Air Plan Revisions; California; Technical Amendments, 22384-22392 [2020-07531]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22384
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a
state submission that otherwise satisfies
the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(February 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
action. In reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove
state choices, based on the criteria of the
CAA. Accordingly, this action merely
disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section
110 of the CAA and will not in-and-of
itself create any new requirements.
Accordingly, it 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: April 13, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020–08240 Filed 4–21–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Apr 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0088; FRL–10007–
55–Region 9]
Air Plan Revisions; California;
Technical Amendments
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to delete
various local rules from the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
were approved in error. These rules
include general nuisance provisions,
Federal New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) or National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) requirements, hearing board
procedures, variance provisions, and
local fee provisions. The EPA has
determined that the continued presence
of these rules in the SIP is inappropriate
and potentially confusing and thus
problematic for affected sources, the
state, local agencies, and the EPA. The
intended effect of this proposal is to
delete these rules to make the SIP
consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘Act’’). The EPA is also proposing to
make certain other corrections to
address errors made in previous actions
taken by the EPA on California SIP
revisions.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on or
before May 22, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2020–0088 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Kevin Gong, at gong.kevin@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
DATE:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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:
Kevin Gong, Rules Office (AIR–3–2),
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972–
3073, or by email at gong.kevin@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the
SIP?
III. What is the EPA’s authority to correct
errors in SIP rulemakings?
IV. Which rules are proposed for deletion?
V. What other corrections is the EPA
proposing to make?
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public
Comment
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
In this rulemaking, we address certain
errors made over the years in
connection with EPA actions on SIP
revisions for the various air pollution
control districts in California. In the first
rule, published at 84 FR 45422 (August
29, 2019), we addressed errors
associated with EPA actions on SIP
revisions for the districts with names
beginning with the letter A through the
letter O. This proposed action follows
the first action and addresses errors
associated with EPA actions for the rest
of the districts, i.e., those with names
beginning with the letter P through the
letter Z.
II. Why is the EPA proposing to correct
the SIP?
The Clean Air Act was first enacted in
1970. In the 1970s and early 1980s,
thousands of state and local agency
regulations were submitted to the EPA
for incorporation into the SIP to fulfill
the new Federal requirements. In many
cases, states submitted entire regulatory
air pollution programs, including many
elements not required by the Act. Due
to time and resource constraints, the
EPA’s review of these submittals
focused primarily on the new
substantive requirements, and we
approved many other elements into the
SIP with minimal review. We now
recognize that many of these elements
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
were not appropriate for approval into
the SIP. In general, these elements are
appropriate for state and local agencies
to adopt and implement, but it is not
necessary or appropriate to make them
federally enforceable by incorporating
them into the applicable SIP. These
include:
A. Rules that prohibit emissions
causing general nuisance or annoyance
in the community.1 Such rules address
local issues but have essentially no
connection to the purposes for which
SIPs are developed and approved,
namely the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). See CAA section 110(a)(1).
B. Local adoption of federal NSPS or
NESHAP requirements either by
reference or by adopting text identical to
or modified from the requirements
found in 40 CFR part 60 (‘‘Standards of
Performances for New Stationary
Sources’’) or 61 (‘‘National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants’’). Because the EPA has
independent authority to implement 40
CFR parts 60 and 61, it is not
appropriate to make parallel local
authorities federally enforceable by
approving them into the applicable SIP.
C. Rules that govern local hearing
board procedures and other
administrative requirements such as
fees, frequency of meetings, salaries
paid to board members, and procedures
for petitioning for a local hearing.
D. Variance provisions that provide
for modification of the requirements of
the applicable SIP. State- or districtissued variances provide an applicant
with a mechanism to obtain relief from
state enforcement of a state or local rule
under certain conditions. Pursuant to
Federal law, specifically section 110(i)
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(i), neither
the EPA nor a state may revise a SIP by
issuing an ‘‘order, suspension, plan
revision or other action modifying any
requirement of an applicable
implementation plan’’ without a plan
promulgation or revision. The EPA and
California have long recognized that a
state-issued variance, though binding as
a matter of state law, does not prevent
the EPA from enforcing the underlying
SIP provisions unless and until the EPA
approves that variance as a SIP revision.
The variance provisions included in
today’s action are deficient for various
reasons, including their failure to
address the fact that a state- or districtissued variance has no effect on federal
enforceability unless the variance is
submitted to and approved by the EPA
as a SIP revision. Therefore, their
inclusion in the SIP is inconsistent with
the Act and may be confusing to
regulated industry and the general
public. Moreover, because state-issued
variances require independent EPA
approval to modify the substantive
requirements of a SIP, removal of these
variance provisions from the SIP will
have no effect on regulated entities. See
Industrial Environmental Association v.
Browner, No. 97–71117 (9th Cir., May
26, 2000).
E. Local fee provisions that are not
economic incentive programs and are
not designed to replace or relax a SIP
emission limit. While it is appropriate
for local agencies to implement fee
provisions, for example, to recover costs
for issuing permits, it is generally not
appropriate to make local fee collection
federally enforceable.
III. What is the EPA’s authority to
correct erors in SIP rulemakings?
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, as
amended in 1990, provides that,
whenever the EPA determines that the
EPA’s action approving, disapproving,
or promulgating any plan or plan
22385
revision (or part thereof), area
designation, redesignation,
classification or reclassification was in
error, the EPA may in the same manner
as the approval, disapproval, or
promulgation revise such action as
appropriate without requiring any
further submission from the state. Such
determination and the basis thereof
must be provided to the state and the
public. We interpret this provision to
authorize the EPA to make corrections
to a promulgated regulation when it is
shown to our satisfaction (or we
discover) that (1) we clearly erred by
failing to consider or by inappropriately
considering information made available
to the EPA at the time of the
promulgation, or the information made
available at the time of promulgation is
subsequently demonstrated to have been
clearly inadequate, and (2) other
information persuasively supports a
change in the regulation. See 57 FR
56762, at 56763 (November 30, 1992)
(correcting designations, boundaries,
and classifications of ozone, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter and lead
areas).
IV. Which rules are proposed for
deletion?
The EPA has determined that the
rules listed in table 1 below are
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP,
but were previously approved into the
SIP in error. Dates that these rules were
submitted by the state and approved by
the EPA are provided. We are proposing
deletion of these rules and any earlier
versions of these rules from the
individual air pollution control district
portions of the California SIP under
CAA section 110(k)(6) as inconsistent
with the requirements of CAA section
110.2 A brief discussion of the proposed
deletions is provided in the following
paragraphs.
TABLE 1—LOCAL AIR DISTRICT RULES PROPOSED FOR DELETION
Rule or regulation
Title
Submittal date
EPA approval
Placer County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
Section 51 ......................................
Nuisance .......................................
February 21, 1972 ........................
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Rule 112 ........................................
New Source Performance Standards.
1 An example of such a rule is as follows: A
person shall not discharge from any source
whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or
other material which cause injury, detriment,
nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number
of persons or to the public or which endanger the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Apr 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
November 3, 1975 ........................
comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
persons or the public or which cause or have a
natural tendency to cause injury or damage to
business or property.
2 The EPA has coordinated with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to identify district rules
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42 FR 28122 (June 2, 1977); corrected at 42 FR 42219 (August
22, 1977).
appropriate for deletion from the California SIP.
CARB has agreed that the deletion of the rules in
table 1 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6) is
appropriate. See letter from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, January 31, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
22386
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—LOCAL AIR DISTRICT RULES PROPOSED FOR DELETION—Continued
Rule or regulation
Title
Submittal date
EPA approval
Rule 113 ........................................
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants.
November 3, 1975 ........................
42 FR 28122 (June 2, 1977); corrected at 42 FR 42219 (August
22, 1977).
San Diego County APCD
Rule 51 ..........................................
Nuisance .......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD
Fresno County APCD Rule 111 ....
Fresno County APCD Rule 418 ....
Arrests and Notices to Appear .....
Nuisance .......................................
October 23, 1974 ..........................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Fresno County APCD Rule 419 ....
Exception ......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Kings County APCD Rule 419 .......
Nuisance .......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Kings County APCD Rule 420 .......
Exception ......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Madera County APCD Rule 418 ...
Nuisance .......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Madera County APCD Rule 419 ...
Exception ......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Madera County APCD Rule 511 ...
Notice of Hearing ..........................
October 15, 1979 ..........................
Merced County APCD Rule 418 ....
Nuisance .......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Merced County APCD Rule 419 ....
Exception ......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Merced County APCD Rule 511 ....
San Joaquin County APCD Rule
418.
San Joaquin County APCD Rule
419.
Stanislaus County APCD Rule 418
Notice of Hearing ..........................
Nuisance .......................................
August 2, 1976 .............................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Exception ......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Emissions in General ...................
July 19, 1974 ................................
Stanislaus County APCD Rule 419
Exception ......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Stanislaus County APCD Rule 505
Petitions for Variances .................
July 19, 1974 ................................
Tulare County APCD Section 419
Nuisance .......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Tulare County APCD Section 420
Tulare County APCD Section 507
Tulare County APCD Section 508
Exception ......................................
Supplemental Information .............
Matters Initiated by Control Officer
or Hearing Board.
Record of Proceedings .................
October 23, 1974 ..........................
February 21, 1972 ........................
February 21, 1972 ........................
42 FR 42219 (August 22, 1977).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
46 FR 60202 (December 9,
1981).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
43 FR 25689 (June 14, 1978).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
42 FR 25501 (May 18, 1977); corrected at 42 FR 42219 (August
22, 1977).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
42 FR 25501 (May 18, 1977); corrected at 42 FR 42219 (August
22, 1977).
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
42 FR 42219 (August 22, 1977).
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
February 21, 1972 ........................
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
Tulare County APCD Section 515
San Luis Obispo County APCD
Rule 111 ........................................
Nuisance .......................................
February 21, 1972 ........................
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
Santa Barbara County APCD
Rule 17 ..........................................
Nuisance .......................................
February 21, 1972 ........................
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
Shasta County AQMD
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Rule 4:2 .........................................
General .........................................
November 21, 1986 ......................
