Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits, 58538-58540 [2023-18401]
Download as PDF
58538
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Exclusion Portal will prohibit persons
from being able to submit exclusion
requests for these identified GDEs.
These GDEs are indefinite in length, but
the Department of Commerce on behalf
of the Secretary of Commerce may at
any time issue a Federal Register notice
GDE Identifier.
removing, revising or adding to an
existing GDE in this supplement as
warranted to align with the objectives of
the Section 232 exclusions process as
described in supplement no. 1 to this
part. The Department of Commerce on
behalf of the Secretary of Commerce
Description of Aluminum That May Not Be Requested
in an Exclusion Request (at 10-digit Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting number or more narrowly defined at
product level).
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023–18328 Filed 8–25–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0925; FRL–10943–
01–R9]
Air Quality Implementation Plan;
California; Great Basin Unified Air
Pollution Control District; Stationary
Source Permits
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Great Basin Unified Air
Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD or
‘‘District’’) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this
action, we are proposing to approve one
rule governing the issuance of permits
for new and modified major sources in
nonattainment areas under part D of
title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the
Act’’) in the District. We are also
proposing to find that PM10 precursors
are not significant contributors to PM10
levels in the Mono Basin, as the
majority of direct PM emissions come
from dry lake beds. We are taking
SUMMARY:
may periodically publish notices of
inquiry in the Federal Register
soliciting public comments on potential
removals, revisions or additions to this
supplement.
Other Limitations.
comments on this proposal and a final
action will follow.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 27,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2022–0925 at https://
www.regulations.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 the disclosure of
which 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 and multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
Federal Register Citation.
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:
Nidia Trejo, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105. By phone: (415) 972–3968, or by
email at trejo.nidia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Is there another version of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation
A. What is the background for this
proposal?
B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
C. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
D. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this
proposal including the date it was
adopted by the District and the date on
which it was submitted to the EPA by
the California Air Resources Board
(CARB or ‘‘the State’’).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE
Rule No.
Rule title
Rule 222 .....................................................
NSR Requirements for New and Modified Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas.
On January 5, 2023, the submittal for
District Rule 222 was deemed by
operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:40 Aug 25, 2023
Jkt 259001
appendix V, which must be met before
formal EPA review.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Adopted
01/06/22
Submitted
07/05/22
B. Is there another version of this rule?
There is no previous version of Rule
222 in the California SIP.
E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM
28AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule?
Rule 222 is intended to address the
CAA’s statutory and regulatory
requirements for Nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR) permit programs
for major sources emitting
nonattainment air pollutants and their
precursors.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation
A. What is the background for this
proposal?
Historically, the District had four
designated PM10 nonattainment areas,
including the Owens Valley and Coso
Junction Planning Areas in Inyo County,
CA, and the Mono Basin and Mammoth
Lake Planning Areas in Mono County,
CA. Currently, however, only the Mono
Basin and Owens Valley Planning Areas
are designated nonattainment for PM10.
The designation of the Mono Basin and
Owens Valley Planning Areas as federal
PM10 nonattainment areas triggered the
requirement for the District to develop
and submit an NNSR program to the
EPA for approval into the California SIP.
The District’s NNSR program must
satisfy the NNSR requirements
applicable to a Moderate PM10
nonattainment area for the Mono Basin
and a Serious PM10 nonattainment area
for the Owens Valley.
