Approval of California Plan Revisions, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits, 14389-14391 [2018-06878]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules
legislation also provides, subject to
certain conditions, for a penalty waiver
for violations of environmental laws
when a regulated entity discovers such
violations pursuant to a voluntary
compliance evaluation and voluntarily
discloses such violations to the
Commonwealth and takes prompt and
appropriate measures to remedy the
violations. Virginia’s Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Privilege
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides
a privilege that protects from disclosure
documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the
product of a voluntary environmental
assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information
that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a
voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the
assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger
to the public health or environment; or
(4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the
Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal
opinion that states that the Privilege
law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes
granting a privilege to documents and
information ‘‘required by law,’’
including documents and information
‘‘required by federal law to maintain
program delegation, authorization or
approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce
federally authorized environmental
programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their federal
counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion
concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198,
therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal
enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged
because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing
enforcement in a manner required by
federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval.’’
Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code
Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the
extent consistent with requirements
imposed by federal law,’’ any person
making a voluntary disclosure of
information to a state agency regarding
a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative
order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The
Attorney General’s January 12, 1998
opinion states that the quoted language
renders this statute inapplicable to
enforcement of any federally authorized
programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be
afforded from administrative, civil, or
criminal penalties because granting
such immunity would not be consistent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:08 Apr 03, 2018
Jkt 244001
with federal law, which is one of the
criteria for immunity.’’
Therefore, EPA has determined that
Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the
Commonwealth from enforcing its NSR
program consistent with the federal
requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state
audit privilege and immunity law can
affect only state enforcement and cannot
have any impact on federal enforcement
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
its authority under the CAA, including,
for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211
or 213, to enforce the requirements or
prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement
effort. In addition, citizen enforcement
under section 304 of the CAA is
likewise unaffected by this, or any, state
audit privilege or immunity law.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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 (Public Law 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14389
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 CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The proposed rule approving
Virginia’s 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
Certification SIP revision for NNSR is
not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C.
1151 or in any other area where 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, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 27, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018–06880 Filed 4–3–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0171; FRL–9976–43–
Region 9]
Approval of California Plan Revisions,
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control District; Stationary Source
Permits
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the Northern Sonoma
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
14390
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules
County Air Pollution Control District
(NSCAPCD or District) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This revision concerns the
District’s prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permitting program
for new and modified sources of air
pollution. We are proposing action on
these local rules under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
May 4, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2018–0171 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to T.
Khoi Nguyen, at nguyen.thien@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://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.
Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4120, nguyen.thien@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rules?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by
this action with the dates that they were
adopted by the NSCAPCD and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), the governor’s
designee for California SIP submittals.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule #
NSCAPCD ..............................
NSCAPCD ..............................
NSCAPCD ..............................
Rule title
130
220
230
On December 12, 2017, the submittal
for the NSCAPCD was deemed by
operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V that must be met before
formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of these
rules?
On October 6, 2016, the EPA finalized
approval of Rule 230 and limited
approval and limited disapproval of
Rules 130 and 220. 81 FR 69390.
Though Rule 230 was inadvertently
fully approved with a deficiency, the
revised Rule 230 in this SIP submittal
addresses the deficiency. Our proposed
approval of the rules in this action
would update the SIP to be consistent
with the local rules.
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rules?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit regulations that include
a pre-construction permit program for
certain new or modified stationary
sources of pollutants, including a permit
program as required by Part C of Title
I of the CAA.
On October 6, 2016, the EPA listed
four items that need addressing for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:08 Apr 03, 2018
Jkt 244001
Amended
Definitions ...............................................................................
New Source Review ...............................................................
Action on Applications ............................................................
three rules with limited approval to
become fully approved—listing lead as
a pollutant and indicating a significant
emission rate, requiring provisions for
air quality modeling based on
applicable models, databases, and other
requirements as specified in Part 51
Appendix W, correcting a typographic
error, and including specific language
regarding source obligations. The
revisions to the three submitted rules
address these four deficiencies.
Rules 130, 220, and 230 contain the
requirements for review and permitting
of individual stationary sources in
NSCAPCD. These rules satisfy the
statutory and regulatory requirements
for the New Source Review (NSR)
program, including the PSD program.
The changes the District made to the
rules listed above as they pertain to the
PSD program were largely
administrative in nature and provide
additional clarity to the rules. We
present our evaluation under the CAA
and the EPA’s regulations of the revised
NSR rules submitted by CARB, as
identified in Table 1, and provide our
reasoning in general terms below and a
more detailed analysis in our TSD,
which is available in the docket for the
proposed rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5/3/2017
5/3/2017
5/3/2017
Submitted
6/12/17
6/12/17
6/12/17
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
The EPA has reviewed the rules
submitted by the NSCAPCD governing
PSD for stationary sources for
compliance with the CAA’s general
requirements for SIPs in CAA section
110(a)(2), the EPA’s regulations for
stationary source permitting programs
in 40 CFR part 51, sections 51.160
through 51.164 and 51.166, and the
CAA requirements for SIP revisions in
CAA section 110(l). The EPA is
proposing full approval of Rules 130
(Definitions), 220 (New Source Review)
and 230 (Action on Applications).
