Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone, 16533-16538 [2021-06110]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations. This action merely
disapproves a SIP submission as not
meeting the CAA.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
L. Judicial Review
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Visibility transport.
Dated: March 19, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
15:52 Mar 29, 2021
2. Amend § 52.2304 by revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2304
Visibility protection.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Portions of SIPs addressing
noninterference with measures required
to protect visibility in any other state are
disapproved for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, 2012 PM2.5, and 2015
ozone NAAQS.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–06135 Filed 3–29–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0096; FRL–10015–
36–Region 9]
Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; California;
Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 1, 2021. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Subpart SS—Texas
Jkt 253001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
partially approve and partially
disapprove the state implementation
plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of California pursuant to the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘Act’’) for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
2015 national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for
ozone. Specifically, the EPA is
approving the SIP revision for all
elements except those that relate to
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD). EPA is partially approving and
partially disapproving three elements of
the SIP revision due to PSD deficiencies
in certain air pollution control or air
quality management districts (APCD,
AQMD, or ‘‘district’’). The disapprovals
will not create any new consequences
for these districts or the EPA as the
districts are already subject to the EPA’s
federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21.
As part of this action, we are also
reclassifying certain regions of the State
for emergency episode planning
purposes with respect to ozone. We are
also approving into the SIP two updated
state provisions addressing CAA
conflict of interest requirements for the
entire state, and emergency episode
plans for the Amador County APCD,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16533
Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa
County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD,
and Tuolumne County APCD. Finally,
we are approving an exemption from
emergency episode planning
requirements for ozone for the Lake
County AQMD.
DATES: This rule is effective April 29,
2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0096. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information. If
you need assistance in a language other
than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panah Stauffer, Air Planning Office
(AIR–2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
972–3247, or by email at
stauffer.panah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Statutory Requirements
B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final Rule
C. California’s Submittals
D. EPA’s Proposal
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
A. Partial Approvals and Partial
Disapprovals
B. Approval of Updated California Code of
Regulations Provisions
C. Approval of Reclassification Requests
for Emergency Episode Planning
D. Approval of Emergency Episode
Contingency Plans
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
each state to submit to the EPA, within
three years after the promulgation of a
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
16534
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
primary or secondary NAAQS or any
revision thereof, a SIP revision that
provides for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of such
NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains
the infrastructure SIP requirements,
which generally relate to the
information, authorities, compliance
assurances, procedural requirements,
and control measures that constitute the
‘‘infrastructure’’ of a state’s air quality
management program. These
infrastructure SIP requirements (or
‘‘elements’’) required by section
110(a)(2) are as follows:
• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission
limits and other control measures.
• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air
quality monitoring/data system.
• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for
enforcement of control measures and
regulation of new and modified
stationary sources.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate
pollution transport.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate
pollution abatement and international
air pollution.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate
resources and authority, conflict of
interest, and oversight of local and
regional government agencies.
• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary
source monitoring and reporting.
• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency
episodes.
• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation
with government officials, public
notification, prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD), and visibility
protection.
• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality
modeling and submittal of modeling
data.
• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting
fees.
• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/
participation by affected local entities.
Two elements identified in section
110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submittal deadline of section
110(a)(1) and are therefore not
addressed in this action. These two
elements are: (i) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to
the extent it refers to permit programs
required under part D (nonattainment
new source review (NSR)), and (ii)
section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the
nonattainment planning requirements of
part D. As a result, this action does not
address requirements for the
nonattainment NSR portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section
110(a)(2)(I).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final
Rule
Ground-level ozone pollution is
formed from the reaction of volatile
organic compounds and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of
sunlight. These two pollutants, referred
to as ozone precursors, are emitted by
many types of sources, including on-and
off-road motor vehicles and engines,
power plants and industrial facilities,
and smaller area sources such as lawn
and garden equipment and paints.
Scientific evidence indicates that
adverse public health effects occur
following exposure to elevated levels of
ozone, particularly in children and
adults with lung disease. Breathing air
containing ozone can reduce lung
function and inflame airways, which
can increase respiratory symptoms and
aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.
On October 26, 2015, the EPA
promulgated a revised NAAQS for
ozone.1 The EPA had previously
promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979,
1997 and 2008. The 2015 ozone NAAQS
revised the level of the standards to
0.070 parts per million (ppm) averaged
across eight hours.
C. California’s Submittals
In California, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB or ‘‘State’’) is
the state agency responsible for the
adoption of California SIPs and SIP
revisions and submission to the EPA.
