant’’ are insufficiently specific
or are unenforceable. The EPA’s TSD
explains that Rule 207’s definition of
‘‘precursor’’ fails to include ammonia;
therefore, the State and the District
reasonably committed to address the
deficiency by revising certain
definitions.10 In addition, the District
must solicit input from the public
regarding the revisions to the
definitions, and, as part of the public
participation process for the revisions to
Rule 207, interested members of the
public will have the opportunity to
provide input regarding the District’s
revised definitions and whether they
meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.165(a)(13). In addition, the public
will be able to provide input as to
whether the revisions provide an
enforceable mechanism for regulating
ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor.11
EPA also disagrees with the
commenter that the District’s
reasons similar to those necessitating a revision to
the definition of ‘‘precursor.’’
9 By the time CARB and the District submitted
their commitment letters to the EPA, in mid-May
2017, the EPA’s TSD for Rule 207, which explained
Rule 207’s deficiency as linked to the rule’s
definitions, was in the rulemaking docket for
several months (since December 2016). See FN 2.
10 We also note that ICAPCD’s letter states that
EPA had ‘‘informed’’ it that Rule 207 ‘‘contains a
deficiency regarding the treatment of ammonia as
a PM2.5 precursor’’ and that it was committing to
submit a revised rule with revised definitions of
these terms ‘‘to address this deficiency.’’
11 We also note that if the District does not fulfill
its commitment, the conditional approval will
convert to a disapproval and start an 18-month
clock for sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2).
Such a failure would also trigger a two-year clock
for a federal implementation plan (FIP) under CAA
section 110(c)(1).
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
41898
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
commitment lacks specificity because it
does not explain how the revisions to
Rule 207 will comply with CAA section
110(l). Once the EPA receives ICAPCD’s
revisions to Rule 207, the EPA will
review the revised rule pursuant to CAA
section 110(l) to ensure that the
revisions do not interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable
requirements of the Act, and will take
public comment on our determination
regarding CAA section 110(l) along with
other aspects of our action. It is
therefore unnecessary for the District to
provide this analysis in its commitment
letter to EPA.
CBD also provided several suggestions
for measures to control and monitor
ammonia emissions and concluded that
the failure to commit to implement such
measures in the area puts the public at
risk and deprives the public of its ability
to assess compliance with the statute.
The EPA disagrees that the State and the
District are required to commit to
implement specific control measures in
order to obtain this conditional approval
or that the public will be deprived of the
right to review the state revisions to
Rule 207 or any permits issued
thereunder. When the District proposes
revisions to Rule 207 or is actively
issuing permits pursuant to that rule,
CBD and other parties may comment as
part of the public participation
processes for those future actions. Thus,
the comments are not within the scope
of our current action, and the comments
do not demonstrate a flaw in the EPA’s
identification of the Rule 207 deficiency
and revisions necessary to address it.
Finally, because the EPA believes that
the commitment of the State and the
District to remedy the deficiencies
identified in Rule 207 to regulate
ammonia as a precursor to PM2.5 is
sufficient, we disagree that EPA is
obligated to implement a FIP. Our
proposed action to conditionally
approve Rule 207 is based on a
commitment from the State and the
District to submit specific, enforceable
measures in the form of revised
definitions for the terms ‘‘precursor’’
and ‘‘significant’’ within twelve months
from the effective date of our final
action. Because the State and the
District provided the necessary
commitments, EPA reasonably proposed
to conditionally approve Rule 207
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4).12
12 See NRDC v. EPA, 22 F3d 1125, 1134–1135
(D.C. Cir. 1994) (concluding that the conditional
approval mechanism under CAA section 110(k)(4)
‘‘is intended to provide EPA with an alternative to
disapproving substantive, but not entirely
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Sep 01, 2017
Jkt 241001
III. EPA Action
As authorized by CAA section
110(k)(4), EPA is finalizing conditional
approval of Rule 207—New and
Modified Stationary Source Review into
the ICAPCD portion of the California
SIP.
