Air Plan Approval; California; Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, 89351-89355 [2023-28525]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
utility meets its own public service
obligations. That is why this proceeding
is so essential, to explore those issues
and determine whether the
Commission’s own regulations and
regulatory practices are still sufficient to
protect the interests of the customers of
public utility companies which, again,
are likely to be monopoly providers of
a vital public service such as electrical
power.
2. As I mentioned in my concurrence
to an earlier order extending BlackRock,
Inc.’s (BlackRock) blanket authorization
under section 203 of the Federal Power
Act (FPA),2 it simply is no longer a
credible assertion that investment
managers, like BlackRock, State Street
Corporation, and The Vanguard Group,
Inc., are always or should be assumed
to be merely passive investors. These
investment managers are often the three
biggest investors in publicly traded
companies across the U.S. economy,
including the utility industry, and wield
significant financial power by virtue of
their investments.3 These investment
managers may occasionally use that
financial power to push various types of
policy agendas, agendas that may
ultimately conflict with the utility’s
public service obligations to its
customers.4 Or, totally different from
any policy goal, the threat may come
from a private equity investor’s attempt
to turn a quick profit on a short-term
trade by undercutting utility practices
that are designed to serve its retail
customers over the long term, not the
short-term interests of the private equity
investor.
3. One focus recently, and rightfully
so, has been on ‘‘ESG’’ (environmental,
social, and governance-related)
corporate initiatives, with huge asset
managers pushing policy decisions that
should be left to elected legislators. For
example, I have pointed out the
reliability problems that will result from
premature dispatchable generation
retirements that may come from these
initiatives.5 Decisions on the
2 BlackRock, Inc., 179 FERC ¶ 61,049 (2022)
(Christie, Comm’r, concurring at P 3) (BlackRock
Concurrence), available at https://www.ferc.gov/
news-events/news/commissioner-christiesconcurrence-blackrocks-authorization-buy-votingsecurities.
3 You can see the extent of these investment
managers’ holdings through the quarterly reports
the Commission receives as part of the requirements
associated with section 203(a)(2) blanket
authorizations. See, e.g., BlackRock, Quarterly
Report, Docket No. EC16–77–002 (filed Nov. 15,
2023) (detailing holdings in several publicly traded
holding companies with public utility subsidiaries).
4 See BlackRock Concurrence at PP 4–5.
5 See, e.g., Testimony of Commissioner Mark C.
Christie, Oversight of FERC: Adhering to a Mission
of Affordable and Reliable Energy for America,
United States House of Representatives (June 12,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
appropriate generation resources mix for
a public utility with a state-granted
franchise are policy decisions for state
policymakers, not huge Wall Street asset
managers.
4. But let us be clear—‘‘ESG’’ investor
activity is simply a symptom of a larger,
more pernicious threat that has always
existed in the utility industry: improper
investor influence and control over
public utilities. Large investors can and
do force utilities to make decisions that
are contrary to their public service
obligations to their retail customers.
This, among other related concerns, is
exactly why Congress enacted a suite of
consumer protection statutes, including
the FPA almost 100 years ago.
Congress’s subsequent revisions to the
FPA over the years, such as by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, signal the
ongoing importance of consumer
protection in the Commission’s
regulatory responsibilities, including
under section 203. Congress may have
directed the Commission to streamline
its regulations to facilitate greater
investments in the utility industry, such
as through section 203 blanket
authorizations,6 but that streamlining
does not, and should never, come at
expense of protecting consumers.
Indeed, it is the Commission’s task to
balance these two competing
responsibilities and to continue to
revisit and evaluate that balance. So I
fully agree that this NOI is timely and
compelling and I look forward to
moving forward on it.
For these reasons, I respectfully
concur.
Mark C. Christie,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2023–28665 Filed 12–22–23; 2:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
2023), available at https://www.ferc.gov/media/
testimony-commissioner-mark-c-christie-oversightferc-adhering-mission-affordable-and; Written
Testimony of Commissioner Mark Christie Before
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
United States Senate (Sept. 27, 2021), available at
https://cms.ferc.gov/media/written-testimonycommissioner-mark-christie-committee-energy-andnatural-resources-united.