CARB submitted its infrastructure SIP
revision (‘‘2018 Infrastructure SIP’’ or
‘‘California’s 2018 Submittal’’) for the
2015 ozone NAAQS on October 1,
2018.2
On June 25, 2020, CARB
supplemented its 2018 Infrastructure
SIP by submitting ozone emergency
episode contingency plans for San Luis
Obispo County APCD, Amador County
APCD, Calaveras County APCD,
Mariposa County APCD, Northern Sierra
AQMD, and Tuolumne County APCD.3
It also submitted an exemption request
from emergency episode planning
requirements for Lake County AQMD
based on that District’s attainment
status. This submittal (‘‘California’s
2020 Submittal’’) addresses CAA section
1 80
FR 65292.
dated October 1, 2018, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
3 Letter dated June 16, 2020, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, with Ozone
Emergency Episode Plans for Amador County, San
Luis Obispo County, Northern Sierra, Tuolumne
County, Mariposa County, and Calaveras County
and Exemption Request for Lake County.
2 Letter
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
110(a)(2)(G) requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
We refer to these submittals
collectively herein as ‘‘California’s
Infrastructure SIP Submittals.’’
D. EPA’s Proposal
On October 16, 2020, we proposed to
partially approve and partially
disapprove California’s Infrastructure
SIP Submittals.4 Specifically, we
proposed to approve the submittals for
the requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(B), 110(a)(2)(E),
110(a)(2)(F), 110(a)(2)(G), 110(a)(2)(H),
110(a)(2)(K), 110(a)(2)(L), and
110(a)(2)(M). We also proposed to
partially approve and partially
disapprove the submittal for CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D), and
110(a)(2)(J) due to PSD program
deficiencies in certain air districts.
These partial disapprovals will not
create any new consequences for these
districts or the EPA as the districts are
already subject to the EPA’s federal PSD
program at 40 CFR 52.21. They will also
not create any new highway sanctions,
which are not triggered by disapprovals
of infrastructure SIPs. Today’s rule
finalizes the October 16, 2020 proposal
in its entirety.
At this time, the EPA is not acting on
the interstate transport requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which prohibit
emission sources from contributing
significantly to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The EPA will
propose action on the interstate
transport requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS in a separate rulemaking.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 30-day public comment period that
ended on November 16, 2020. During
this period, the EPA received one
comment from an anonymous
commenter.5 The comment is not
relevant to the EPA’s action.
III. Final Action
A. Partial Approvals and Partial
Disapprovals
Under CAA section 110(a), we are
partially approving and partially
disapproving California’s Infrastructure
SIP submittals for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Specifically, we are approving
the submittal for the requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(B),
110(a)(2)(E), 110(a)(2)(F), 110(a)(2)(G),s
110(a)(2)(H), 110(a)(2)(K), 110(a)(2)(L),
4 85
FR 65755.
comment letter is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
5 The
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
and 110(a)(2)(M). We are also partially
approving and partially disapproving
the submittal for CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D), and
110(a)(2)(J) due to PSD program
deficiencies in Amador, Antelope
Valley, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado,
Glenn, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa,
Mendocino, Modoc, Mojave Desert,
North Coast, Northern Sierra, Northern
Sonoma, Sacramento Metro, San Diego,
Shasta, Siskiyou, South Coast, Tehama,
and Tuolumne air districts. These
partial disapprovals will not create any
new consequences as the air districts
with PSD deficiencies are already
subject to PSD federal implementation
plans (FIPs).
At this time, EPA is not acting on the
interstate transport requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which prohibit
emission sources from contributing
significantly to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The EPA will
propose action on the interstate
transport requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS in a separate rulemaking.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
B. Approval of Updated California Code
of Regulations Provisions
California’s Infrastructure SIP
Submittals included an updated version
of the California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Title 2, section 18700, which
maintains the key provisions of that
section and also incorporates language
in CCR, Title 2, section 18701 that the
EPA previously approved into the SIP to
meet the conflict of interest
requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. It also included
an updated version of CCR, Title 2,
section 18701. We proposed to approve
the updated versions of CCR, Title 2,
sections 18700 and 18701 into the SIP
in our October 16, 2020 rulemaking.
These updated provisions continue to
meet the conflict of interest
requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. We are
finalizing approval, as proposed, of
these updated provisions with this
action.