Section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA
to conditionally approve a plan revision
based on a commitment by the State to
adopt specific enforceable measures by
a date certain, but not later than one
year after the effective date of the plan
approval. In this instance, the
enforceable measures that the State
must submit are revisions to regulate
ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor. On May
17, 2017, CARB submitted a letter dated
May 16, 2017 from the District
committing to submit a SIP revision that
regulates ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor
no later than one year from the effective
date of this final action. Under a
conditional approval, the state must
adopt and submit the specific revisions
it has committed to within one year. If
the State does not comply with this
commitment, the EPA’s conditional
approval will convert to a disapproval
and start an 18-month clock for
sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2)
and a two-year clock for a federal
implementation plan (FIP) under CAA
section 110(c)(1).
In today’s action we are also making
a technical correction to our previous
action approving Rule 206 into the
ICAPCD portion of the California SIP.13
In that action, we provided incorrect
regulatory text to effect that change.
This final action includes the corrected
regulatory text to approve the revised
Rule 206 in the California SIP. We did
not seek public comment on this
technical correction because public
participation requirements were
satisfied as part of our action approving
Rule 206 into the SIP.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of the
ICAPCD rules listed in Table 1 of this
notice. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these rules generally
available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX (Air -3), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA,
94105–3901.
satisfactory, SIPs submitted by the statutory
deadlines.’’)
13 82 FR 27125 (June 14, 2017).
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA because this action does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities beyond those imposed by state
law.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, will result from this
action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that this
action is not subject to the requirements
of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by November 6,
2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
Jkt 241001
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
§ 52.232
[Amended]
3. Section 52.232 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1).
■
§ 52.233
[Amended]
4. Section 52.233 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1).
■
[FR Doc. 2017–18623 Filed 9–1–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
Dated: July 31, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[Docket No. 161020985–7181–02]
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of
Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(56)(i)(B),
(c)(442)(i)(A)(5), and (c)(490) to read as
follows:
■
Identification of plan—in part.
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(56) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Previously approved on November
10, 1980 in paragraph (c)(56)(i)(A) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in paragraph
(c)(490)(i)(A)(1) of this section: Rule 207
and Rule 209.
*
*
*
*
*
(442) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(5) Rule 206, ‘‘Processing of
Applications,’’ revised on October 22,
2013.
*
*
*
*
*
(490) An amended regulation was
submitted on January 21, 2014 by the
Governor’s designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Imperial County Air Pollution
Control District.
(1) Rule 207, ‘‘Federal New Source
Review,’’ revised on October 22, 2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
RIN 0648–XF654
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation.
AGENCY:
■
*
The EPA lacks the discretionary
authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
16:52 Sep 01, 2017
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
§ 52.220
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
VerDate Sep<11>2014
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
41899
NMFS is reallocating the
projected unused amount of Pacific cod
from vessels using jig gear and catcher
vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet
(18.3 meters) length overall (LOA) using
hook-and-line gear to catcher vessels
less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA
using hook-and-line or pot gear in the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area. This action is
necessary to allow the 2017 total
allowable catch of Pacific cod to be
harvested.
SUMMARY:
Effective August 30, 2017,
through 2400 hours, Alaska local time
(A.l.t.), December 31, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Obren Davis, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the groundfish fishery in the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI)
according to the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Management Area
(FMP) prepared by the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council under
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. Regulations governing fishing by
U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP
appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600
and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 Pacific cod total allowable
catch (TAC) specified for vessels using
jig gear in the BSAI is 1,293 metric tons
(mt) as established by the final 2017 and
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41895-41899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18623]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0621; FRL-9965-89-Region 9]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Sources Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing action
on a revision to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
(ICAPCD or District) portion of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). We are finalizing a conditional approval of one rule. This
rule updates and revises the District's New Source Review (NSR)
permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 5, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0621. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although it may be
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thien Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4120, nguyen.thien@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Definitions
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The word or initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
[[Page 41896]]
(ii) The initials CARB mean or refer to the California Air
Resources Board.