6 See, e.g., Transactions Subject to FPA Section
203, Order No. 669, 113 FERC ¶ 61,315 (2005),
order on reh’g, Order No. 669–A, 115 FERC
¶ 61,097, order on reh’g, Order No. 669–B, 116
FERC ¶ 61,076 (2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
89351
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0590; FRL–11615–
01–R9]
Air Plan Approval; California; YoloSolano Air Quality Management
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve,
through parallel processing, state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions
from the Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District (YSAQMD or
‘‘District’’) to address Clean Air Act
(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requirements related to
the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or
‘‘standards’’). These revisions concern
emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
from biomass boilers, and also address
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) requirements for major sources
of NOX in the portion of the Sacramento
Metro, CA, nonattainment area that is
subject to YSAQMD jurisdiction. We are
taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 26, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2023–0590 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
89352
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than
English or if you are a person with a
disability 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:
Eugene Chen, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street (AIR–3–3), San
Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415)
947–4304 or by email at chen.eugene@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What documents did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of the
submitted documents?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
documents?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the
submitted documents?
B. Do the submitted documents meet the
evaluation criteria?
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What documents did the State
submit?
Table 1 lists the documents addressed
by this proposal with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agency
and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
Local agency
Document/
rule No.
Document title
YSAQMD ..........
....................
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Analysis for the 2008 Federal Ozone Standard (‘‘2017 RACT SIP’’).
Biomass Boilers (public draft version submitted for parallel processing) ................
YSAQMD ..........
I
2.43
I
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
On September 13, 2017, the YSAQMD
adopted the ‘‘Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Analysis for
the 2008 Federal Ozone Standard’’
(‘‘2017 RACT SIP’’) to demonstrate that
its stationary sources are subject to
RACT rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. On November 13, 2017, the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted the 2017 RACT SIP to the
EPA for approval as a revision to the
California SIP. The EPA determined that
the negative declarations portion of the
2017 RACT SIP met the SIP submittal
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix V on April 11, 2018.1 The
EPA determined that the remaining
elements of the 2017 RACT SIP met the
SIP completeness criteria on August 23,
2018.2
On November 27, 2023, CARB
submitted a public draft version of
amendments to Rule 2.43, ‘‘Biomass
Boilers,’’ along with a request for
parallel processing.3 The EPA has
1 Letter dated April 11, 2018, from Elizabeth J.
Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region
IX, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB. A
‘‘negative declaration’’ is an assertion by a state or
district that a nonattainment area contains no
sources covered by a particular control techniques
guidelines (CTG) document.
2 Letter dated August 23, 2018, from Elizabeth J.
Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region
IX, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB.
3 ‘‘Parallel processing’’ refers to a process
established under section 2.3 of Appendix V to 40
CFR part 51 that utilizes concurrent state and
federal proposed rulemaking actions. Generally, the
state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or
other revisions to the EPA before conducting its
public hearing and completing its public comment
process under state law. The EPA reviews this
proposed state or district action and prepares a
notice of proposed rulemaking under federal law.
In some cases, the EPA publishes its notice of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
Revised
reviewed the submitted public draft
version of Rule 2.43 and finds that it
fulfills the completeness criteria of
appendix V, with the exception of the
requirements of paragraphs 2.1(e)–
2.1(h), which do not apply to rules
submitted for parallel processing.
CARB’s November 27, 2023 letter states
that the YSAQMD Governing Board was
scheduled to consider adoption of the
amended rule on December 13, 2023,
and that if it was approved, CARB
would submit the final package to the
EPA as a revision to the SIP. While our
evaluation of Rule 2.43 herein is based
on the public draft of the rule submitted
by CARB on November 27, 2023, the
YSAQMD Governing Board has since
approved the rule amendments from
this draft, and the EPA is now awaiting
the final rule submittal from CARB.
B. Are there other versions of the
submitted documents?
On June 30, 2023, we took final action
to partially approve and partially
disapprove the 2017 RACT SIP.4 Our
partial disapproval related solely to the
RACT element for major sources of NOX
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register during
the same timeframe that the state or District is
holding its own public hearing and public comment
process. If, after completing its public comment
process and after the EPA’s public comment process
has run, the state materially changes its final SIP
submission to the EPA from the initial proposed
submission, the EPA evaluates those changes and
decides whether to publish another notice of
proposed rulemaking in light of those changes or to
proceed to taking final action on its proposed action
with a description of the state’s changes. Any final
rulemaking action by the EPA will occur only after
the state formally adopts and submits its final
submission to the EPA.
4 88 FR 42252.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
09/13/2017
11/13/2017
I .................... I
11/27/2023
that we are now proposing to approve
in this action.