C. Approval of Reclassification Requests
for Emergency Episode Planning
In its 2018 submittal, CARB requested
that the EPA reclassify three air quality
control regions (AQCRs) with respect to
the emergency episode planning
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart
H, as applicable to ozone.6 The air
6 In our proposed rulemaking, we inadvertently
stated that CARB requested to re-classify the AQCRs
for NO2 and SO2. CARB did not make such a
request in either of its submittals for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS and we did not propose to re-classify the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
quality tests for classifying AQCRs are
prescribed in 40 CFR 51.150 and are
pollutant-specific (e.g., ozone) rather
than being specific to any given NAAQS
(e.g., 1997 ozone NAAQS). Consistent
with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.153,
reclassification of AQCRs must rely on
the most recent three years of air quality
data. For ozone, an AQCR with a 1-hour
ozone level greater than 0.10 ppm over
the most recent three-year period must
be classified Priority I, while all other
areas are classified Priority III. AQCRs
that are classified Priority I are required
to have SIP-approved emergency
episode contingency plans, while those
classified Priority III are not required to
have such plans, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.151 and 51.152. We interpret 40 CFR
51.153 as establishing the means for
states to review air quality data and
request a higher or lower classification
for any given region and as providing
the regulatory basis for the EPA to
reclassify such regions, as appropriate,
under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(G) and
301(a)(1).
On the basis of California’s ambient
air quality data for 2015–2017, we are
finalizing approval, as proposed, of
California’s request to reclassify Lake
County, North Central Coast, and South
Central Coast to Priority I areas for
ozone.
D. Approval of Emergency Episode
Contingency Plans
To meet the requirements of CAA
110(a)(2)(G), California’s 2020 Submittal
included the ozone emergency episode
contingency plans for Amador County
APCD, San Luis Obispo County APCD,
Northern Sierra AQMD, Tuolumne
County APCD, Mariposa County APCD,
and Calaveras County APCD, as well as
the exemption request for Lake County
AQMD based on its attainment status.
The contingency plans meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.152(a) to
specify two or more stages of episode
criteria, provide for public
announcement whenever any episode
stage has been determined to exist, and
to specify adequate emission control
actions to be taken at each episode
stage. The emergency episode
contingency plans also meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.152(b) to
provide for prompt acquisition of
forecasts of atmospheric stagnation
conditions, to provide for inspection of
sources to ascertain compliance with
applicable emission control action
requirements, and provide for
communications procedures for
transmitting status reports and orders as
AQCRs for those NAAQS in our proposal. See 85
FR 65755, 65773 (October 16, 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16535
to emission control actions to be taken
during an episode stage. We are
finalizing approval, as proposed, of
these emergency episode contingency
plans into the California SIP.
Because of Lake County’s attainment
status for ozone, it meets the criteria of
40 CFR 51.152(d)(1) that permits the
Administrator to exempt those portions
of Priority I regions that have been
designated as attainment under section
107 of the CAA. The mix of ozone
precursor sources in Lake County, as
well as the historical 1-hour ozone
levels below 0.10 ppm make it unlikely
that additional measures are needed to
keep ozone pollution below the
significant harm level of 0.6 ppm. We
are finalizing approval, as proposed, of
the request to exempt the Lake County
AQMD from emergency episode
contingency planning requirements of
40 CFR 51.152.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference as described
in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these documents
available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
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 CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves, or conditionally
approves, state plans as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
16536
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
• 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 CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practical and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 1, 2021. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 18, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(551) and (c)(552)
to read as follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan—in part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(551) The following plan was
submitted on October 1, 2018, by the
Governor’s designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) California Infrastructure SIP
Revision for the 0.070 parts per million
Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard, release
date September 27, 2018, excluding
Attachments 1, 3, and 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(2) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
(552) The following plans were
submitted on June 25, 2020, by the
Governor’s designee as an attachment to
a letter dated June 16, 2020.
(i) Incorporation by reference. (A)
Amador Air District.
(1) ‘‘Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,’’
dated August 26, 2019 and adopted, as
Resolution No. 19–06, on October 15,
2019.
(2) [Reserved]
(B) San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District.
(1) ‘‘San Luis Obispo County Ozone
Emergency Episode Plan,’’ adopted, as
Resolution No. 2020–1, on January 22,
2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(C) Northern Sierra Air Quality
Management District.
(1) ‘‘Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,’’
adopted, as Resolution #2020–01, on
February 24, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(D) Tuolumne County Air Pollution
Control District.
(1) ‘‘Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,’’
adopted, as Resolution No. 32–20, on
April 7, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(E) Mariposa County Air Pollution
Control District.
(1) ‘‘Final Ozone Emergency Episode
Plan,’’ dated February 21, 2020 and
adopted, as Resolution No. 1APCD–
2020–4, on April 7, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(F) Calaveras County Air Pollution
Control District.
(1) ‘‘Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,’’
dated December 2019 and adopted, as
Resolution No. 20200526r056, on May
26, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials. (A) Lake
County Air Quality Management
District.