Our Technical Support Document
(TSD) for this action contains additional
information regarding the history of the
District’s PM10 nonattainment areas. The
District is designated attainment/
unclassifiable for all other NAAQS.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
The EPA reviewed Rule 222 for
compliance with CAA requirements for:
(1) stationary source preconstruction
permitting programs as set forth in CAA
part D, including CAA sections 172(c)(5)
and 173; (2) the review and
modification of major sources in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.160–51.165
as applicable in Moderate and Serious
PM10 nonattainment areas; (3) the
review of new major stationary sources
or major modifications in a designated
nonattainment area that may have an
impact on visibility in any mandatory
Class I Federal area in accordance with
40 CFR 51.307; (4) SIPs in general as set
forth in CAA sections 110(a)(2),
including 110(a)(2)(A) and
110(a)(2)(E)(i); 1 and (5) SIP revisions as
1 CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that
regulations submitted to the EPA for SIP approval
be clear and legally enforceable, and CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that states have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law
to carry out their proposed SIP revisions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:40 Aug 25, 2023
Jkt 259001
set forth in CAA section 110(l) 2 and
193.3 Our review evaluated the
submittals for compliance with the
NNSR requirements applicable to
nonattainment areas designated
Moderate and Serious, and ensured that
the submittals addressed the NNSR
requirements for the 1987 PM10
NAAQS.
C. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
With respect to procedural
requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2)
and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP
be adopted by the state after reasonable
notice and public hearing. Based on our
review of the public process
documentation included in the July 5,
2022 submittal of Rule 222, we find that
the District has provided sufficient
evidence of public notice, opportunity
for comment, and a public hearing prior
to adoption and submittal of this rule to
the EPA.
With respect to the substantive
requirements found in CAA sections
172(c)(5), 173, 189 and 40 CFR 51.160–
51.165, we have evaluated Rule 222 in
accordance with the applicable CAA
and regulatory requirements that apply
to NNSR permit programs under part D
of title I of the Act for the 1987 PM10
NAAQS. We find that Rule 222 satisfies
these requirements as they apply to
sources subject to NNSR permit program
requirements applicable to Moderate
and Serious PM10 nonattainment areas.
As part of our determination, we relied
on a previous finding from our 2016
final action approving the Owens Valley
1987 PM10 attainment plan that PM10
precursors are not significant
contributors to PM10 in the area,4 and a
comparative analysis of emission
sources in the Mono Basin to determine
that PM10 precursors are also not
significant contributors to PM10 in the
Mono Basin.5
We have also determined that this
rule satisfies the related visibility
2 CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be
subject to reasonable notice and public hearing
prior to adoption and submittal by states to EPA
and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision
that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
3 CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of
any SIP-approved control requirement in effect
before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area,
unless the modification ensures equivalent or
greater emission reductions of the relevant
pollutants.
4 82 FR 13390, (March 13, 2017). See also 81 FR
89407, (December 12, 2016).
5 See GBUAPCD 1995 PM
10 State Implementation
Plan for Mono Basin Planning Area, Table 4.1—
PM10 Emissions Summary; see also 82 FR 13390
(Mar. 13, 2017).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58539
requirements in 40 CFR 51.307. In
addition, we find that Rule 222 satisfies
the requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) that regulations submitted
to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and
legally enforceable and that the
submittal demonstrates in accordance
with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) that the
Districts have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law
to carry out the proposed SIP revision.
Regarding the additional substantive
requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and
193, our action will result in a more
stringent SIP, while not relaxing any
existing provision contained in the SIP.
We have concluded that our action
would comply with section 110(l)
because our approval of Rule 222 will
not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other
CAA applicable requirement. In
addition, our approval of Rule 222 will
not relax any pre-November 15, 1990
requirement in the SIP, and therefore
changes to the SIP resulting from this
action ensure greater or equivalent
emission reductions of PM10 and its
precursors in the District; accordingly,
our action is consistent with the
requirements of CAA section 193.
Our TSD, which can be found in the
docket for this rule, contains a more
detailed discussion of our analysis of
Rule 222.
D. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
The TSD also includes
recommendations for an additional
clarifying revision to consider for
adoption when the District next
modifies Rule 222.
III. Proposed Action and Public
Comment
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3)
and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is
proposing approval of the submitted
rule because it fulfills the relevant CAA
requirements and strengthens the SIP.
We have concluded that our approval of
the submitted rule would comply with
the relevant provisions of CAA sections
110(a)(2), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 173, 189, and
193, and 40 CFR 51.160–51.165 and 40
CFR 51.307.