We approved an earlier version of
Rule 2.43 into the SIP on July 2, 2012.5
The District adopted amendments to the
SIP-approved version of Rule 2.43 on
April 12, 2023, and CARB submitted
these amendments to the EPA on June
8, 2023. We will consider this earlier
submittal to be superseded, by the time
of our final action, by the version of
Rule 2.43 that has been submitted for
parallel processing once it is submitted
to the EPA as a SIP revision. Therefore,
we are proposing to act only on the
version of the rule submitted on
November 27, 2023, which includes all
revisions made in the June 8, 2023
submittal. However, we have reviewed
materials provided with the June 8,
2023 submittal, and our evaluation
below considers the amendments made
in that version of the rule.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
documents?
Emissions of NOX contribute to the
production of ground-level ozone, smog
and particulate matter (PM), which
harm human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires states to submit plans that
provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. In addition, CAA sections
182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs for
ozone nonattainment areas classified as
‘‘Moderate’’ or higher implement RACT
for any category of sources covered by
a control techniques guidelines (CTG)
5 77 FR 39181. The EPA published a correcting
amendment on March 28, 2018 (83 FR 13190) that
corrected an error in the regulatory text of the July
2, 2012 final action.
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules
document and for any major source of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or
NOX. The YSAQMD regulates the Yolo
and Solano County portions of the
Sacramento Metro, CA, ozone
nonattainment area, which is classified
as ‘‘Severe’’ nonattainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.6 Therefore, the
YSAQMD must, at a minimum, ensure
that all categories of sources covered by
a CTG document and all major sources
of VOCs or NOX within the District
implement RACT-level controls. Any
stationary source that emits or has the
potential to emit at least 25 tons per
year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX in a Severe
ozone nonattainment area is considered
a major stationary source.
The YSAQMD relies upon Rule 2.43
to implement RACT for major sources of
NOX.7 As we explained in our June 30,
2023 final action on the 2017 RACT SIP,
the current SIP-approved version of
Rule 2.43 contains a provision that
explicitly exempts affected units from
complying with rule standards during
periods of startup and shutdown and
does not provide for an alternative
emission limitation during such
periods. This provision is inconsistent
with the EPA’s Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction (SSM) Policy as established
in the EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action.8
This deficiency was the basis for our
disapproval of the major source NOX
element of the 2017 RACT SIP. The Rule
2.43 amendments adopted on April 12,
2023, are intended to address this by
establishing numeric NOX and carbon
monoxide (CO) limits that apply during
periods of startup and shutdown. The
Rule 2.43 amendments that YSAQMD
has proposed, will also establish
additional recordkeeping and periodic
reporting requirements. Our technical
support document (TSD) has more
detailed information about these rule
revisions.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the
submitted documents?
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable
(see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress or other CAA
requirements (see CAA section 110(l)),
and must not modify certain SIP control
6 May
21, 2012 (77 FR 30088).
RACT SIP, pages 5 and 45.
8 ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of
EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During
Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ 80
FR 33840 (June 12, 2015).
7 2017
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
requirements in nonattainment areas
without ensuring equivalent or greater
emissions reductions (see CAA section
193).
Generally, SIP rules must require the
implementation of RACT for each
category of sources covered by a CTG,
as well as each major source of NOX or
VOC in ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate or higher (see
CAA section 182(b)(2)). The YSAQMD
regulates a portion of an ozone
nonattainment area classified as
‘‘Severe’’ for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
and is therefore responsible for ensuring
the applicable sources implement
RACT-level controls for that ozone
standard. The YSAQMD relies upon
Rule 2.43 to require the applicable
sources to implement RACT-level
controls to fulfill the requirements
associated with the major source NOX
element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
We note that the April 12, 2023
amendments to Rule 2.43 also establish
emission standards for CO, which is not
an ozone precursor, and therefore we
are not assessing in this action whether
the CO standard implements RACTlevel controls. As a result, we have not
evaluated CO emission standards in
Rule 2.43 for stringency, but we have
evaluated them under the enforceability
and SIP relaxation criteria.
B. Do the submitted documents meet the
evaluation criteria?
In our June 30, 2023 final action on
the 2017 RACT SIP, we evaluated the
stringency of the 90 parts per million
(ppm) (24-hour block average) NOX
emissions limit established by the SIPapproved version of Rule 2.43.9
However, the 90 ppm limit did not
apply during periods of startup and
shutdown. As a result, we determined
that the emission limits in SIP-approved
Rule 2.43 achieve RACT-level
stringency but found that the lack of a
continuous emissions limit that applies
at all times (including periods of startup
and shutdown) precluded us from
determining that Rule 2.43 implemented
RACT. We have not identified any
information since our June 30, 2023
approval to alter our evaluation of the
stringency of the SIP-approved NOX
emission limits.