(iii) The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal
Regulations.
(iv) The initials or words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(v) The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.
(vi) The word or initials ICAPCD or District mean or refer to the
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, the agency with
jurisdiction over stationary sources within Imperial County.
(vii) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.
(viii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(ix) The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support Document.
I. Proposed Action
On June 12, 2017, the EPA proposed a conditional approval of Rule
207 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review; as noted in Table 1)
submitted by CARB for incorporation into the ICAPCD portion of the
California SIP. 82 FR 26883.\1\ Table 1 also lists the dates the rule
was adopted by ICAPCD and submitted by CARB, which is the governor's
designee for California SIP submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Previously, the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval of Rule 207. 81 FR 91895. (December 19, 2016)
Table 1--Submitted NSR Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Rule title Adopted/revised Submitted Proposed action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
207...................... New and Modified 10/22/13 1/21/14 Conditional Approval.
Stationary
Source Review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 207 satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements for a
general NSR permit program as set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2)(c) and
40 CFR 51.160--51.164, and the statutory and regulatory requirements
for a nonattainment NSR permit program for moderate ozone and serious
PM10, nonattainment areas as set forth in the applicable
provisions of part D of title I of the Act (sections 172 and 173), in
40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307. For a moderate PM2.5
nonattainment area, Rule 207 mostly satisfies these requirements;
however, we have determined that it does not satisfy the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13), which requires ammonia to be regulated as a
PM2.5 precursor. The state committed to revise the rule to
correct this deficiency in Rule 207, and, based on those assertions,
EPA proposed conditional approval of the rule.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period we received two comments, one posted anonymously and
one from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Copies of each
comment letter have been added to the docket for this action and are
accessible at www.regulations.gov. We have summarized the comments
received and provided a response to the comments below.
Comment 1: ``keep standards in place. we all want clean air to
breathe.''
Response 1: The EPA did not propose to remove any standards.
Instead, as explained in our proposed rulemaking, our action concerns
ICAPCD Rule 207. Rule 207 implements a federal preconstruction permit
program for new and modified minor sources of regulated NSR pollutants,
and new and modified major sources of regulated NSR pollutants for
which the area is designated nonattainment. This action will not remove
or alter the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are the
federal standards promulgated by the EPA to protect air quality. As
explained in our technical support document (TSD), dated November 28,
2016, in the rulemaking docket,\2\ this action will update ICAPCD's
SIP-approved preconstruction permitting program, including lower
emission thresholds at which projects will trigger requirements for
Lowest Achievable Emission Reductions and offsets. TSD at 20. These
updates to ICAPCD's preconstruction permitting program will promote air
quality protection, consistent with current federal requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We included the November 28, 2016 TSD in the rulemaking
docket in connection with our previous proposed limited approval and
limited disapproval of Rule 207. See 81 FR 91895 (December 19,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: CBD stated that, ``the EPA's conditional approval of the
proposed Rule 207 is not valid because the commitment letter submitted
by the District does not provide for specific enforceable measures to
regulate ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor as required by 40 CFR
51.165(a)(13).'' CBD stated that the District's commitment letter is
neither specific nor enforceable but merely commits to revise the
definitions of the terms ``precursor'' and ``significant.'' CBD stated
that the District's commitment lacks information on what the revision
will entail, how the revision will satisfy the mandatory requirement to
include ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor, how the revision will
create enforceable mechanisms to control ammonia, and how the revision
will meet CAA section 110(l) requirements to not interfere with
attainment and reasonable further progress of the NAAQS. CBD proposed
certain specific measures and controls technologies, and stated that
because the District's commitment letter did not include these measures
or any other measures, the commitment measures cannot be properly
enforced. CBD stated that the unspecified commitment puts the public at
risk because the public cannot fully inform themselves as to whether
the District is meeting its legal duties to protect public health. CBD
stated that because the EPA must deny the District's Rule 207 proposal,
the EPA is obligated to implement a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
that will mandate ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor and cure the
Rule 207 deficiency within two years.