If we finalize this action as proposed,
our action will be codified through
revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a
(Identification of plan—in part). This
action would incorporate the submitted
rule into the SIP. In conjunction with
the EPA’s SIP approval of the District’s
visibility provisions for sources subject
to the NNSR program as meeting the
relevant requirements of 40 CFR 51.307,
this action would also revise the
E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM
28AUP1
58540
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
regulatory provision at 40 CFR 52.281(d)
concerning the applicability of the
visibility Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) at 40 CFR 52.28 as it pertains to
California, to provide that this FIP does
not apply to sources subject to review
under the District’s SIP-approved NNSR
program.
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until September
27, 2023.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the GBUAPCD rule listed in Table 1 of
this preamble, which regulates the
issuance of permits for new and
modified major sources in
nonattainment areas in the District. The
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, this document available
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:40 Aug 25, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it proposes to approve a state
program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• 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.
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies
to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The District did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. The EPA did not perform an
EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in
this action. Consideration of EJ is not
required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goals of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental
justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 17, 2023.
Cheree Peterson,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023–18401 Filed 8–25–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket No. 21–456; Report No. 3200;
FR ID 166483]
Petition for Reconsideration of Action
in Rulemaking Proceeding
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration.
AGENCY:
Petition for Reconsideration
(Petition) has been filed in the
Commission’s proceeding by Kimberly
Baum, on behalf of WorldVu Satellites
Limited.
DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must
be filed on or before September 12,
2023. Replies to oppositions must be
filed on or before September 22, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clay
DeCell at (202) 418–0803 or
Clay.DeCell@fcc.gov.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM
28AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58538-58540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18401]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0925; FRL-10943-01-R9]
Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Great Basin Unified
Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control
District (GBUAPCD or ``District'') portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). In this action, we are proposing to approve
one rule governing the issuance of permits for new and modified major
sources in nonattainment areas under part D of title I of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or ``the Act'') in the District. We are also proposing to find
that PM10 precursors are not significant contributors to
PM10 levels in the Mono Basin, as the majority of direct PM
emissions come from dry lake beds. We are taking comments on this
proposal and a final action will follow.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 27,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0925 at https://www.regulations.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 the disclosure of which 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 and multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. 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: Nidia Trejo, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3968, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Is there another version of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. The EPA's Evaluation
A. What is the background for this proposal?
B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
C. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal including the
date it was adopted by the District and the date on which it was
submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB or
``the State'').
Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 222...................................... NSR Requirements for New and Modified 01/06/22 07/05/22
Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 5, 2023, the submittal for District Rule 222 was deemed
by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
B. Is there another version of this rule?
There is no previous version of Rule 222 in the California SIP.
[[Page 58539]]
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
Rule 222 is intended to address the CAA's statutory and regulatory
requirements for Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permit programs
for major sources emitting nonattainment air pollutants and their
precursors.
II. The EPA's Evaluation
A. What is the background for this proposal?
Historically, the District had four designated PM10
nonattainment areas, including the Owens Valley and Coso Junction
Planning Areas in Inyo County, CA, and the Mono Basin and Mammoth Lake
Planning Areas in Mono County, CA. Currently, however, only the Mono
Basin and Owens Valley Planning Areas are designated nonattainment for
PM10. The designation of the Mono Basin and Owens Valley
Planning Areas as federal PM10 nonattainment areas triggered
the requirement for the District to develop and submit an NNSR program
to the EPA for approval into the California SIP. The District's NNSR
program must satisfy the NNSR requirements applicable to a Moderate
PM10 nonattainment area for the Mono Basin and a Serious
PM10 nonattainment area for the Owens Valley.
Our Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action contains
additional information regarding the history of the District's
PM10 nonattainment areas. The District is designated
attainment/unclassifiable for all other NAAQS.