54 FR 14648 (April 12, 1989).
Siskiyou County APCD
Rule 4.2 .........................................
Rule 4.2–1 .....................................
Nuisance .......................................
Exceptions ....................................
February 21, 1972 ........................
March 23, 1988 ............................
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
54 FR 43174 (October 23, 1989).
South Coast AQMD
Orange County APCD Rule 45 ......
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Apr 21, 2020
Permit Fees—Open Burning ........
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
June 30, 1972 ...............................
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
22APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
22387
TABLE 1—LOCAL AIR DISTRICT RULES PROPOSED FOR DELETION—Continued
Rule or regulation
San Bernardino
Rule 120.
County
APCD
Title
Submittal date
EPA approval
Fees ..............................................
February 21, 1972 ........................
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
Tehama County APCD
Rule 4:4 .........................................
Nuisance .......................................
February 21, 1972 ........................
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
Tuolumne County APCD
Rule 205 ........................................
Rule 703 ........................................
Rule 710 ........................................
Nuisance .......................................
Contents of Petitions ....................
Notice of Public Hearing ...............
July 22, 1975 ................................
October 23, 1981 ..........................
October 23, 1981 ..........................
42 FR 42219 (August 22, 1977).
47 FR 23159 (May 27, 1982).
47 FR 23159 (May 27, 1982).
Ventura County APCD
Rule 51 ..........................................
Nuisance .......................................
June 30, 1972 ...............................
37 FR 19812 (September 22,
1972).
Yolo-Solano AQMD
Rule 2.5 .........................................
Rule 2.6 .........................................
Rule 5.1 .........................................
Nuisance .......................................
Additional Exception .....................
Applicable Articles of the Health
and Safety Code.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Placer County Air Pollution Control
District (APCD)
Placer County APCD Section 51
(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Section 51
was inappropriate for inclusion in the
SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA
in error. In this action, we are proposing
to delete Section 51 from the Placer
County APCD portion of the California
SIP.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (AQMD)
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Rules 112 (New Source Performance
Standards) and 113 (National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
require sources to comply with the
applicable provisions of the NSPS and
NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR parts
60 and 61. Because the EPA has
independent authority to implement 40
CFR parts 60 and 61, it was not
appropriate to make parallel local
authorities federally enforceable by
approving Rules 112 and 113 into the
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
portion of the California SIP. In this
action, we are proposing to delete Rules
112 and 113 from the Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD portion of the
California SIP.
San Diego County APCD
San Diego County APCD Rule 51
(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 51 was
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP,
and thus, was approved by the EPA in
error. In this action, we are proposing to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Apr 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
February 21, 1972 ........................
February 21, 1972 ........................
June 22, 1978 ...............................
delete Rule 51 from the San Diego
County APCD portion of the California
SIP.
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD
Established in 1991, the San Joaquin
Valley Unified APCD unified Fresno
County APCD, Kern County APCD (San
Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County),
Kings County APCD, Madera County
APCD, Merced County APCD, San
Joaquin County APCD, Stanislaus
County APCD, and Tulare County APCD
into a single unified APCD. The San
Joaquin Valley Unified APCD portion of
the applicable California SIP continues
to include certain rules originally
adopted by the individual county
APCDs and approved by the EPA prior
to the establishment of the unified
APCD. The following individual county
rules are general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rules, and were
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP
and, thus, were approved by the EPA in
error: Fresno County APCD Rule 418
(Nuisance), Kings County APCD Rule
419 (Nuisance), Madera County ACPD
Rule 418 (Nuisance), Merced County
APCD Rule 418 (Nuisance), San Joaquin
County APCD Rule 418 (Nuisance),
Stanislaus County APCD Rule 418
(Emissions in General) and Tulare
County APCD Section 419 (Nuisance).
The following individual county rules
provide an exception to the general
nuisance rules cited above, and should
be deleted if the general nuisance rules
are deleted: Fresno County APCD Rule
419 (Exception), Kings County APCD
Rule 420 (Exception), Madera County
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972).
44 FR 5662 (January 29, 1979).
ACPD Rule 419 (Exception), Merced
County APCD Rule 419 (Exception), San
Joaquin County APCD Rule 419
(Exception), Stanislaus County APCD
Rule 419 (Exception) and Tulare County
APCD Section 420 (Exception).
In addition, Madera County APCD
Rule 511 (Notice of Hearing), Merced
County APCD Rule 511 (Notice of
Hearing), Stanislaus County APCD Rule
505 (Petitions for Variances) and Tulare
County APCD Sections 507
(Supplemental Information), 508
(Matters Initiated by Control Officer or
Hearing Board) and 515 (Record of
Proceedings) relate to hearing board
procedures, and as such, were
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP
and were thus approved by the EPA in
error. In this action, we are proposing to
delete the above county rules from the
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD
portion of the California SIP.
Lastly, at 66 FR 47603, at 47608–
47609 (September 13, 2001), the EPA
proposed to delete Fresno County APCD
Rule 111 (Arrests and Notices to
Appear), submitted on June 4, 1986,
along with all the other county rules
titled ‘‘Arrests and Notices to Appear.’’
At 67 FR 2573 (January 18, 2002), the
EPA finalized the deletion of the other
county rules titled ‘‘Arrests and Notices
to Appear’’ but did not finalize the
deletion of Fresno County Rule 111
because we realized that the June 4,
1986 version of Rule 111 was not
approved into the SIP. See 67 FR 2573,
at 2575 (January 18, 2002). In this
action, we are proposing to delete the
version of Fresno County Rule 111
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
22388
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(Arrests and Notices to Appear) that is
part of the applicable California SIP, i.e.,
the version of Fresno County APCD
Rule 111 that was submitted on October
23, 1974, and approved at 42 FR 42219
(August 22, 1977), to be consistent with
our action on the other corresponding
county rules.
San Luis Obispo County APCD
San Luis Obispo County APCD Rule
111 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance
type of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule
111 was inappropriate for inclusion in
the SIP, and thus, was approved by the
EPA in error. In this action, we are
proposing to delete Rule 111 from the
San Luis Obispo County APCD portion
of the California SIP.
Santa Barbara County APCD
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 17
(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 17 was
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP,
and thus, was approved by the EPA in
error. In this action, we are proposing to
delete Rule 17 from the Santa Barbara
County APCD portion of the California
SIP.
Shasta County AQMD
Shasta County AQMD Rule 4:2
(General) relates to hearing board
procedures, and as such, was
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP
and was thus approved by the EPA in
error. In this action, we are proposing to
delete Rule 4:2 from the Shasta County
AQMD portion of the California SIP.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Siskiyou County APCD
Siskiyou County APCD Rule 4.2
(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4.2 was
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP,
and thus, was approved by the EPA in
error. Siskiyou County APCD Rule 4.2–
1 (Exceptions) provides an exception to
Rule 4.2 and should be deleted if Rule
4.2 is deleted. In this action, we are
proposing to delete Rules 4.2 and 4.2–
1 from the Siskiyou County APCD
portion of the California SIP.
South Coast AQMD
The South Coast AQMD includes all
of Orange County, the non-desert
portions of Los Angeles and San
Bernardino counties, and all of
Riverside County (except for the Palo
Verde Valley in far eastern Riverside
County). In 1972, when the original
California SIP was submitted and
approved by EPA, the Los Angeles
County APCD, Orange County APCD,
Riverside County APCD and San
Bernardino County APCD each had
jurisdiction over stationary sources
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Apr 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
within their respective counties. On July
16, 1975, the Los Angeles County APCD,
Orange County APCD, Riverside County
APCD, and San Bernardino County
APCD were unified into the Southern
California APCD. On February 1, 1977,
the State of California split the Southern
California APCD into the South Coast
AQMD in the western coastal area
(including Orange County, and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles,
Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties,
referred to as the ‘‘South Coast Air
Basin’’) and three separate APCDs (i.e.,
Los Angeles County APCD, San
Bernardino County APCD, and
Riverside County APCD, included
within the ‘‘Southeast Desert Air
Basin’’), formed out of the remaining
parts of three counties in the eastern
desert area. See 43 FR 25684 (June 14,
1978). The Southeast Desert portion of
Riverside County was added to the
South Coast AQMD on December 1,
1977. On July 1, 1994, the Palo Verde
Valley area of Riverside County left the
South Coast AQMD and joined the
Mojave Desert AQMD.
Certain rules adopted by the original
county-based APCDs remain part of the
applicable SIP for the South Coast
AQMD (i.e., have not been deleted or
superseded by EPA-approved rules
adopted by the Southern California
APCD or South Coast AQMD), including
Orange County APCD Rule 45 (Permit
Fees—Open Burning) and San
Bernardino County APCD Rule 120
(Fees). Orange County APCD Rule 45
and San Bernardino County APCD Rule
120 are local fee provisions that were
not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP,
and thus, were approved by the EPA in
error. In this action, we are proposing to
delete Orange County APCD Rule 45
and San Bernardino County APCD Rule
120 from the South Coast AQMD
portion of the California SIP.
Tehama County APCD
Tehama County APCD Rule 4:4
(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4:4 was
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP,
and thus, was approved by the EPA in
error. In this action, we are proposing to
delete Rule 4:4 from the Tehama County
APCD portion of the California SIP.
Tuolumne County APCD
Tuolumne County APCD Rule 205
(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 205 was
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP,
and thus, was approved by the EPA in
error. Tuolumne County APCD Rules
703 (Contents of Petitions) and 710
(Notice of Public Hearing) relate to
hearing board procedures, and as such,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
were inappropriate for inclusion in the
SIP and were thus approved by the EPA
in error. In this action, we are proposing
to delete Rules 205, 703 and 710 from
the Tuolumne County APCD portion of
the California SIP.
Ventura County APCD
Ventura County APCD Rule 51
(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 51 was
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP,
and thus, was approved by the EPA in
error. In this action, we are proposing to
delete Rule 51 from the Ventura County
APCD portion of the California SIP.