Response 2: The EPA disagrees with the comment. As explained
further below, the EPA believes the record supports conditional
approval of Rule 207 because the State has committed to correct the
deficiency in Rule 207 identified by EPA in the November 2016 TSD
within one year of this final action.
As explained in our proposed action, Rule 207 implements a federal
preconstruction permit program for new and modified minor sources of
regulated NSR pollutants, and new and modified major sources of
regulated NSR pollutants for which the area is designated
nonattainment. Rule 207 authorizes ICAPCD to issue permits that will
contain emission limits, and associated monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements, consistent with the EPA's requirements for
such programs as set forth in CAA sections 110(a)(2), 172 and 173, and
applicable
[[Page 41897]]
regulatory provisions such as 40 CFR 51.160-51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307.
The EPA's proposed conditional approval of Rule 207 explained our
determination that Rule 207 largely satisfies the statutory and
regulatory requirements for an NSR permit program. We noted, however,
one area in which Rule 207 was deficient. Specifically, our proposed
action noted that Rule 207 does not adequately regulate ammonia as a
PM2.5 precursor as required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13).\3\ Our
proposed action explained that additional information on this issue
could be found in our TSD.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13) provides: ``The plan shall require that
the control requirements of this section applicable to major
stationary sources and major modifications of PM2.5 shall
also apply to major stationary sources and major modifications of
PM2.5 precursors in a PM2.5 nonattainment
area, except that a reviewing authority may exempt new major
stationary sources and major modifications of a particular precursor
from the requirements of this section for PM2.5 if the
NNSR precursor demonstration submitted to and approved by the
Administrator shows that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in
the area. Any demonstration submitted for the Administrator's review
must meet the conditions for a NNSR precursor demonstration as set
forth in Sec. 51.1006(a)(3).''
\4\ See also, 82 FR 91897.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our TSD explains that Rule 207, section B, contains various
definitions necessary to implement the preconstruction permitting
program set forth in the rule. TSD at 4. The TSD states that Rule 207's
definition of the term ``precursor'' explicitly applies to two of four
PM2.5 precursors, NOX and SOx, and
indirectly applies to a third PM2.5 precursor, VOCs. Id. at
10. With respect to the fourth PM2.5 precursor, ammonia, the
TSD states that the Rule 207 definition of ``precursor'' does not
satisfy regulatory requirements. Id. at 10-11. The TSD notes that
ICAPCD adopted Rule 207 in October 2013, prior to EPA's revisions to
our PM2.5 regulations, including revisions relevant to the
regulation of PM2.5 precursors.\5\ In particular, the TSD
notes that Rule 207 requires regulation of ammonia as a
PM2.5 precursor ``if ammonia is determined to be a necessary
part of the PM2.5 control strategy in the attainment
demonstration approved by USEPA in the SIP.'' Id. In other words, Rule
207 in its current form does not regulate ammonia as a PM2.5
precursor absent a finding by EPA that regulation of ammonia is a
necessary component of ICAPCD's strategy to attain the PM2.5
NAAQS. This presumption against regulating ammonia as a precursor
absent a determination that regulation is necessary for attainment was
rejected by the Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit in
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). Following the NRDC decision, EPA revised its regulatory
requirements, (specifically, by promulgating 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13)), to
require regulation of ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor unless
EPA determines that such regulation is not necessary.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See FN 3; see also, ``Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standard: State Implementation Plan
Requirements.'' 81 FR 58010, 58151 (August 24, 2016).