(1) ‘‘Request for Exemption of the
Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,’’
adopted on April 7, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 52.220a amend table 1 in
paragraph (c) by revising the entries for
‘‘18700’’ and ‘‘18701’’ to read as follows:
§ 52.220a
*
Identification of plan—in part.
*
*
(c) * * *
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
*
*
16537
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED STATUTES AND STATE REGULATIONS 1
State
citation
State
effective
date
Title/subject
*
18700 ..............
*
Basic rule and guide to conflict of interest regulations.
18701 ..............
Determining Whether a Financial Effect Is Reasonably Foreseeable.
*
*
EPA approval date
*
12/31/2016
7/10/2015
*
Additional explanation
*
*
[INSERT Federal Register
CITATION], 3/30/2021.
[INSERT Federal Register
CITATION], 3/30/2021.
*
*
*
Filed on December 17, 1976, effective upon
filing, and last amendment filed on December 1, 2016, operative December 31,
2016. Previously approved on 4/1/2016,
81 FR 18766.
Filed on January 22, 1976, effective February 21, 1976, and last amendment filed
on July 10, 2015, operative July 10, 2015.
Previously approved on 4/1/2016, 81 FR
18766.
*
*
*
1 Table
1 lists EPA-approved California statutes and regulations incorporated by reference in the applicable SIP. Table 2 of paragraph (c) lists
approved California test procedures, test methods and specifications that are cited in certain regulations listed in Table 1. Approved California
statutes that are nonregulatory or quasi-regulatory are listed in paragraph (e).
*
§ 52.221
■
The California plan was evaluated on
the basis of the following classifications:
*
*
*
*
4. Section 52.221 is revised to read as
follows:
Classification of regions.
TABLE 1 TO § 52.221
Pollutant
Air quality control region
Particulate
matter
Great Basin Valley Intrastate .................
Lake County Intrastate ..........................
Lake Tahoe Intrastate ............................
Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate ......
Mountain Counties Intrastate .................
North Central Coast Intrastate ...............
North Coast Intrastate ............................
Northeast Plateau Intrastate ..................
Sacramento Valley Intrastate .................
San Diego Intrastate ..............................
San Francisco Bay Area Intrastate ........
San Joaquin Valley Intrastate ................
South Central Coast Intrastate ..............
Southeast Desert Intrastate ...................
I
II
II
I
II
II
II
III
II
II
II
II
III
I
5. Section 52.223 is amended by
adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.223
Approval status.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(p) 2015 ozone NAAQS: The 2018
Infrastructure SIP, submitted on October
1, 2018, is partially disapproved for
specific requirements of Clean Air Act
section 110(a)(2) for the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the air pollution
control districts (APCDs), air quality
management districts (AQMDs), or air
quality control regions (AQCRs) listed
in this paragraph.
(1) Mendocino County AQMD (for
sources subject to a FIP, including
cogeneration and resource recovery
projects, projects with stack heights
greater than 65 meters or that use
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
Nitrogen
dioxide
Sulfur oxides
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
‘‘dispersion techniques’’ as defined in
51.100 (which are major sources or
major modifications under 52.21), and
sources for which the EPA has issued
permits under 52.21 for which
applications were received by July 31,
1985, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any
other state to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality, only), and
(J).
(2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD
requirements for the regulation of PM2.5,
PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5,
PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone
precursor, only) for sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with
measures in any other state to prevent
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Photochemical
oxidants
(hydrocarbons)
Carbon
monoxide
III
III
I
I
I
III
III
III
I
I
I
I
III
III
III
I
III
I
I
I
III
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
significant deterioration of air quality,
only), and (J).
(3) Northern Sonoma County APCD
(for sources subject to a FIP, including
cogeneration and resource recovery
projects, projects with stack heights
greater than 65 meters or that use
‘‘dispersion techniques’’ as defined in
51.100 (which are major sources or
major modifications under 52.21), and
sources for which the EPA has issued
permits under 52.21 for which
applications were received by July 31,
1985, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any
other state to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality, only), and
(J).
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
16538
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
(4) Sacramento Metro AQMD (for
sources subject to a FIP, including
cogeneration and resource recovery
projects, projects with stack heights
greater than 65 meters or that use
‘‘dispersion techniques’’ as defined in
51.100 (which are major sources or
major modifications under 52.21), and
sources for which the EPA has issued
permits under 52.21 for which
applications were received by July 31,
1985, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any
other state to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality, only), and
(J).
(5) All areas in California that are
subject to the federal PSD program as
provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with
measures in any other state to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality,
only), and (J), except for South Coast
AQMD where the federal PSD program
applies to all pollutants except
greenhouse gases.