Yolo-Solano AQMD
Yolo Solano AQMD Rule 2.5
(Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 2.5 was
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP,
and thus, was approved by the EPA in
error. Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 2.6
(Additional Exception) provides an
exception to Rule 2.5 and should be
deleted if Rule 2.5 is deleted. YoloSolano AQMD Rule 5.1 (Applicable
Articles of the Health and Safety Code)
relates to hearing board procedures, and
as such, was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP and was thus approved by the
EPA in error. In this action, we are
proposing to delete Rules 2.5, 2.6 and
5.1 from the Yolo-Solano AQMD portion
of the California SIP.
V. What other corrections is the EPA
proposing to make?
The EPA is also proposing certain
error corrections not because the rules
were originally approved into the SIP in
error but because of other types of errors
made in the course of the SIP
rulemaking action. Each such proposal
is described in the following
paragraphs.
Placer County APCD
Publisher’s Error in Connection with
Approval of Rule 243 (Polyester Resin
Operations): On October 3, 2011 (76 FR
61057), the EPA approved Placer
County Rule 243 (Polyester Resin
Operations), as submitted on December
7, 2010, and the amendatory
instructions listed the approval of Rule
243 correctly at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(389)(i)(B)(1). However, due to
a publisher’s error, the approval of
Placer County APCD Rule 243 is listed
at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(390)(i)(B)(1). We are
proposing to correct this error by
amending the two paragraphs in 40 CFR
52.220(c) accordingly.
San Diego County APCD
Erroneous Listing of Certain Rules as
San Diego County APCD Rules: On June
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
2, 1977 (42 FR 28122), the EPA took
final action to approve Rules 112 and
113 adopted by the Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD and codified the
approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B).
On August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219), the
EPA redesignated the paragraph listing
the approval of Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD Rules 112 and 113
to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(ii)(B) but failed
to delete 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B). See
42 FR 42219, at 42225 (August 22,
1977). Paragraph 40 CFR
52.220(c)(29)(v) lists EPA-approved
rules adopted by the San Diego County
APCD, and the failure to delete 40 CFR
52.220(c)(29)(v)(B) makes it appear that
Rules 112 and 113 are part of the San
Diego County APCD portion of the
applicable SIP but, as explained herein,
they are not. Today, we are proposing to
delete 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B).
Failure to Codify Approval of
Amendments to San Diego County
APCD Rule 20.1: On July 6, 1982 (47 FR
29231), the EPA took final action to
approve certain rules adopted by the
San Diego County APCD, including
amendments to Rule 20.1 (Definitions,
Emission Calculations, Emission Offsets
and Banking, Exemptions, and Other
Requirements), submitted on January
28, 1981. However, we failed to codify
the approval of Rule 20.1 at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(98)(xi), the subsection listing
San Diego County APCD rules
submitted on January 28, 1981 and
approved by the EPA. We propose to do
so in today’s action. We note that the
amendments to Rule 20.1 that were
approved on July 6, 1982, were recently
superseded in the applicable San Diego
County APCD portion of the California
SIP by approval of a further amended
version of Rule 20.1 (New Source
Review—General Provisions) at 83 FR
50007 (October 4, 2018).
Publisher’s Error Deleting
Codification of Approval of San Diego
County APCD Rule 67.0: On June 30,
1993 (58 FR 34904), the EPA took final
action to approve San Diego County
Rule 67.0 (Architectural Coatings),
adopted on December 4, 1990, as a
revision to the California SIP. We
codified the approval at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(184)(i)(D)(1) but failed to
include introductory text identifying the
San Diego County APCD as the relevant
air pollution control agency associated
with Rule 67.0. On August 4, 2000 (65
FR 47862), we added introductory text
identifying San Diego County APCD at
40 CFR 52.220(c)(184)(i)(D) but, due to
a publisher’s error, the regulatory text
listing the approval of Rule 67.0 was
erroneously deleted. While the
December 4, 1990 version of San Diego
County APCD Rule 67.0 has since been
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Apr 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
superseded in the applicable California
SIP, we propose to re-instate 40 CFR
52.220(c)(184)(i)(D)(1) to maintain an
accurate accounting of the version of
Rule 67.0 that applied for federal
enforcement purposes at different times
in the past.
Erroneous Codification of Approval of
San Diego County APCD Rule 67.11: On
April 11, 2013 (78 FR 21537), the EPA
took final action to approve San Diego
County APCD Rule 67.11 (Wood
Products Coating Operations), submitted
on September 21, 2012. We erroneously
codified the approval of Rule 67.11 at 40
CFR 52.220(c)(307), which lists
approved rules submitted on November
19, 2002. We propose to redesignate the
paragraph listing the approval of Rule
67.11 from 40 CFR 52.220(c)(307) to 40
CFR 52.220(c)(423), which lists
approved rules submitted on September
21, 2012.
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD
Failure to Include Introductory Text
for Approval of Rules Submitted on May
13, 1980, including Fresno County
APCD Rules 410, 411.1 and 416.1: On
May 13, 1980, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) submitted
certain amended rules to the EPA as a
revision to the California SIP, including
Fresno County Rules 410 (Storage of
Organic Liquids), 411.1 (Transfer of
Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks—
Phase II) and 416.1 (Agricultural
Burning). We codified our approval of
the rules submitted on May 13, 1980, at
40 CFR 52.220(c)(83), see, e.g., 47 FR
29668 (July 8, 1982) (Approval of Fresno
County APCD Rule 410) and 46 FR
60202 (December 9, 1981) (Approval of
Fresno County APCD Rules 411.1 and
416.1), but inadvertently failed to
identify the submittal date and, in two
instances, failed to identify the
applicable air pollution control district
for the approved rules as the Bay Area
AQMD and the Fresno County APCD,
respectively. In this action, we propose
to add introductory text to 40 CFR
52.220(c)(83) specifying a submittal date
of May 13, 1980, and to properly
designate subparagraph (i) as the Bay
Area AQMD and subparagraph (iii) as
the Fresno County APCD.
Publisher’s Error in Connection with
Supersession of San Joaquin County
APCD Rules 413.2 and 413.3: On
September 23, 2010 (75 FR 57862), the
EPA approved San Joaquin Valley
Unified APCD Rules 4453 (Refinery
Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems)
and 4454 (Refinery Process Unit
Turnaround) and codified the
supersession of the relevant countylevel APCD SIP rules, including San
Joaquin County APCD Rules 413.2
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22389
(Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices)
and 413.3 (Refinery Process Unit
Turnaround) in the existing SIP. The
codification of the supersession of San
Joaquin County APCD Rules 413.2 and
413.3 was intended to be published at
paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vii),
which lists San Joaquin County APCD
rules, but, due to a publisher’s error, it
was published instead at paragraph 40
CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vi), which lists rules
adopted by Merced County APCD. In
this action, we propose to redesignate
paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vi)(D) as
paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vii)(D)
to correct this error.
Erroneous Amendatory Instruction
Related to Approval of San Joaquin
County APCD Rules 409.7 and 409.8:
On June 18, 1982 (47 FR 26384), the
EPA took final action to approve certain
regulations adopted by the San Joaquin
County APCD, including Rules 409.7
(Graphic Arts) and 409.8
(Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning
Systems), submitted on July 14, 1981.
Due to erroneous amendatory
instructions, the approval of San
Joaquin County APCD Rules 409.7 and
409.8 was published as subparagraph
(B) under paragraph 40 CFR
52.220(c)(102)(ii), which lists rules
adopted by the Stanislaus County
APCD, instead of subparagraph (B)
under paragraph 40 CFR
52.220(c)(102)(i), which lists rules
adopted by the San Joaquin County
APCD. In this action, we propose to
redesignate paragraph 40 CFR
52.220(c)(102)(ii)(B) as 40 CFR
52.220(c)(102)(i)(B) to correct this error.
Santa Barbara County APCD
Erroneous Codification of Approval of
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 337:
On April 11, 2013 (78 FR 21537), the
EPA took final action to approve Santa
Barbara County APCD Rule 337 (Surface
Coating of Aerospace Vehicles and
Components), submitted on September
21, 2012. We erroneously codified the
approval of Rule 337 at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(214), which lists approved
rules submitted on January 24, 1995. We
propose to redesignate the paragraph
listing the approval of Rule 337 from 40
CFR 52.220(c)(214) to 40 CFR
52.220(c)(423), which lists approved
rules submitted on September 21, 2012.
Inadvertent Failure to Add
Introductory Text in Connection with
Approval of Santa Barbara County
APCD Rule 316: On August 30, 1993 (58
FR 45442), the EPA took final action to
approve Santa Barbara County APCD
Rule 316 (Storage and Transfer of
Gasoline), submitted on April 5, 1991,
and codified the approval at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(183)(i)(E)(2) but inadvertently
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
22390
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
failed to add introductory text
identifying Santa Barbara County APCD
as the applicable air district for
approved rules listed under paragraph
(E). In this action, we propose to revise
40 CFR 52.220(c)(i)(E) to add ‘‘Santa
Barbara County Air Pollution Control
District’’ to clarify the applicability of
Rule 316 listed in subparagraph (E)(2).
Shasta County AQMD
Typographical Error in Connection
with Deletion of Shasta County AQMD
Rule 2:19: On January 22, 2004 (69 FR
3045, at 3053), the EPA proposed to
delete various local rules from the
California SIP, including a Shasta
County AQMD rule titled ‘‘Change in
Multi-Component System.’’ However,
due to a typographical error, the rule
titled ‘‘Change in Multi-Component
System’’ was identified as Rule 2:22.
The correct rule number is Rule 2:19.
On November 16, 2004 (69 FR 67062),
the EPA took final action to delete the
rule and carried forward the
typographical error in regulatory text
found at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(6)(xxiii)(A).
We are proposing in this action to
correct the regulatory text at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(6)(xxiii)(A) to indicate that
Shasta County AQMD Rule 2:19, rather
than Rule 2:22, has been deleted
without replacement.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Siskiyou County APCD
Typographical Error in Connection
with Approval of Siskiyou County APCD
Rules Submitted on March 18, 1987: On
April 12, 1989 (54 FR 14648), the EPA
took final action to approve certain
Siskiyou County APCD rules submitted
on March 18, 1987. We codified the
approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(172) but,
due to a typographical error, listed the
submittal date as ‘‘March 11, 1987,’’
instead of the correct date of March 18,
1987. We are proposing in this action to
correct the regulatory text at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(172) to identify ‘‘March 18,
1987’’ as the submittal date for the rules
listed under that paragraph.