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
The EPA has reviewed the submitted
rules in accordance with the rule
evaluation criteria described above.
With respect to procedures, based on
our review of the public process
documentation included in the June 12,
2017 submittal, we are proposing to
approve the submitted rules in part
because we have determined that the
NSCAPCD has provided sufficient
evidence of public notice and
opportunity for comment and public
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules
hearings prior to adoption and submittal
of this rule, in accordance with the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)
and 110(l).
We are also approving Rules 130, 220,
and 230 because we have determined
these rules satisfy all of the statutory
and regulatory requirements for an NSR
permit program (including the PSD
program) as set forth in the applicable
provisions of part C of title I of the Act
and in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR
51.307. The revisions to these rules also
resolve the limited disapproval issues
from the October 2016 action.
Our TSD, which can be found in the
docket for this rule, contains a more
detailed discussion of the approval
criteria.
C. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
approve the submitted rules because
they fulfill all relevant requirements.
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until May 4,
2018. If we take final action to approve
the submitted rules, our final action will
incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the NSCAPCD rules described in Table
1 of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these
materials available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:08 Apr 03, 2018
Jkt 244001
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable 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 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14391
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 June 4, 2018.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
New Source Review, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 26, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018–06878 Filed 4–3–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
42 CFR Part 100
RIN 0906–AB14
National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program: Adding the Category of
Vaccines Recommended for Pregnant
Women to the Vaccine Injury Table
Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA), HHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
As required by a recent
amendment to the VICP’s authorizing
statute, the Secretary of the Department
of Health and Human Services
(Secretary) proposes to amend the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (VICP) Vaccine Injury Table
(Table) to include vaccines
recommended by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) for
routine administration in pregnant
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM
04APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14389-14391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06878]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0171; FRL-9976-43-Region 9]
Approval of California Plan Revisions, Northern Sonoma County Air
Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Northern Sonoma
[[Page 14390]]
County Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD or District) portion of
the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
the District's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting
program for new and modified sources of air pollution. We are proposing
action on these local rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
(CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 4, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0171 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to T. Khoi
Nguyen, at [email protected]. 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T. Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates
that they were adopted by the NSCAPCD and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB), the governor's designee for California SIP
submittals.
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule # Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSCAPCD............................... 130 Definitions............. 5/3/2017 6/12/17
NSCAPCD............................... 220 New Source Review....... 5/3/2017 6/12/17
NSCAPCD............................... 230 Action on Applications.. 5/3/2017 6/12/17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 12, 2017, the submittal for the NSCAPCD was deemed by
operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V that must be met before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
On October 6, 2016, the EPA finalized approval of Rule 230 and
limited approval and limited disapproval of Rules 130 and 220. 81 FR
69390. Though Rule 230 was inadvertently fully approved with a
deficiency, the revised Rule 230 in this SIP submittal addresses the
deficiency. Our proposed approval of the rules in this action would
update the SIP to be consistent with the local rules.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that include a pre-construction permit program for certain new or
modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program
as required by Part C of Title I of the CAA.
On October 6, 2016, the EPA listed four items that need addressing
for the three rules with limited approval to become fully approved--
listing lead as a pollutant and indicating a significant emission rate,
requiring provisions for air quality modeling based on applicable
models, databases, and other requirements as specified in Part 51
Appendix W, correcting a typographic error, and including specific
language regarding source obligations. The revisions to the three
submitted rules address these four deficiencies.
Rules 130, 220, and 230 contain the requirements for review and
permitting of individual stationary sources in NSCAPCD. These rules
satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for the New Source
Review (NSR) program, including the PSD program. The changes the
District made to the rules listed above as they pertain to the PSD
program were largely administrative in nature and provide additional
clarity to the rules. We present our evaluation under the CAA and the
EPA's regulations of the revised NSR rules submitted by CARB, as
identified in Table 1, and provide our reasoning in general terms below
and a more detailed analysis in our TSD, which is available in the
docket for the proposed rulemaking.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
The EPA has reviewed the rules submitted by the NSCAPCD governing
PSD for stationary sources for compliance with the CAA's general
requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), the EPA's regulations
for stationary source permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, sections
51.160 through 51.164 and 51.166, and the CAA requirements for SIP
revisions in CAA section 110(l). The EPA is proposing full approval of
Rules 130 (Definitions), 220 (New Source Review) and 230 (Action on
Applications).
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
The EPA has reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the
rule evaluation criteria described above. With respect to procedures,
based on our review of the public process documentation included in the
June 12, 2017 submittal, we are proposing to approve the submitted
rules in part because we have determined that the NSCAPCD has provided
sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and
public
[[Page 14391]]
hearings prior to adoption and submittal of this rule, in accordance
with the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l).
We are also approving Rules 130, 220, and 230 because we have
determined these rules satisfy all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements for an NSR permit program (including the PSD program) as
set forth in the applicable provisions of part C of title I of the Act
and in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307. The revisions to these rules
also resolve the limited disapproval issues from the October 2016
action.
Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a
more detailed discussion of the approval criteria.
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until May 4, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted
rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the NSCAPCD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable 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 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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 June 4, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, New Source Review, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 26, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-06878 Filed 4-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