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, our proposed conditional approval of Rule 207
applies the correct standard pertaining to ammonia as a
PM2.5 precursor and appropriately identifies Rule 207's
definition of precursor as deficient on the basis that it does not meet
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13). As stated in our TSD, the
remedy for Rule 207's deficient definition of ``precursor'' is either a
revision to the definition of ``precursor'' or a demonstration that
regulation of ammonia is not necessary to attain the PM2.5
NAAQS, consistent with the EPA's requirements for such demonstrations
at 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(3). TSD at 10-11. Similarly, our proposed
conditional approval of Rule 207 identified our authority under CAA
section 110(k)(4) to conditionally approve a plan revision based on a
commitment by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a
date certain but no later than one year after the effective date of
final action. We also explained that the enforceable measures that the
State must submit are revisions that regulate ammonia as a
PM2.5 precursor and that the District had in fact submitted
such a letter.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The rulemaking docket for our proposed action includes the
following documents relevant to the State's commitment pursuant to
CAA section 110(k)(4): (1) a letter dated May 17, 2017 from Karen
Magliano, Chief of the Air Quality Planning and Science Division,
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to Alexis Strauss, Acting
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9; (2) a letter dated May 16,
2017 from Matt Dessert, Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO), ICAPCD
to Carol Sutkus, Manager, CARB; and (3) a letter dated May 16, 2017
from Matt Dessert APCO ICAPCD to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9. CARB is the state agency responsible
for adopting and revising the California SIP and for submitting SIP
revisions to the EPA. We are clarifying that the State's commitment
``to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain''
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4) is comprised of all three
documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted by the commenter, ICAPCD's letter commits to submit a
revised Rule 207 that will revise the definitions of the terms
``precursor'' and ``significant''.\8\ The record for this action
demonstrates that EPA identified a deficiency in Rule 207 based on the
definition of ``precursor'' not properly regulating ammonia as far back
as December 19, 2016, when EPA proposed a limited approval/limited
disapproval of Rule 207 and included the TSD in the publicly available
rulemaking docket.\9\ As explained above and in our TSD, the only
reason that Rule 207 is deficient with respect to federal requirements
for NSR permit programs (specifically, 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13)) is that
certain definitions in Rule 207 mean that the rule does not properly
regulate ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor. Therefore, the most
logical approach to remedy the identified deficiency is to revise the
definitions for these terms as the TSD advises. The State and the
District committed to implement the changes necessary to correct the
deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The District also indicated its intent to revise Rule 207's
definition of the term ``significant.'' Rule 207's definition of
``significant'' also fails to include ammonia, and therefore
requires revision for reasons similar to those necessitating a
revision to the definition of ``precursor.''
\9\ By the time CARB and the District submitted their commitment
letters to the EPA, in mid-May 2017, the EPA's TSD for Rule 207,
which explained Rule 207's deficiency as linked to the rule's
definitions, was in the rulemaking docket for several months (since
December 2016). See FN 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not agree with the commenter that ICAPCD's commitment to
remedy the deficiencies in Rule 207's definitions of ``precursor'' or
``significant'' are insufficiently specific or are unenforceable. The
EPA's TSD explains that Rule 207's definition of ``precursor'' fails to
include ammonia; therefore, the State and the District reasonably
committed to address the deficiency by revising certain
definitions.\10\ In addition, the District must solicit input from the
public regarding the revisions to the definitions, and, as part of the
public participation process for the revisions to Rule 207, interested
members of the public will have the opportunity to provide input
regarding the District's revised definitions and whether they meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13). In addition, the public will be
able to provide input as to whether the revisions provide an
enforceable mechanism for regulating ammonia as a PM2.5
precursor.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ We also note that ICAPCD's letter states that EPA had
``informed'' it that Rule 207 ``contains a deficiency regarding the
treatment of ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor'' and that it
was committing to submit a revised rule with revised definitions of
these terms ``to address this deficiency.''
\11\ We also note that if the District does not fulfill its
commitment, the conditional approval will convert to a disapproval
and start an 18-month clock for sanctions under CAA section
179(a)(2). Such a failure would also trigger a two-year clock for a
federal implementation plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also disagrees with the commenter that the District's
[[Page 41898]]
commitment lacks specificity because it does not explain how the
revisions to Rule 207 will comply with CAA section 110(l). Once the EPA
receives ICAPCD's revisions to Rule 207, the EPA will review the
revised rule pursuant to CAA section 110(l) to ensure that the
revisions do not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirements of the Act, and will take public comment on our
determination regarding CAA section 110(l) along with other aspects of
our action. It is therefore unnecessary for the District to provide
this analysis in its commitment letter to EPA.