South Coast AQMD
Rescission of Orange County APCD
Regulation VI (Orchard or Citrus Grove
Heaters): Orange County APCD
Regulation VI includes the following
rules: Rule 100 (Definitions), Rule 101
(Use and Sale of Orchard Heaters), Rule
102 (Permit Required), Rule 103
(Transfer of Permits), Rule 105
(Application for Permits), Rule 106
(Action on Applications), Rule 107
(Standards for Granting Permits), Rule
108 (Conditional Approval), Rule 109
(Denial of Applications), Rule 110
(Appeals), Rule 120 (Fees), Rule 122
(Classification of Orchard Heaters), Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Apr 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
123 (Class I Heaters Designated—
Permits), Rule 124 (Class II Heaters
Designated—Permits), Rule 126
(Identification of Heaters), Rule 127
(Maintenance of Heaters), Rule 128
(Classification of Undesignated Heaters)
and Rule 130 (Prohibitions). California
submitted Orange County APCD
Regulation VI on February 21, 1972, and
the EPA approved the regulation on
May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). On June
30, 1972, California submitted an
amended definition in Rule 100 and
submitted amended versions of Rules
101 and 102, and the EPA approved the
amendments on September 22, 1972 (37
FR 19812). Rule 120 was deleted
without replacement at 67 FR 2573
(January 18, 2002), but the other
Regulation VI rules remain in the SIP.
In an action affecting the South Coast
AQMD published at 43 FR 25684 (June
14, 1978), the EPA indicated: ‘‘The
changes to Regulation VI, Orchard
Grove Heaters, contained in the above
mentioned submittals and being acted
upon by this notice include total
replacement of county rules by
California Health and Safety Code
sections covering Orchard Heaters.’’ 43
FR at 25685. However, the regulatory
text deleting Regulation VI without
replacement was not included in the
final rule, and thus, Orange County
APCD Regulation VI remains part of the
applicable SIP.3 In this action, we are
proposing to add regulatory text
deleting Orange County Regulation VI,
as approved on May 31, 1972 and
September 22, 1972, consistent with our
action as described in the preamble to
the June 14, 1978 final rule.
Tehama County APCD
Publisher’s Error in Connection with
Deletion without Replacement of San
Diego County APCD Rule 41: On June
27, 1997 (62 FR 34641), the EPA took
final action to delete without
replacement certain district rules that
had been approved in error, including
San Diego County APCD Rule 41
(Annual Permit Renewal Fees), which
was submitted on July 25, 1973 and
approved on May 11, 1977. The
amendatory instructions in the June 27,
1997 final rule called for publishing the
corresponding regulatory text at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(21)(vi)(B), which relates to
San Diego County APCD rules; however,
due to a publisher’s error, the
3 In contrast, in a September 8, 1978 final rule,
the EPA included similar preamble text concerning
an analogous Regulation VI adopted by Los Angeles
County APCD and Riverside County APCD, but
added specific regulatory text to delete Regulation
VI in the Southeast Desert portions of Los Angeles
County and Riverside County. See 43 FR 40011, at
40012 and 40014 (September 8, 1978).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
corresponding regulatory text was
published at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(21)(vii)(B), which sets forth
regulatory text for Tehama County
APCD rules. On March 23, 1999 (64 FR
13916), the missing paragraph (40 CFR
52.220(c)(21)(vi)(B)) was added but the
erroneous publication at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(21)(vii)(B) was left in place. In
this action, we propose to remove 40
CFR 52.220(c)(21)(vii)(B) from the CFR.
Tuolumne County APCD
Reinstatement of Tuolumne County
APCD Rule 516 (Excluding Paragraph
(C)): On June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34641),
the EPA took final action to correct
certain errors in previous actions on
SIPs and SIP revisions by deleting
without replacement the affected local
rules. With respect to a rule that was
adopted by the Tuolumne County
APCD, submitted by California on
October 23, 1981, and approved by the
EPA on May 27, 1982 (47 FR 23159), we
added a paragraph, i.e., (c)(103)(xvii)(B),
to 40 CFR 52.220 (Identification of plan)
that states: ‘‘Previously approved on
May 27, 1982 and now deleted without
replacement Rule 516.’’ 62 FR at 34647.
However, in our proposed error
correction, 61 FR 38664, at 38680 (July
25, 1996), we indicated that the rule we
intended to delete was Rule 516
(‘‘Emergency Variance Procedures’’), but
the correct title of Rule 516 is ‘‘Upset
and Breakdown Conditions,’’ and
‘‘Emergency Variance Procedures’’ is the
title of one of the paragraphs, i.e.,
paragraph (C), of Rule 516. Thus, we
intended to delete only paragraph (C) of
Rule 516 but erroneously indicated in
the final rule that we were deleting
without replacement the entire rule.
Accordingly, we propose to amend
paragraph (c)(103)(xvii)(B) to refer only
to paragraph (C) of Rule 516.
Ventura County APCD
Erroneous Regulatory Text for
Approval of Rescission of Ventura
County APCD Rule 18: On December 7,
2000 (65 FR 76567), the EPA took final
action approving certain rules and rule
rescissions adopted by the Ventura
County APCD establishing procedures
and criteria for issuing permits to new
or modified stationary sources,
including the rescission of Rule 18
(Permit to Operate—Application
Required for Existing Equipment). The
specific version of Rule 18 for which we
approved rescission was submitted on
June 30, 1972 and approved on
September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812);
however, we erroneously added the
corresponding regulatory text to 40 CFR
52.220(b), which lists rules submitted
on February 21, 1972 and approved on
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). The
regulatory text belongs under 40 CFR
52.220(c)(6)(xxiv). In this action, we
propose to redesignate the regulatory
text accordingly.
Inadvertent Failure to Include
Introductory Text for Approval of
Ventura County APCD Rule 74.6: On
July 1, 1982 (47 FR 28617), the EPA took
final action to approve Ventura County
APCD Rule 74.6 (Surface Cleaning and
Degreasing). In our final rule, we
codified our approval of Rule 74.6 at 40
CFR 52.220(c)(82)(i)(A) but
inadvertently failed to add introductory
text specifying the date of submittal. In
this action, we propose to add
introductory text to 40 CFR
52.220(c)(82) specifying a submittal date
of May 1, 1980.
Inadvertent Failure to Remove Listing
of Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Rules 70, 73, 96 and 111 from
Paragraph Listing Ventura County
APCD Rules: Rules 70, 73, 96 and 111
are among a set of Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD rules that were
approved at 42 FR 28122 (June 2, 1977);
corrected at 42 FR 42219 (August 22,
1977). In the June 2, 1977 action, the
EPA codified the Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD rules on which the
Agency was taking action at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(24)(x)(A)–(E). The August 22,
1977 action corrected the list of
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD rules
for which the EPA had taken action and
recodified the action at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(24)(viii)(A). The August 22,
1977 inadvertently failed to delete the
original codification of the action on the
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD rules
at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(24)(x). Since then,
the EPA has taken action on certain
Ventura County APCD rules and
codified those actions at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(24)(x)(A) and (B), but
subparagraphs (C)–(E) remain in the
CFR and now appear as if they are
Ventura County APCD rules. In this
action, we are proposing to remove and
reserve subparagraphs (C)–(E) under 40
CFR 52.220(c)(24)(x).
Inadvertent Failure to Codify
Approval of Rescission of Ventura
County APCD Rule 74.6.3: The EPA
approved certain rules adopted by the
Ventura County APCD, including Rule
74.6.3 (Conveyorized Degreasers) at 65
FR 45294 (July 21, 2000). We codified
our approval of these rules at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(241)(i)(C). On October 25,
2005 (70 FR 61561), we approved
revisions to certain Ventura County
APCD rules, including the rescission of
Rule 74.6.3. In the October 25, 2005
direct final rule, we explained that Rule
74.6.3 was being rescinded because
there are currently no conveyorized
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Apr 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
degreasers operating in Ventura County.
70 FR 61561, at 61562. However, we
inadvertently failed to codify the
rescission of Rule 74.6.3 in the
regulatory portion of the final rule. In
this action, we are proposing to add
regulatory text to codify our approval of
the rescission of Rule 74.6.3 by adding
a paragraph to that effect at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(241)(i)(C).
Yolo-Solano AQMD
Publisher’s Error in Connection with
Approval of Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules
Submitted on February 25, 1980: On
June 18, 1982 (47 FR 26379), the EPA
took direct final action to approve
certain revisions to the Yolo-Solano
AQMD portion of the California SIP. In
the direct final rule, we approved YoloSolano AQMD Rules 3.4.1 (Standards
for Granting Applications), 3.4.2
(Conditional Approval), and 3.13
(Public Review and Comment for
Application for Authority to Construct)
and codified the approval at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(54)(iv)(C). However, due to a
publisher’s error, the codification of the
approval of the three rules was repeated
at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(54)(v)(C) as if they
were rules adopted by the Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD. We are proposing
to delete the erroneous regulatory text
now found at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(54)(v)(C).
Inadvertent Failure to Codify
Approval of Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules
3.4.1 and 3.4.2: On June 18, 1982 (47 FR
26379), the EPA took direct final action
to approve certain revisions to the YoloSolano AQMD portion of the California
SIP. In the direct final rule, we
approved Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules
3.4.1 (Standards for Granting
Applications), 3.4.2 (Conditional
Approval), and 3.13 (Public Review and
Comment for Application for Authority
to Construct) and codified the approval
at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(54)(iv)(C). However,
in response to the direct final rule, we
received adverse comment concerning
our approval of Rules 3.4.1 and 3.4.2,
and on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 28988), we
withdrew their approval. Later than
year, we took final action to approve
Rules 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 after consideration
of public comment, 48 FR 52712
(November 22, 1983), but failed to add
corresponding regulatory text in 40 CFR
52.220(c)(54)(iv). In this action, we
propose to add a new paragraph, 40 CFR
52.220(c)(54)(iv)(E), codifying our 1983
approval of Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules
3.4.1 and 3.4.2.