(6) All areas in California that are
subject to the federal PSD program as
provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section
126(a), only).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–06110 Filed 3–29–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[EPA–R08–OAR–2020–0516; FRL–10020–
22–Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Plans for Designated Facilities and
Pollutants; South Dakota; Control of
Emissions From Existing Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a Clean Air
Act (CAA or the ‘‘Act’’) section 111(d)
state plan submitted by the South
Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR or the
‘‘Department’’) on January 3, 2020. This
plan was submitted to fulfill the
requirements of the CAA and is
responsive to the EPA’s promulgation of
Emission Guidelines and Compliance
Times (EG) for existing municipal solid
waste (MSW) landfills. The South
Dakota state plan establishes
performance standards and operating
requirements for existing MSW landfills
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
within the State of South Dakota and
provides for the implementation and
enforcement of those standards and
requirements by the Department. The
EPA is taking this action pursuant to
requirements of the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 29,
2021. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of April 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2020–0516. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Lohrke, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode
8ARD–TRM, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado, 80202–1129, (303)
312–6396, lohrke.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA.
I. Background
The background for this action is
discussed in detail in our October 29,
2020 proposed rule (85 FR 68538). In
that document we proposed to approve
the South Dakota state plan for existing
MSW landfills as it was submitted by
the Secretary of the South Dakota DENR
on January 3, 2020. Analysis of the
South Dakota state plan may be found
in the aforementioned proposed rule
and the technical support document
(TSD) associated with the docket for
today’s action.
We received comments from one
commenter during the public comment
period opened by the proposed rule.
Our response to the comments is
addressed in Section II. below.
II. Response to Comments
The proposed rule published in the
Federal Register at 85 FR 68538
received comments on Sections I and II
of the preamble of that publication. The
comments relevant to today’s action are
summarized here with the
corresponding Agency response.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comment: On Section I of the
preamble of the proposed rule, the
commenter broadly questioned the
efficacy of both implementing the
standards and requirements of
‘‘outdated’’ EG finalized in 2016, and
the promulgation of two separate and
distinct emission standards—one for
new and another for existing facilities
within the same source category.
Response: The EPA is not statutorily
obligated to conduct review and
revision of EG for existing sources but
maintains the discretion to do so when
appropriate. Changes in best practices
and cost effectiveness of available
technology within the MSW landfill
industry since the original EG for MSW
landfills were promulgated in 1996
prompted the Agency to review those
standards and requirements. The review
of the 1996 EG allowed EPA to find that
a rule revision was appropriate and
would increase potential for emission
reductions at MSW landfills as well as
streamline implementation of
requirements and standards for landfill
owners and operators. Although the
standards and requirements
promulgated in 2016 are over four years
old at this point, these major revisions
to the EG for MSW landfills are
relatively new and reflect the
accumulation of industry developments
over a timeframe of 20 years. The EPA
is neither statutorily obligated, nor
capable, of revising EG at a pace faster
than the development of new, practical
control technologies or best practices in
emission reductions. Rather, the Agency
is constrained in its revision of EG by
the realities of what best system of
emissions reduction is available to the
regulated population, while taking into
account the cost and other limiting
factors affecting implementation of such
a system of reductions at designated
facilities.
The EPA differentiates regulations for
new and existing facilities of the same
source category under a similar logic.
CAA section 111 authorizes the EPA to
develop new source performance
standards (NSPS) and emission
guidelines for existing sources (EG).
This distinction in performance
standards for different source
populations acknowledges the reality
that the best system of emission
reduction reasonably available to newer
and older facilities may be different
when considering cost and
practicability of implementation.
Comment: The commenter desired a
more in-depth review of the regulated
facilities and the state plan submittal.
Response: The requested information
is available in associated documents
found in the docket for the proposed
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16533-16538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06110]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0096; FRL-10015-36-Region 9]
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to partially approve and partially disapprove the state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
California pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``Act'') for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the
2015 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'')
for ozone. Specifically, the EPA is approving the SIP revision for all
elements except those that relate to prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD). EPA is partially approving and partially
disapproving three elements of the SIP revision due to PSD deficiencies
in certain air pollution control or air quality management districts
(APCD, AQMD, or ``district''). The disapprovals will not create any new
consequences for these districts or the EPA as the districts are
already subject to the EPA's federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. As
part of this action, we are also reclassifying certain regions of the
State for emergency episode planning purposes with respect to ozone. We
are also approving into the SIP two updated state provisions addressing
CAA conflict of interest requirements for the entire state, and
emergency episode plans for the Amador County APCD, Calaveras County
APCD, Mariposa County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and Tuolumne County
APCD. Finally, we are approving an exemption from emergency episode
planning requirements for ozone for the Lake County AQMD.