B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
The EPA reviewed Rule 222 for compliance with CAA requirements for:
(1) stationary source preconstruction permitting programs as set forth
in CAA part D, including CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173; (2) the review
and modification of major sources in accordance with 40 CFR 51.160-
51.165 as applicable in Moderate and Serious PM10
nonattainment areas; (3) the review of new major stationary sources or
major modifications in a designated nonattainment area that may have an
impact on visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.307; (4) SIPs in general as set forth in CAA
sections 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(E)(i); \1\ and
(5) SIP revisions as set forth in CAA section 110(l) \2\ and 193.\3\
Our review evaluated the submittals for compliance with the NNSR
requirements applicable to nonattainment areas designated Moderate and
Serious, and ensured that the submittals addressed the NNSR
requirements for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted
to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable, and
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that states have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out their
proposed SIP revisions.
\2\ CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal
by states to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision
that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
\3\ CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-
approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in
a nonattainment area, unless the modification ensures equivalent or
greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and
110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public
process documentation included in the July 5, 2022 submittal of Rule
222, we find that the District has provided sufficient evidence of
public notice, opportunity for comment, and a public hearing prior to
adoption and submittal of this rule to the EPA.
With respect to the substantive requirements found in CAA sections
172(c)(5), 173, 189 and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165, we have evaluated Rule
222 in accordance with the applicable CAA and regulatory requirements
that apply to NNSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act
for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS. We find that Rule 222 satisfies
these requirements as they apply to sources subject to NNSR permit
program requirements applicable to Moderate and Serious PM10
nonattainment areas. As part of our determination, we relied on a
previous finding from our 2016 final action approving the Owens Valley
1987 PM10 attainment plan that PM10 precursors
are not significant contributors to PM10 in the area,\4\ and
a comparative analysis of emission sources in the Mono Basin to
determine that PM10 precursors are also not significant
contributors to PM10 in the Mono Basin.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 82 FR 13390, (March 13, 2017). See also 81 FR 89407,
(December 12, 2016).
\5\ See GBUAPCD 1995 PM10 State Implementation Plan
for Mono Basin Planning Area, Table 4.1--PM10 Emissions
Summary; see also 82 FR 13390 (Mar. 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also determined that this rule satisfies the related
visibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.307. In addition, we find that
Rule 222 satisfies the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) that
regulations submitted to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally
enforceable and that the submittal demonstrates in accordance with CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) that the Districts have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law to carry out the proposed SIP
revision.
Regarding the additional substantive requirements of CAA sections
110(l) and 193, our action will result in a more stringent SIP, while
not relaxing any existing provision contained in the SIP. We have
concluded that our action would comply with section 110(l) because our
approval of Rule 222 will not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other CAA
applicable requirement. In addition, our approval of Rule 222 will not
relax any pre-November 15, 1990 requirement in the SIP, and therefore
changes to the SIP resulting from this action ensure greater or
equivalent emission reductions of PM10 and its precursors in
the District; accordingly, our action is consistent with the
requirements of CAA section 193.
Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a
more detailed discussion of our analysis of Rule 222.
D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
The TSD also includes recommendations for an additional clarifying
revision to consider for adoption when the District next modifies Rule
222.
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA
is proposing approval of the submitted rule because it fulfills the
relevant CAA requirements and strengthens the SIP. We have concluded
that our approval of the submitted rule would comply with the relevant
provisions of CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 173, 189, and
193, and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307.
If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be codified
through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a (Identification of plan--in part).
This action would incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP. In
conjunction with the EPA's SIP approval of the District's visibility
provisions for sources subject to the NNSR program as meeting the
relevant requirements of 40 CFR 51.307, this action would also revise
the
[[Page 58540]]
regulatory provision at 40 CFR 52.281(d) concerning the applicability
of the visibility Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) at 40 CFR 52.28 as
it pertains to California, to provide that this FIP does not apply to
sources subject to review under the District's SIP-approved NNSR
program.
We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until
September 27, 2023.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the GBUAPCD rule listed in Table 1 of this preamble, which
regulates the issuance of permits for new and modified major sources in
nonattainment areas in the District. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, this document available electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 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 Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
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.
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The District did not evaluate environmental justice considerations
as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goals of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 17, 2023.
Cheree Peterson,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-18401 Filed 8-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P