Publisher’s Error in Connection with
Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules Submitted on
October 15, 1979: On December 9, 1981
(46 FR 60202), the EPA took final action
to approve certain revisions to the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22391
Fresno County APCD portion of the
California SIP that had been submitted
on October 15, 1979, including Rules
301 (Permit Fees), 302 (Permit Fee
Schedules) and 305 (Hearing Board
Fees). We codified the approval of these
Fresno County APCD rules at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(52)(xv)(B). However, due to a
publisher’s error, the codification of the
approval of the three rules was repeated
at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(xix)(B) as if they
were rules adopted by the Yolo-Solano
AQMD. We are proposing to delete the
erroneous regulatory text now found at
40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(xix)(B).
VI. Proposed Action and Request for
Public Comment
The EPA has reviewed the rules listed
in table 1 above and determined that
they were previously approved into the
applicable California SIP in error.
Deletion of these rules will not relax the
applicable SIP and is consistent with
the Act. Therefore, under section
110(k)(6) of the CAA, the EPA is
proposing to delete the rules listed in
table 1 above and any earlier versions of
these rules from the individual air
pollution control district portions of the
California SIP. These rules include
general nuisance provisions, Federal
NSPS or NESHAP requirements, hearing
board procedures, variance provisions,
and local fee provisions. We are also
proposing to make certain other
corrections to fix errors in previous
rulemakings on California SIP revisions
as described in section V above. We will
accept comments from the public on
this proposal until May 22, 2020.
VII. Incorporation by Reference
In this action, for the most part, the
EPA is proposing to delete rules that
were previously incorporated by
reference from the applicable California
SIP. However, we are also proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference of rules not previously
incorporated. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
certain San Diego County APCD and
Yolo-Solano AQMD rules, as described
in section V of this preamble. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available
electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
for more information).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
22392
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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 proposed action
merely corrects errors in previous
rulemakings 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Apr 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 30, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020–07531 Filed 4–21–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM
22APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22384-22392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07531]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0088; FRL-10007-55-Region 9]
Air Plan Revisions; California; Technical Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
delete various local rules from the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that were approved in error. These rules include general
nuisance provisions, Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
requirements, hearing board procedures, variance provisions, and local
fee provisions. The EPA has determined that the continued presence of
these rules in the SIP is inappropriate and potentially confusing and
thus problematic for affected sources, the state, local agencies, and
the EPA. The intended effect of this proposal is to delete these rules
to make the SIP consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). The
EPA is also proposing to make certain other corrections to address
errors made in previous actions taken by the EPA on California SIP
revisions.
DATE: Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0088 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Kevin
Gong, 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: Kevin Gong, Rules Office (AIR-3-2),
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-
3073, or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the SIP?
III. What is the EPA's authority to correct errors in SIP
rulemakings?
IV. Which rules are proposed for deletion?
V. What other corrections is the EPA proposing to make?
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
In this rulemaking, we address certain errors made over the years
in connection with EPA actions on SIP revisions for the various air
pollution control districts in California. In the first rule, published
at 84 FR 45422 (August 29, 2019), we addressed errors associated with
EPA actions on SIP revisions for the districts with names beginning
with the letter A through the letter O. This proposed action follows
the first action and addresses errors associated with EPA actions for
the rest of the districts, i.e., those with names beginning with the
letter P through the letter Z.
II. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the SIP?
The Clean Air Act was first enacted in 1970. In the 1970s and early
1980s, thousands of state and local agency regulations were submitted
to the EPA for incorporation into the SIP to fulfill the new Federal
requirements. In many cases, states submitted entire regulatory air
pollution programs, including many elements not required by the Act.
Due to time and resource constraints, the EPA's review of these
submittals focused primarily on the new substantive requirements, and
we approved many other elements into the SIP with minimal review. We
now recognize that many of these elements
[[Page 22385]]
were not appropriate for approval into the SIP. In general, these
elements are appropriate for state and local agencies to adopt and
implement, but it is not necessary or appropriate to make them
federally enforceable by incorporating them into the applicable SIP.
These include:
A. Rules that prohibit emissions causing general nuisance or
annoyance in the community.\1\ Such rules address local issues but have
essentially no connection to the purposes for which SIPs are developed
and approved, namely the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). See CAA section
110(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An example of such a rule is as follows: A person shall not
discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment,
nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to
the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety
of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural
tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Local adoption of federal NSPS or NESHAP requirements either by
reference or by adopting text identical to or modified from the
requirements found in 40 CFR part 60 (``Standards of Performances for
New Stationary Sources'') or 61 (``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants''). Because the EPA has independent authority
to implement 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, it is not appropriate to make
parallel local authorities federally enforceable by approving them into
the applicable SIP.
C. Rules that govern local hearing board procedures and other
administrative requirements such as fees, frequency of meetings,
salaries paid to board members, and procedures for petitioning for a
local hearing.
D. Variance provisions that provide for modification of the
requirements of the applicable SIP. State- or district-issued variances
provide an applicant with a mechanism to obtain relief from state
enforcement of a state or local rule under certain conditions. Pursuant
to Federal law, specifically section 110(i) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7410(i), neither the EPA nor a state may revise a SIP by issuing an
``order, suspension, plan revision or other action modifying any
requirement of an applicable implementation plan'' without a plan
promulgation or revision. The EPA and California have long recognized
that a state-issued variance, though binding as a matter of state law,
does not prevent the EPA from enforcing the underlying SIP provisions
unless and until the EPA approves that variance as a SIP revision. The
variance provisions included in today's action are deficient for
various reasons, including their failure to address the fact that a
state- or district-issued variance has no effect on federal
enforceability unless the variance is submitted to and approved by the
EPA as a SIP revision. Therefore, their inclusion in the SIP is
inconsistent with the Act and may be confusing to regulated industry
and the general public. Moreover, because state-issued variances
require independent EPA approval to modify the substantive requirements
of a SIP, removal of these variance provisions from the SIP will have
no effect on regulated entities. See Industrial Environmental
Association v. Browner, No. 97-71117 (9th Cir., May 26, 2000).
E. Local fee provisions that are not economic incentive programs
and are not designed to replace or relax a SIP emission limit. While it
is appropriate for local agencies to implement fee provisions, for
example, to recover costs for issuing permits, it is generally not
appropriate to make local fee collection federally enforceable.
III. What is the EPA's authority to correct erors in SIP rulemakings?
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, as amended in 1990, provides that,
whenever the EPA determines that the EPA's action approving,
disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part
thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification or
reclassification was in error, the EPA may in the same manner as the
approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as
appropriate without requiring any further submission from the state.
Such determination and the basis thereof must be provided to the state
and the public. We interpret this provision to authorize the EPA to
make corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown to our
satisfaction (or we discover) that (1) we clearly erred by failing to
consider or by inappropriately considering information made available
to the EPA at the time of the promulgation, or the information made
available at the time of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to
have been clearly inadequate, and (2) other information persuasively
supports a change in the regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763
(November 30, 1992) (correcting designations, boundaries, and
classifications of ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and lead
areas).
IV. Which rules are proposed for deletion?
The EPA has determined that the rules listed in table 1 below are
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP, but were previously approved
into the SIP in error. Dates that these rules were submitted by the
state and approved by the EPA are provided. We are proposing deletion
of these rules and any earlier versions of these rules from the
individual air pollution control district portions of the California
SIP under CAA section 110(k)(6) as inconsistent with the requirements
of CAA section 110.\2\ A brief discussion of the proposed deletions is
provided in the following paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The EPA has coordinated with the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) to identify district rules appropriate for deletion
from the California SIP. CARB has agreed that the deletion of the
rules in table 1 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6) is appropriate.
See letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Mike
Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, January 31, 2020.
Table 1--Local Air District Rules Proposed for Deletion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule or regulation Title Submittal date EPA approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Placer County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51........................... Nuisance............... February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 112............................. New Source Performance November 3, 1975....... 42 FR 28122 (June 2,
Standards. 1977); corrected at 42
FR 42219 (August 22,
1977).
[[Page 22386]]
Rule 113............................. National Emission November 3, 1975....... 42 FR 28122 (June 2,
Standards for 1977); corrected at 42
Hazardous Air FR 42219 (August 22,
Pollutants. 1977).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 51.............................. Nuisance............... June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno County APCD Rule 111.......... Arrests and Notices to October 23, 1974....... 42 FR 42219 (August 22,
Appear. 1977).
Fresno County APCD Rule 418.......... Nuisance............... June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Fresno County APCD Rule 419.......... Exception.............. June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Kings County APCD Rule 419........... Nuisance............... June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Kings County APCD Rule 420........... Exception.............. June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Madera County APCD Rule 418.......... Nuisance............... June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Madera County APCD Rule 419.......... Exception.............. June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Madera County APCD Rule 511.......... Notice of Hearing...... October 15, 1979....... 46 FR 60202 (December
9, 1981).
Merced County APCD Rule 418.......... Nuisance............... June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Merced County APCD Rule 419.......... Exception.............. June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Merced County APCD Rule 511.......... Notice of Hearing...... August 2, 1976......... 43 FR 25689 (June 14,
1978).
San Joaquin County APCD Rule 418..... Nuisance............... June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
San Joaquin County APCD Rule 419..... Exception.............. June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Stanislaus County APCD Rule 418...... Emissions in General... July 19, 1974.......... 42 FR 25501 (May 18,
1977); corrected at 42
FR 42219 (August 22,
1977).
Stanislaus County APCD Rule 419...... Exception.............. June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Stanislaus County APCD Rule 505...... Petitions for Variances July 19, 1974.......... 42 FR 25501 (May 18,
1977); corrected at 42
FR 42219 (August 22,
1977).
Tulare County APCD Section 419....... Nuisance............... June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
Tulare County APCD Section 420....... Exception.............. October 23, 1974....... 42 FR 42219 (August 22,
1977).
Tulare County APCD Section 507....... Supplemental February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
Information. 1972).
Tulare County APCD Section 508....... Matters Initiated by February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
Control Officer or 1972).