DATES: This rule is effective April 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0096. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panah Stauffer, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3247, or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Statutory Requirements
B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final Rule
C. California's Submittals
D. EPA's Proposal
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
A. Partial Approvals and Partial Disapprovals
B. Approval of Updated California Code of Regulations Provisions
C. Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency Episode
Planning
D. Approval of Emergency Episode Contingency Plans
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to the
EPA, within three years after the promulgation of a
[[Page 16534]]
primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP revision that
provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such
NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains the infrastructure SIP
requirements, which generally relate to the information, authorities,
compliance assurances, procedural requirements, and control measures
that constitute the ``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality
management program. These infrastructure SIP requirements (or
``elements'') required by section 110(a)(2) are as follows:
Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate pollution abatement
and international air pollution.
Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government
agencies.
Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD), and visibility protection.
Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal
of modeling data.
Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: (i)
Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs
required under part D (nonattainment new source review (NSR)), and (ii)
section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address
requirements for the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C)
or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).
B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final Rule
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in
the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, including on-and off-
road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial
facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden equipment
and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health
effects occur following exposure to elevated levels of ozone,
particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air
containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which
can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung
diseases.
On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for
ozone.\1\ The EPA had previously promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979,
1997 and 2008. The 2015 ozone NAAQS revised the level of the standards
to 0.070 parts per million (ppm) averaged across eight hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 80 FR 65292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. California's Submittals
In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or
``State'') is the state agency responsible for the adoption of
California SIPs and SIP revisions and submission to the EPA. CARB
submitted its infrastructure SIP revision (``2018 Infrastructure SIP''
or ``California's 2018 Submittal'') for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on October
1, 2018.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter dated October 1, 2018, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 25, 2020, CARB supplemented its 2018 Infrastructure SIP by
submitting ozone emergency episode contingency plans for San Luis
Obispo County APCD, Amador County APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa
County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and Tuolumne County APCD.\3\ It also
submitted an exemption request from emergency episode planning
requirements for Lake County AQMD based on that District's attainment
status. This submittal (``California's 2020 Submittal'') addresses CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Letter dated June 16, 2020, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX, with Ozone Emergency Episode Plans for Amador County, San Luis
Obispo County, Northern Sierra, Tuolumne County, Mariposa County,
and Calaveras County and Exemption Request for Lake County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We refer to these submittals collectively herein as ``California's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals.''
D. EPA's Proposal
On October 16, 2020, we proposed to partially approve and partially
disapprove California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals.\4\ Specifically,
we proposed to approve the submittals for the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(B), 110(a)(2)(E), 110(a)(2)(F),
110(a)(2)(G), 110(a)(2)(H), 110(a)(2)(K), 110(a)(2)(L), and
110(a)(2)(M). We also proposed to partially approve and partially
disapprove the submittal for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D),
and 110(a)(2)(J) due to PSD program deficiencies in certain air
districts. These partial disapprovals will not create any new
consequences for these districts or the EPA as the districts are
already subject to the EPA's federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. They
will also not create any new highway sanctions, which are not triggered
by disapprovals of infrastructure SIPs. Today's rule finalizes the
October 16, 2020 proposal in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 85 FR 65755.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this time, the EPA is not acting on the interstate transport
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which prohibit emission sources
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The EPA will propose action
on the interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in a
separate rulemaking.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period
that ended on November 16, 2020. During this period, the EPA received
one comment from an anonymous commenter.\5\ The comment is not relevant
to the EPA's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The comment letter is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
A. Partial Approvals and Partial Disapprovals
Under CAA section 110(a), we are partially approving and partially
disapproving California's Infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are approving the submittal for the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(B), 110(a)(2)(E),
110(a)(2)(F), 110(a)(2)(G),s 110(a)(2)(H), 110(a)(2)(K), 110(a)(2)(L),
[[Page 16535]]
and 110(a)(2)(M). We are also partially approving and partially
disapproving the submittal for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D),
and 110(a)(2)(J) due to PSD program deficiencies in Amador, Antelope
Valley, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa,
Mendocino, Modoc, Mojave Desert, North Coast, Northern Sierra, Northern
Sonoma, Sacramento Metro, San Diego, Shasta, Siskiyou, South Coast,
Tehama, and Tuolumne air districts. These partial disapprovals will not
create any new consequences as the air districts with PSD deficiencies
are already subject to PSD federal implementation plans (FIPs).