CBD also provided several suggestions for measures to control and
monitor ammonia emissions and concluded that the failure to commit to
implement such measures in the area puts the public at risk and
deprives the public of its ability to assess compliance with the
statute. The EPA disagrees that the State and the District are required
to commit to implement specific control measures in order to obtain
this conditional approval or that the public will be deprived of the
right to review the state revisions to Rule 207 or any permits issued
thereunder. When the District proposes revisions to Rule 207 or is
actively issuing permits pursuant to that rule, CBD and other parties
may comment as part of the public participation processes for those
future actions. Thus, the comments are not within the scope of our
current action, and the comments do not demonstrate a flaw in the EPA's
identification of the Rule 207 deficiency and revisions necessary to
address it.
Finally, because the EPA believes that the commitment of the State
and the District to remedy the deficiencies identified in Rule 207 to
regulate ammonia as a precursor to PM2.5 is sufficient, we
disagree that EPA is obligated to implement a FIP. Our proposed action
to conditionally approve Rule 207 is based on a commitment from the
State and the District to submit specific, enforceable measures in the
form of revised definitions for the terms ``precursor'' and
``significant'' within twelve months from the effective date of our
final action. Because the State and the District provided the necessary
commitments, EPA reasonably proposed to conditionally approve Rule 207
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See NRDC v. EPA, 22 F3d 1125, 1134-1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
(concluding that the conditional approval mechanism under CAA
section 110(k)(4) ``is intended to provide EPA with an alternative
to disapproving substantive, but not entirely satisfactory, SIPs
submitted by the statutory deadlines.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA Action
As authorized by CAA section 110(k)(4), EPA is finalizing
conditional approval of Rule 207--New and Modified Stationary Source
Review into the ICAPCD portion of the California SIP.
Section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to conditionally approve a
plan revision based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year
after the effective date of the plan approval. In this instance, the
enforceable measures that the State must submit are revisions to
regulate ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor. On May 17, 2017, CARB
submitted a letter dated May 16, 2017 from the District committing to
submit a SIP revision that regulates ammonia as a PM2.5
precursor no later than one year from the effective date of this final
action. Under a conditional approval, the state must adopt and submit
the specific revisions it has committed to within one year. If the
State does not comply with this commitment, the EPA's conditional
approval will convert to a disapproval and start an 18-month clock for
sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) and a two-year clock for a
federal implementation plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c)(1).
In today's action we are also making a technical correction to our
previous action approving Rule 206 into the ICAPCD portion of the
California SIP.\13\ In that action, we provided incorrect regulatory
text to effect that change. This final action includes the corrected
regulatory text to approve the revised Rule 206 in the California SIP.
We did not seek public comment on this technical correction because
public participation requirements were satisfied as part of our action
approving Rule 206 into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 82 FR 27125 (June 14, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
ICAPCD rules listed in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these rules generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX (Air -3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA, 94105-3901.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
[[Page 41899]]
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 6, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
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, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 31, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(56)(i)(B),
(c)(442)(i)(A)(5), and (c)(490) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(56) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Previously approved on November 10, 1980 in paragraph
(c)(56)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(490)(i)(A)(1) of this section: Rule 207 and Rule 209.
* * * * *
(442) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(5) Rule 206, ``Processing of Applications,'' revised on October
22, 2013.
* * * * *
(490) An amended regulation was submitted on January 21, 2014 by
the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 207, ``Federal New Source Review,'' revised on October 22,
2013.
Sec. 52.232 [Amended]
0
3. Section 52.232 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(1).
Sec. 52.233 [Amended]
0
4. Section 52.233 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(1).
[FR Doc. 2017-18623 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P