Hearing Board.
Tulare County APCD Section 515....... Record of Proceedings.. February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Luis Obispo County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 111............................. Nuisance............... February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Barbara County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 17.............................. Nuisance............... February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shasta County AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4:2............................. General................ November 21, 1986...... 54 FR 14648 (April 12,
1989).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siskiyou County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4.2............................. Nuisance............... February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972).
Rule 4.2-1........................... Exceptions............. March 23, 1988......... 54 FR 43174 (October
23, 1989).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orange County APCD Rule 45........... Permit Fees--Open June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
Burning. 22, 1972).
[[Page 22387]]
San Bernardino County APCD Rule 120.. Fees................... February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehama County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4:4............................. Nuisance............... February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuolumne County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 205............................. Nuisance............... July 22, 1975.......... 42 FR 42219 (August 22,
1977).
Rule 703............................. Contents of Petitions.. October 23, 1981....... 47 FR 23159 (May 27,
1982).
Rule 710............................. Notice of Public October 23, 1981....... 47 FR 23159 (May 27,
Hearing. 1982).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ventura County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 51.............................. Nuisance............... June 30, 1972.......... 37 FR 19812 (September
22, 1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yolo-Solano AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2.5............................. Nuisance............... February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972).
Rule 2.6............................. Additional Exception... February 21, 1972...... 37 FR 10842 (May 31,
1972).
Rule 5.1............................. Applicable Articles of June 22, 1978.......... 44 FR 5662 (January 29,
the Health and Safety 1979).
Code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Placer County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
Placer County APCD Section 51 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Section 51 was inappropriate for
inclusion in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In
this action, we are proposing to delete Section 51 from the Placer
County APCD portion of the California SIP.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rules 112 (New Source Performance
Standards) and 113 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants) require sources to comply with the applicable provisions of
the NSPS and NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61. Because the
EPA has independent authority to implement 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, it
was not appropriate to make parallel local authorities federally
enforceable by approving Rules 112 and 113 into the Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD portion of the California SIP. In this action, we are
proposing to delete Rules 112 and 113 from the Sacramento Metropolitan
AQMD portion of the California SIP.
San Diego County APCD
San Diego County APCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 51 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In this action,
we are proposing to delete Rule 51 from the San Diego County APCD
portion of the California SIP.
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD
Established in 1991, the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD unified
Fresno County APCD, Kern County APCD (San Joaquin Valley portion of
Kern County), Kings County APCD, Madera County APCD, Merced County
APCD, San Joaquin County APCD, Stanislaus County APCD, and Tulare
County APCD into a single unified APCD. The San Joaquin Valley Unified
APCD portion of the applicable California SIP continues to include
certain rules originally adopted by the individual county APCDs and
approved by the EPA prior to the establishment of the unified APCD. The
following individual county rules are general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rules, and were inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and,
thus, were approved by the EPA in error: Fresno County APCD Rule 418
(Nuisance), Kings County APCD Rule 419 (Nuisance), Madera County ACPD
Rule 418 (Nuisance), Merced County APCD Rule 418 (Nuisance), San
Joaquin County APCD Rule 418 (Nuisance), Stanislaus County APCD Rule
418 (Emissions in General) and Tulare County APCD Section 419
(Nuisance). The following individual county rules provide an exception
to the general nuisance rules cited above, and should be deleted if the
general nuisance rules are deleted: Fresno County APCD Rule 419
(Exception), Kings County APCD Rule 420 (Exception), Madera County ACPD
Rule 419 (Exception), Merced County APCD Rule 419 (Exception), San
Joaquin County APCD Rule 419 (Exception), Stanislaus County APCD Rule
419 (Exception) and Tulare County APCD Section 420 (Exception).
In addition, Madera County APCD Rule 511 (Notice of Hearing),
Merced County APCD Rule 511 (Notice of Hearing), Stanislaus County APCD
Rule 505 (Petitions for Variances) and Tulare County APCD Sections 507
(Supplemental Information), 508 (Matters Initiated by Control Officer
or Hearing Board) and 515 (Record of Proceedings) relate to hearing
board procedures, and as such, were inappropriate for inclusion in the
SIP and were thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are
proposing to delete the above county rules from the San Joaquin Valley
Unified APCD portion of the California SIP.
Lastly, at 66 FR 47603, at 47608-47609 (September 13, 2001), the
EPA proposed to delete Fresno County APCD Rule 111 (Arrests and Notices
to Appear), submitted on June 4, 1986, along with all the other county
rules titled ``Arrests and Notices to Appear.'' At 67 FR 2573 (January
18, 2002), the EPA finalized the deletion of the other county rules
titled ``Arrests and Notices to Appear'' but did not finalize the
deletion of Fresno County Rule 111 because we realized that the June 4,
1986 version of Rule 111 was not approved into the SIP. See 67 FR 2573,
at 2575 (January 18, 2002). In this action, we are proposing to delete
the version of Fresno County Rule 111
[[Page 22388]]
(Arrests and Notices to Appear) that is part of the applicable
California SIP, i.e., the version of Fresno County APCD Rule 111 that
was submitted on October 23, 1974, and approved at 42 FR 42219 (August
22, 1977), to be consistent with our action on the other corresponding
county rules.
San Luis Obispo County APCD
San Luis Obispo County APCD Rule 111 (Nuisance) is a general-
nuisance type of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 111 was inappropriate
for inclusion in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error.
In this action, we are proposing to delete Rule 111 from the San Luis
Obispo County APCD portion of the California SIP.
Santa Barbara County APCD
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 17 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance
type of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 17 was inappropriate for
inclusion in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In
this action, we are proposing to delete Rule 17 from the Santa Barbara
County APCD portion of the California SIP.
Shasta County AQMD
Shasta County AQMD Rule 4:2 (General) relates to hearing board
procedures, and as such, was inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and
was thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are proposing
to delete Rule 4:2 from the Shasta County AQMD portion of the
California SIP.
Siskiyou County APCD
Siskiyou County APCD Rule 4.2 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4.2 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Siskiyou County
APCD Rule 4.2-1 (Exceptions) provides an exception to Rule 4.2 and
should be deleted if Rule 4.2 is deleted. In this action, we are
proposing to delete Rules 4.2 and 4.2-1 from the Siskiyou County APCD
portion of the California SIP.
South Coast AQMD
The South Coast AQMD includes all of Orange County, the non-desert
portions of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, and all of
Riverside County (except for the Palo Verde Valley in far eastern
Riverside County). In 1972, when the original California SIP was
submitted and approved by EPA, the Los Angeles County APCD, Orange
County APCD, Riverside County APCD and San Bernardino County APCD each
had jurisdiction over stationary sources within their respective
counties. On July 16, 1975, the Los Angeles County APCD, Orange County
APCD, Riverside County APCD, and San Bernardino County APCD were
unified into the Southern California APCD. On February 1, 1977, the
State of California split the Southern California APCD into the South
Coast AQMD in the western coastal area (including Orange County, and
the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino
Counties, referred to as the ``South Coast Air Basin'') and three
separate APCDs (i.e., Los Angeles County APCD, San Bernardino County
APCD, and Riverside County APCD, included within the ``Southeast Desert
Air Basin''), formed out of the remaining parts of three counties in
the eastern desert area. See 43 FR 25684 (June 14, 1978). The Southeast
Desert portion of Riverside County was added to the South Coast AQMD on
December 1, 1977. On July 1, 1994, the Palo Verde Valley area of
Riverside County left the South Coast AQMD and joined the Mojave Desert
AQMD.
Certain rules adopted by the original county-based APCDs remain
part of the applicable SIP for the South Coast AQMD (i.e., have not
been deleted or superseded by EPA-approved rules adopted by the
Southern California APCD or South Coast AQMD), including Orange County
APCD Rule 45 (Permit Fees--Open Burning) and San Bernardino County APCD
Rule 120 (Fees). Orange County APCD Rule 45 and San Bernardino County
APCD Rule 120 are local fee provisions that were not appropriate for
inclusion in the SIP, and thus, were approved by the EPA in error. In
this action, we are proposing to delete Orange County APCD Rule 45 and
San Bernardino County APCD Rule 120 from the South Coast AQMD portion
of the California SIP.
Tehama County APCD
Tehama County APCD Rule 4:4 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4:4 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In this action,
we are proposing to delete Rule 4:4 from the Tehama County APCD portion
of the California SIP.
Tuolumne County APCD
Tuolumne County APCD Rule 205 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 205 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Tuolumne County
APCD Rules 703 (Contents of Petitions) and 710 (Notice of Public
Hearing) relate to hearing board procedures, and as such, were
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and were thus approved by the
EPA in error. In this action, we are proposing to delete Rules 205, 703
and 710 from the Tuolumne County APCD portion of the California SIP.
Ventura County APCD
Ventura County APCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 51 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In this action,
we are proposing to delete Rule 51 from the Ventura County APCD portion
of the California SIP.
Yolo-Solano AQMD
Yolo Solano AQMD Rule 2.5 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 2.5 was inappropriate for inclusion in
the SIP, and thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Yolo-Solano AQMD
Rule 2.6 (Additional Exception) provides an exception to Rule 2.5 and
should be deleted if Rule 2.5 is deleted. Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 5.1
(Applicable Articles of the Health and Safety Code) relates to hearing
board procedures, and as such, was inappropriate for inclusion in the
SIP and was thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are
proposing to delete Rules 2.5, 2.6 and 5.1 from the Yolo-Solano AQMD
portion of the California SIP.
V. What other corrections is the EPA proposing to make?
The EPA is also proposing certain error corrections not because the
rules were originally approved into the SIP in error but because of
other types of errors made in the course of the SIP rulemaking action.
Each such proposal is described in the following paragraphs.
Placer County APCD
Publisher's Error in Connection with Approval of Rule 243
(Polyester Resin Operations): On October 3, 2011 (76 FR 61057), the EPA
approved Placer County Rule 243 (Polyester Resin Operations), as
submitted on December 7, 2010, and the amendatory instructions listed
the approval of Rule 243 correctly at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(389)(i)(B)(1).