At this time, EPA is not acting on the interstate transport
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which prohibit emission sources
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The EPA will propose action
on the interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in a
separate rulemaking.
B. Approval of Updated California Code of Regulations Provisions
California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals included an updated
version of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 2, section
18700, which maintains the key provisions of that section and also
incorporates language in CCR, Title 2, section 18701 that the EPA
previously approved into the SIP to meet the conflict of interest
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. It also included
an updated version of CCR, Title 2, section 18701. We proposed to
approve the updated versions of CCR, Title 2, sections 18700 and 18701
into the SIP in our October 16, 2020 rulemaking. These updated
provisions continue to meet the conflict of interest requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. We are finalizing approval, as
proposed, of these updated provisions with this action.
C. Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency Episode Planning
In its 2018 submittal, CARB requested that the EPA reclassify three
air quality control regions (AQCRs) with respect to the emergency
episode planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR
part 51, subpart H, as applicable to ozone.\6\ The air quality tests
for classifying AQCRs are prescribed in 40 CFR 51.150 and are
pollutant-specific (e.g., ozone) rather than being specific to any
given NAAQS (e.g., 1997 ozone NAAQS). Consistent with the provisions of
40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of AQCRs must rely on the most recent
three years of air quality data. For ozone, an AQCR with a 1-hour ozone
level greater than 0.10 ppm over the most recent three-year period must
be classified Priority I, while all other areas are classified Priority
III. AQCRs that are classified Priority I are required to have SIP-
approved emergency episode contingency plans, while those classified
Priority III are not required to have such plans, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.151 and 51.152. We interpret 40 CFR 51.153 as establishing the means
for states to review air quality data and request a higher or lower
classification for any given region and as providing the regulatory
basis for the EPA to reclassify such regions, as appropriate, under CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(G) and 301(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In our proposed rulemaking, we inadvertently stated that
CARB requested to re-classify the AQCRs for NO2 and
SO2. CARB did not make such a request in either of its
submittals for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and we did not propose to re-
classify the AQCRs for those NAAQS in our proposal. See 85 FR 65755,
65773 (October 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the basis of California's ambient air quality data for 2015-
2017, we are finalizing approval, as proposed, of California's request
to reclassify Lake County, North Central Coast, and South Central Coast
to Priority I areas for ozone.
D. Approval of Emergency Episode Contingency Plans
To meet the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(G), California's 2020
Submittal included the ozone emergency episode contingency plans for
Amador County APCD, San Luis Obispo County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD,
Tuolumne County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, and Calaveras County APCD,
as well as the exemption request for Lake County AQMD based on its
attainment status. The contingency plans meet the requirements of 40
CFR 51.152(a) to specify two or more stages of episode criteria,
provide for public announcement whenever any episode stage has been
determined to exist, and to specify adequate emission control actions
to be taken at each episode stage. The emergency episode contingency
plans also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.152(b) to provide for
prompt acquisition of forecasts of atmospheric stagnation conditions,
to provide for inspection of sources to ascertain compliance with
applicable emission control action requirements, and provide for
communications procedures for transmitting status reports and orders as
to emission control actions to be taken during an episode stage. We are
finalizing approval, as proposed, of these emergency episode
contingency plans into the California SIP.
Because of Lake County's attainment status for ozone, it meets the
criteria of 40 CFR 51.152(d)(1) that permits the Administrator to
exempt those portions of Priority I regions that have been designated
as attainment under section 107 of the CAA. The mix of ozone precursor
sources in Lake County, as well as the historical 1-hour ozone levels
below 0.10 ppm make it unlikely that additional measures are needed to
keep ozone pollution below the significant harm level of 0.6 ppm. We
are finalizing approval, as proposed, of the request to exempt the Lake
County AQMD from emergency episode contingency planning requirements of
40 CFR 51.152.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference as described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves, or conditionally approves, state plans as
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
[[Page 16536]]
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 CAA; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practical and legally permissible methods,
under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 1, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 18, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(551) and (c)(552)
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(551) The following plan was submitted on October 1, 2018, by the
Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) California Infrastructure SIP Revision for the 0.070 parts per
million Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard, release date September 27, 2018,
excluding Attachments 1, 3, and 4.
(2) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
(552) The following plans were submitted on June 25, 2020, by the
Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated June 16, 2020.
(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Amador Air District.
(1) ``Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' dated August 26, 2019 and
adopted, as Resolution No. 19-06, on October 15, 2019.
(2) [Reserved]
(B) San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) ``San Luis Obispo County Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,''
adopted, as Resolution No. 2020-1, on January 22, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(C) Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.