However, due to a publisher's error, the approval of Placer County APCD
Rule 243 is listed at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(390)(i)(B)(1). We are proposing
to correct this error by amending the two paragraphs in 40 CFR
52.220(c) accordingly.
San Diego County APCD
Erroneous Listing of Certain Rules as San Diego County APCD Rules:
On June
[[Page 22389]]
2, 1977 (42 FR 28122), the EPA took final action to approve Rules 112
and 113 adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD and codified the
approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B). On August 22, 1977 (42 FR
42219), the EPA redesignated the paragraph listing the approval of
Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rules 112 and 113 to 40 CFR
52.220(c)(29)(ii)(B) but failed to delete 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B).
See 42 FR 42219, at 42225 (August 22, 1977). Paragraph 40 CFR
52.220(c)(29)(v) lists EPA-approved rules adopted by the San Diego
County APCD, and the failure to delete 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B) makes
it appear that Rules 112 and 113 are part of the San Diego County APCD
portion of the applicable SIP but, as explained herein, they are not.
Today, we are proposing to delete 40 CFR 52.220(c)(29)(v)(B).
Failure to Codify Approval of Amendments to San Diego County APCD
Rule 20.1: On July 6, 1982 (47 FR 29231), the EPA took final action to
approve certain rules adopted by the San Diego County APCD, including
amendments to Rule 20.1 (Definitions, Emission Calculations, Emission
Offsets and Banking, Exemptions, and Other Requirements), submitted on
January 28, 1981. However, we failed to codify the approval of Rule
20.1 at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(98)(xi), the subsection listing San Diego
County APCD rules submitted on January 28, 1981 and approved by the
EPA. We propose to do so in today's action. We note that the amendments
to Rule 20.1 that were approved on July 6, 1982, were recently
superseded in the applicable San Diego County APCD portion of the
California SIP by approval of a further amended version of Rule 20.1
(New Source Review--General Provisions) at 83 FR 50007 (October 4,
2018).
Publisher's Error Deleting Codification of Approval of San Diego
County APCD Rule 67.0: On June 30, 1993 (58 FR 34904), the EPA took
final action to approve San Diego County Rule 67.0 (Architectural
Coatings), adopted on December 4, 1990, as a revision to the California
SIP. We codified the approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(184)(i)(D)(1) but
failed to include introductory text identifying the San Diego County
APCD as the relevant air pollution control agency associated with Rule
67.0. On August 4, 2000 (65 FR 47862), we added introductory text
identifying San Diego County APCD at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(184)(i)(D) but,
due to a publisher's error, the regulatory text listing the approval of
Rule 67.0 was erroneously deleted. While the December 4, 1990 version
of San Diego County APCD Rule 67.0 has since been superseded in the
applicable California SIP, we propose to re-instate 40 CFR
52.220(c)(184)(i)(D)(1) to maintain an accurate accounting of the
version of Rule 67.0 that applied for federal enforcement purposes at
different times in the past.
Erroneous Codification of Approval of San Diego County APCD Rule
67.11: On April 11, 2013 (78 FR 21537), the EPA took final action to
approve San Diego County APCD Rule 67.11 (Wood Products Coating
Operations), submitted on September 21, 2012. We erroneously codified
the approval of Rule 67.11 at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(307), which lists
approved rules submitted on November 19, 2002. We propose to
redesignate the paragraph listing the approval of Rule 67.11 from 40
CFR 52.220(c)(307) to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(423), which lists approved rules
submitted on September 21, 2012.
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD
Failure to Include Introductory Text for Approval of Rules
Submitted on May 13, 1980, including Fresno County APCD Rules 410,
411.1 and 416.1: On May 13, 1980, the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) submitted certain amended rules to the EPA as a revision to the
California SIP, including Fresno County Rules 410 (Storage of Organic
Liquids), 411.1 (Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks--Phase
II) and 416.1 (Agricultural Burning). We codified our approval of the
rules submitted on May 13, 1980, at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(83), see, e.g., 47
FR 29668 (July 8, 1982) (Approval of Fresno County APCD Rule 410) and
46 FR 60202 (December 9, 1981) (Approval of Fresno County APCD Rules
411.1 and 416.1), but inadvertently failed to identify the submittal
date and, in two instances, failed to identify the applicable air
pollution control district for the approved rules as the Bay Area AQMD
and the Fresno County APCD, respectively. In this action, we propose to
add introductory text to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(83) specifying a submittal
date of May 13, 1980, and to properly designate subparagraph (i) as the
Bay Area AQMD and subparagraph (iii) as the Fresno County APCD.
Publisher's Error in Connection with Supersession of San Joaquin
County APCD Rules 413.2 and 413.3: On September 23, 2010 (75 FR 57862),
the EPA approved San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Rules 4453 (Refinery
Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems) and 4454 (Refinery Process Unit
Turnaround) and codified the supersession of the relevant county-level
APCD SIP rules, including San Joaquin County APCD Rules 413.2 (Refinery
Vacuum Producing Devices) and 413.3 (Refinery Process Unit Turnaround)
in the existing SIP. The codification of the supersession of San
Joaquin County APCD Rules 413.2 and 413.3 was intended to be published
at paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vii), which lists San Joaquin County
APCD rules, but, due to a publisher's error, it was published instead
at paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vi), which lists rules adopted by
Merced County APCD. In this action, we propose to redesignate paragraph
40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vi)(D) as paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(vii)(D)
to correct this error.
Erroneous Amendatory Instruction Related to Approval of San Joaquin
County APCD Rules 409.7 and 409.8: On June 18, 1982 (47 FR 26384), the
EPA took final action to approve certain regulations adopted by the San
Joaquin County APCD, including Rules 409.7 (Graphic Arts) and 409.8
(Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Systems), submitted on July 14, 1981.
Due to erroneous amendatory instructions, the approval of San Joaquin
County APCD Rules 409.7 and 409.8 was published as subparagraph (B)
under paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(102)(ii), which lists rules adopted by
the Stanislaus County APCD, instead of subparagraph (B) under paragraph
40 CFR 52.220(c)(102)(i), which lists rules adopted by the San Joaquin
County APCD. In this action, we propose to redesignate paragraph 40 CFR
52.220(c)(102)(ii)(B) as 40 CFR 52.220(c)(102)(i)(B) to correct this
error.
Santa Barbara County APCD
Erroneous Codification of Approval of Santa Barbara County APCD
Rule 337: On April 11, 2013 (78 FR 21537), the EPA took final action to
approve Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 337 (Surface Coating of
Aerospace Vehicles and Components), submitted on September 21, 2012. We
erroneously codified the approval of Rule 337 at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(214),
which lists approved rules submitted on January 24, 1995. We propose to
redesignate the paragraph listing the approval of Rule 337 from 40 CFR
52.220(c)(214) to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(423), which lists approved rules
submitted on September 21, 2012.
Inadvertent Failure to Add Introductory Text in Connection with
Approval of Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 316: On August 30, 1993 (58
FR 45442), the EPA took final action to approve Santa Barbara County
APCD Rule 316 (Storage and Transfer of Gasoline), submitted on April 5,
1991, and codified the approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(183)(i)(E)(2) but
inadvertently
[[Page 22390]]
failed to add introductory text identifying Santa Barbara County APCD
as the applicable air district for approved rules listed under
paragraph (E). In this action, we propose to revise 40 CFR
52.220(c)(i)(E) to add ``Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control
District'' to clarify the applicability of Rule 316 listed in
subparagraph (E)(2).
Shasta County AQMD
Typographical Error in Connection with Deletion of Shasta County
AQMD Rule 2:19: On January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3045, at 3053), the EPA
proposed to delete various local rules from the California SIP,
including a Shasta County AQMD rule titled ``Change in Multi-Component
System.'' However, due to a typographical error, the rule titled
``Change in Multi-Component System'' was identified as Rule 2:22. The
correct rule number is Rule 2:19. On November 16, 2004 (69 FR 67062),
the EPA took final action to delete the rule and carried forward the
typographical error in regulatory text found at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(6)(xxiii)(A). We are proposing in this action to correct the
regulatory text at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(6)(xxiii)(A) to indicate that
Shasta County AQMD Rule 2:19, rather than Rule 2:22, has been deleted
without replacement.
Siskiyou County APCD
Typographical Error in Connection with Approval of Siskiyou County
APCD Rules Submitted on March 18, 1987: On April 12, 1989 (54 FR
14648), the EPA took final action to approve certain Siskiyou County
APCD rules submitted on March 18, 1987. We codified the approval at 40
CFR 52.220(c)(172) but, due to a typographical error, listed the
submittal date as ``March 11, 1987,'' instead of the correct date of
March 18, 1987. We are proposing in this action to correct the
regulatory text at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(172) to identify ``March 18, 1987''
as the submittal date for the rules listed under that paragraph.
South Coast AQMD
Rescission of Orange County APCD Regulation VI (Orchard or Citrus
Grove Heaters): Orange County APCD Regulation VI includes the following
rules: Rule 100 (Definitions), Rule 101 (Use and Sale of Orchard
Heaters), Rule 102 (Permit Required), Rule 103 (Transfer of Permits),
Rule 105 (Application for Permits), Rule 106 (Action on Applications),
Rule 107 (Standards for Granting Permits), Rule 108 (Conditional
Approval), Rule 109 (Denial of Applications), Rule 110 (Appeals), Rule
120 (Fees), Rule 122 (Classification of Orchard Heaters), Rule 123
(Class I Heaters Designated--Permits), Rule 124 (Class II Heaters
Designated--Permits), Rule 126 (Identification of Heaters), Rule 127
(Maintenance of Heaters), Rule 128 (Classification of Undesignated
Heaters) and Rule 130 (Prohibitions). California submitted Orange
County APCD Regulation VI on February 21, 1972, and the EPA approved
the regulation on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). On June 30, 1972,
California submitted an amended definition in Rule 100 and submitted
amended versions of Rules 101 and 102, and the EPA approved the
amendments on September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812). Rule 120 was deleted
without replacement at 67 FR 2573 (January 18, 2002), but the other
Regulation VI rules remain in the SIP.
In an action affecting the South Coast AQMD published at 43 FR
25684 (June 14, 1978), the EPA indicated: ``The changes to Regulation
VI, Orchard Grove Heaters, contained in the above mentioned submittals
and being acted upon by this notice include total replacement of county
rules by California Health and Safety Code sections covering Orchard
Heaters.'' 43 FR at 25685. However, the regulatory text deleting
Regulation VI without replacement was not included in the final rule,
and thus, Orange County APCD Regulation VI remains part of the
applicable SIP.\3\ In this action, we are proposing to add regulatory
text deleting Orange County Regulation VI, as approved on May 31, 1972
and September 22, 1972, consistent with our action as described in the
preamble to the June 14, 1978 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In contrast, in a September 8, 1978 final rule, the EPA
included similar preamble text concerning an analogous Regulation VI
adopted by Los Angeles County APCD and Riverside County APCD, but
added specific regulatory text to delete Regulation VI in the
Southeast Desert portions of Los Angeles County and Riverside
County. See 43 FR 40011, at 40012 and 40014 (September 8, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehama County APCD
Publisher's Error in Connection with Deletion without Replacement
of San Diego County APCD Rule 41: On June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34641), the
EPA took final action to delete without replacement certain district
rules that had been approved in error, including San Diego County APCD
Rule 41 (Annual Permit Renewal Fees), which was submitted on July 25,
1973 and approved on May 11, 1977. The amendatory instructions in the
June 27, 1997 final rule called for publishing the corresponding
regulatory text at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(21)(vi)(B), which relates to San
Diego County APCD rules; however, due to a publisher's error, the
corresponding regulatory text was published at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(21)(vii)(B), which sets forth regulatory text for Tehama
County APCD rules. On March 23, 1999 (64 FR 13916), the missing
paragraph (40 CFR 52.220(c)(21)(vi)(B)) was added but the erroneous
publication at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(21)(vii)(B) was left in place. In this
action, we propose to remove 40 CFR 52.220(c)(21)(vii)(B) from the CFR.
Tuolumne County APCD
Reinstatement of Tuolumne County APCD Rule 516 (Excluding Paragraph
(C)): On June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34641), the EPA took final action to
correct certain errors in previous actions on SIPs and SIP revisions by
deleting without replacement the affected local rules. With respect to
a rule that was adopted by the Tuolumne County APCD, submitted by
California on October 23, 1981, and approved by the EPA on May 27, 1982
(47 FR 23159), we added a paragraph, i.e., (c)(103)(xvii)(B), to 40 CFR
52.220 (Identification of plan) that states: ``Previously approved on
May 27, 1982 and now deleted without replacement Rule 516.'' 62 FR at
34647. However, in our proposed error correction, 61 FR 38664, at 38680
(July 25, 1996), we indicated that the rule we intended to delete was
Rule 516 (``Emergency Variance Procedures''), but the correct title of
Rule 516 is ``Upset and Breakdown Conditions,'' and ``Emergency
Variance Procedures'' is the title of one of the paragraphs, i.e.,
paragraph (C), of Rule 516. Thus, we intended to delete only paragraph
(C) of Rule 516 but erroneously indicated in the final rule that we
were deleting without replacement the entire rule. Accordingly, we
propose to amend paragraph (c)(103)(xvii)(B) to refer only to paragraph
(C) of Rule 516.
Ventura County APCD
Erroneous Regulatory Text for Approval of Rescission of Ventura
County APCD Rule 18: On December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76567), the EPA took
final action approving certain rules and rule rescissions adopted by
the Ventura County APCD establishing procedures and criteria for
issuing permits to new or modified stationary sources, including the
rescission of Rule 18 (Permit to Operate--Application Required for
Existing Equipment). The specific version of Rule 18 for which we
approved rescission was submitted on June 30, 1972 and approved on
September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812); however, we erroneously added the
corresponding regulatory text to 40 CFR 52.220(b), which lists rules
submitted on February 21, 1972 and approved on
[[Page 22391]]
May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). The regulatory text belongs under 40 CFR
52.220(c)(6)(xxiv). In this action, we propose to redesignate the
regulatory text accordingly.
Inadvertent Failure to Include Introductory Text for Approval of
Ventura County APCD Rule 74.6: On July 1, 1982 (47 FR 28617), the EPA
took final action to approve Ventura County APCD Rule 74.6 (Surface
Cleaning and Degreasing). In our final rule, we codified our approval
of Rule 74.6 at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(82)(i)(A) but inadvertently failed to
add introductory text specifying the date of submittal. In this action,
we propose to add introductory text to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(82) specifying
a submittal date of May 1, 1980.
Inadvertent Failure to Remove Listing of Sacramento Metropolitan
AQMD Rules 70, 73, 96 and 111 from Paragraph Listing Ventura County
APCD Rules: Rules 70, 73, 96 and 111 are among a set of Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD rules that were approved at 42 FR 28122 (June 2,
1977); corrected at 42 FR 42219 (August 22, 1977). In the June 2, 1977
action, the EPA codified the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD rules on
which the Agency was taking action at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(24)(x)(A)-(E).
The August 22, 1977 action corrected the list of Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD rules for which the EPA had taken action and
recodified the action at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(24)(viii)(A). The August 22,
1977 inadvertently failed to delete the original codification of the
action on the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD rules at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(24)(x). Since then, the EPA has taken action on certain
Ventura County APCD rules and codified those actions at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(24)(x)(A) and (B), but subparagraphs (C)-(E) remain in the
CFR and now appear as if they are Ventura County APCD rules. In this
action, we are proposing to remove and reserve subparagraphs (C)-(E)
under 40 CFR 52.220(c)(24)(x).
Inadvertent Failure to Codify Approval of Rescission of Ventura
County APCD Rule 74.6.3: The EPA approved certain rules adopted by the
Ventura County APCD, including Rule 74.6.3 (Conveyorized Degreasers) at
65 FR 45294 (July 21, 2000). We codified our approval of these rules at
40 CFR 52.220(c)(241)(i)(C). On October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61561), we
approved revisions to certain Ventura County APCD rules, including the
rescission of Rule 74.6.3. In the October 25, 2005 direct final rule,
we explained that Rule 74.6.3 was being rescinded because there are
currently no conveyorized degreasers operating in Ventura County. 70 FR
61561, at 61562. However, we inadvertently failed to codify the
rescission of Rule 74.6.3 in the regulatory portion of the final rule.
In this action, we are proposing to add regulatory text to codify our
approval of the rescission of Rule 74.6.3 by adding a paragraph to that
effect at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(241)(i)(C).
Yolo-Solano AQMD
Publisher's Error in Connection with Approval of Yolo-Solano AQMD
Rules Submitted on February 25, 1980: On June 18, 1982 (47 FR 26379),
the EPA took direct final action to approve certain revisions to the
Yolo-Solano AQMD portion of the California SIP. In the direct final
rule, we approved Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules 3.4.1 (Standards for Granting
Applications), 3.4.2 (Conditional Approval), and 3.13 (Public Review
and Comment for Application for Authority to Construct) and codified
the approval at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(54)(iv)(C). However, due to a
publisher's error, the codification of the approval of the three rules
was repeated at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(54)(v)(C) as if they were rules
adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. We are proposing to delete
the erroneous regulatory text now found at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(54)(v)(C).
Inadvertent Failure to Codify Approval of Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules
3.4.1 and 3.4.2: On June 18, 1982 (47 FR 26379), the EPA took direct
final action to approve certain revisions to the Yolo-Solano AQMD
portion of the California SIP. In the direct final rule, we approved
Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules 3.4.1 (Standards for Granting Applications),
3.4.2 (Conditional Approval), and 3.13 (Public Review and Comment for
Application for Authority to Construct) and codified the approval at 40
CFR 52.220(c)(54)(iv)(C). However, in response to the direct final
rule, we received adverse comment concerning our approval of Rules
3.4.1 and 3.4.2, and on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 28988), we withdrew their
approval. Later than year, we took final action to approve Rules 3.4.1
and 3.4.2 after consideration of public comment, 48 FR 52712 (November
22, 1983), but failed to add corresponding regulatory text in 40 CFR
52.220(c)(54)(iv). In this action, we propose to add a new paragraph,
40 CFR 52.220(c)(54)(iv)(E), codifying our 1983 approval of Yolo-Solano
AQMD Rules 3.4.1 and 3.4.2.
Publisher's Error in Connection with Yolo-Solano AQMD Rules
Submitted on October 15, 1979: On December 9, 1981 (46 FR 60202), the
EPA took final action to approve certain revisions to the Fresno County
APCD portion of the California SIP that had been submitted on October
15, 1979, including Rules 301 (Permit Fees), 302 (Permit Fee Schedules)
and 305 (Hearing Board Fees). We codified the approval of these Fresno
County APCD rules at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(xv)(B). However, due to a
publisher's error, the codification of the approval of the three rules
was repeated at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(xix)(B) as if they were rules
adopted by the Yolo-Solano AQMD. We are proposing to delete the
erroneous regulatory text now found at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(52)(xix)(B).
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
The EPA has reviewed the rules listed in table 1 above and
determined that they were previously approved into the applicable
California SIP in error. Deletion of these rules will not relax the
applicable SIP and is consistent with the Act. Therefore, under section
110(k)(6) of the CAA, the EPA is proposing to delete the rules listed
in table 1 above and any earlier versions of these rules from the
individual air pollution control district portions of the California
SIP. These rules include general nuisance provisions, Federal NSPS or
NESHAP requirements, hearing board procedures, variance provisions, and
local fee provisions. We are also proposing to make certain other
corrections to fix errors in previous rulemakings on California SIP
revisions as described in section V above. We will accept comments from
the public on this proposal until May 22, 2020.
VII. Incorporation by Reference
In this action, for the most part, the EPA is proposing to delete
rules that were previously incorporated by reference from the
applicable California SIP. However, we are also proposing to include in
a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by
reference of rules not previously incorporated. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference certain San Diego County APCD and Yolo-Solano AQMD rules, as
described in section V of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA
office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more
information).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
[[Page 22392]]
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 proposed action merely corrects errors in previous
rulemakings 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 30, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-07531 Filed 4-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