(1) ``Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' adopted, as Resolution #2020-
01, on February 24, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(D) Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) ``Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' adopted, as Resolution No.
32-20, on April 7, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(E) Mariposa County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) ``Final Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' dated February 21, 2020
and adopted, as Resolution No. 1APCD-2020-4, on April 7, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(F) Calaveras County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) ``Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' dated December 2019 and
adopted, as Resolution No. 20200526r056, on May 26, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials. (A) Lake County Air Quality Management
District.
(1) ``Request for Exemption of the Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,''
adopted on April 7, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 52.220a amend table 1 in paragraph (c) by revising the
entries for ``18700'' and ``18701'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220a Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 16537]]
Table 1--EPA-Approved Statutes and State Regulations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Additional
State citation Title/subject effective date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
18700............................ Basic rule and 12/31/2016 [INSERT Federal Filed on December
guide to conflict Register 17, 1976,
of interest CITATION], 3/30/ effective upon
regulations. 2021. filing, and last
amendment filed on
December 1, 2016,
operative December
31, 2016.
Previously
approved on 4/1/
2016, 81 FR 18766.
18701............................ Determining Whether 7/10/2015 [INSERT Federal Filed on January
a Financial Effect Register 22, 1976,
Is Reasonably CITATION], 3/30/ effective February
Foreseeable. 2021. 21, 1976, and last
amendment filed on
July 10, 2015,
operative July 10,
2015. Previously
approved on 4/1/
2016, 81 FR 18766.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 lists EPA-approved California statutes and regulations incorporated by reference in the applicable
SIP. Table 2 of paragraph (c) lists approved California test procedures, test methods and specifications that
are cited in certain regulations listed in Table 1. Approved California statutes that are nonregulatory or
quasi-regulatory are listed in paragraph (e).
* * * * *
0
4. Section 52.221 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 52.221 Classification of regions.
The California plan was evaluated on the basis of the following
classifications:
Table 1 to Sec. 52.221
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality control region Photochemical
Particulate Sulfur oxides Nitrogen dioxide Carbon monoxide oxidants
matter (hydrocarbons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Basin Valley Intrastate............................ I III III III III
Lake County Intrastate................................... II III III III I
Lake Tahoe Intrastate.................................... II III III I III
Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate...................... I III III I I
Mountain Counties Intrastate............................. II III III I I
North Central Coast Intrastate........................... II III III III I
North Coast Intrastate................................... II III III III III
Northeast Plateau Intrastate............................. III III III III III
Sacramento Valley Intrastate............................. II III III I I
San Diego Intrastate..................................... II III III I I
San Francisco Bay Area Intrastate........................ II III III I I
San Joaquin Valley Intrastate............................ II III III I I
South Central Coast Intrastate........................... III III III III I
Southeast Desert Intrastate.............................. I III III III I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5. Section 52.223 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.223 Approval status.
* * * * *
(p) 2015 ozone NAAQS: The 2018 Infrastructure SIP, submitted on
October 1, 2018, is partially disapproved for specific requirements of
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
air pollution control districts (APCDs), air quality management
districts (AQMDs), or air quality control regions (AQCRs) listed in
this paragraph.
(1) Mendocino County AQMD (for sources subject to a FIP, including
cogeneration and resource recovery projects, projects with stack
heights greater than 65 meters or that use ``dispersion techniques'' as
defined in 51.100 (which are major sources or major modifications under
52.21), and sources for which the EPA has issued permits under 52.21
for which applications were received by July 31, 1985, only) for
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other
state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and
(J).
(2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation
of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an
ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere
with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality, only), and (J).
(3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (for sources subject to a FIP,
including cogeneration and resource recovery projects, projects with
stack heights greater than 65 meters or that use ``dispersion
techniques'' as defined in 51.100 (which are major sources or major
modifications under 52.21), and sources for which the EPA has issued
permits under 52.21 for which applications were received by July 31,
1985, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with
measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality, only), and (J).
[[Page 16538]]
(4) Sacramento Metro AQMD (for sources subject to a FIP, including
cogeneration and resource recovery projects, projects with stack
heights greater than 65 meters or that use ``dispersion techniques'' as
defined in 51.100 (which are major sources or major modifications under
52.21), and sources for which the EPA has issued permits under 52.21
for which applications were received by July 31, 1985, only) for
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other
state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and
(J).
(5) All areas in California that are subject to the federal PSD
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for
South Coast AQMD where the federal PSD program applies to all
pollutants except greenhouse gases.
(6) All areas in California that are subject to the federal PSD
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
(with respect to section 126(a), only).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-06110 Filed 3-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