The April 12, 2023 amendments to
Rule 2.43 established a NOX limit of 215
ppm on a 24-hour block average that
applies during periods of startup and
shutdown. We consider this emission
limit to be consistent with the use of
either combustion controls or good
combustion practices that are the most
9 88 FR 42252. See also TSD for that action, which
is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
89353
stringent control measures that can be
feasibly utilized during periods of
startup and shutdown. In addition, the
YSAQMD identified other California air
district rules for biomass boilers and
indicated that these rules either
exempted periods of startup and
shutdown or had startup/shutdown
limits that are less stringent than those
in Rule 2.43. This supports an EPA
determination that the amended rule
establishes a RACT-level of control.
Finally, we determined that the
amended Rule 2.43 is consistent with
each of the seven specific criteria
recommended in the EPA’s SSM Policy
as appropriate considerations for
developing emission limitations in SIP
provisions applicable during startup
and shutdown. Additional information
regarding our evaluation of Rule 2.43
with the seven criteria is discussed in
greater detail in our TSD for this action.
The Rule 2.43 amendments adopted
by YSAQMD on December 13, 2023,
explicitly require that the results of any
relative accuracy test audit (RATA)
performed be maintained by the source
as required records, and will also
establish a requirement for the owner/
operator of an affected source to submit
all records required by the
recordkeeping provisions of the rule to
the EPA at least once every six
months.10 These reporting provision
amendments will assist in ensuring
compliance with emission standards
and other rule requirements, and will
also ensure that Rule 2.43 is enforceable
by the District and the EPA as well as
by members of the public.
Based on the stringency of the
existing SIP-approved NOX limits,
combined with the NOX limits
established for periods of startup and
shutdown, we propose to approve Rule
2.43 as complying with EPA’s SSM
policy and as implementing RACT for
this source category. As discussed
previously, the absence of an emission
limit during startup and shutdown was
the basis for our disapproval of the
major source NOX element of the 2017
RACT SIP. Since we are proposing to
determine that Rule 2.43 satisfies the
requirement to implement RACT, we are
10 The amendments require that these records be
submitted to the EPA via the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or an
analogous EPA electronic submission system.
CEDRI is an internet-based service maintained by
the EPA that allows regulated sources to submit
various reports for purposes of demonstrating
compliance with federal requirements. In addition
to regulated sources, state and local agency
personnel may create user accounts on CEDRI and
access the information submitted by sources located
within their agency’s jurisdiction. Additional
information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/
electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
89354
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
also proposing to determine that the
District implements RACT for major
sources of NOX associated with the
area’s Severe classification for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
The existing SIP-approved version of
the rule contains several monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
provisions, including a requirement to
operate continuous emission monitoring
systems (CEMS) for NOX and CO;
performance specification and
calibration requirements for the CEMS;
and requirements to maintain daily logs
of emissions, fuel usage, and startup/
shutdown durations. The amendments
adopted on December 13, 2023 establish
a new requirement for all records
required by this rule to be submitted to
the EPA at least once every six months.
We consider these provisions adequate
to ensure that compliance with rule
requirements can be clearly determined,
and that the rule is enforceable by the
District and the EPA, as well as by
members of the public. We are also
proposing to determine that our
approval of these amendments would
comply with CAA section 110(l)
because the proposed SIP revision
would not interfere with any applicable
CAA requirements. In addition, CAA
section 193 does not apply to this action
because Rule 2.43 is not a SIP-approved
control requirement that was in effect
before November 15, 1990. Additional
information regarding our evaluation is
discussed in greater detail in our TSD
for this action.
C. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to approve
Rule 2.43, as amended on April 12,
2023, and as further amended on
December 13, 2023, into the California
SIP. Based on our discussion in Section
II.B of this document, we propose to
determine that Rule 2.43 as amended
will comply with the EPA’s SSM policy
and other applicable CAA requirements
and will implement RACT for this
source category. In addition, we propose
to approve the major source NOX RACT
element of the 2017 RACT SIP. Because
our proposed approval relies upon our
evaluation of the public draft version of
the Rule 2.43 amendments,
subsequently adopted on December 13,
2023, but not yet formally submitted by
CARB, we will not take final action
until these amendments are submitted
to us as a revision to the California SIP.
If Rule 2.43 is not submitted in the form
adopted on December 13, 2023, we will
reconsider our proposed action
accordingly. We will accept comments
from the public on this proposal until
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
January 26, 2024. If we take final action
to approve the submitted documents,
our final action will incorporate this
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
YSAQMD Rule 2.43, ‘‘Biomass Boilers,’’
amended on December 13, 2023, which
regulates NOX and CO emissions from
biomass-fueled boilers. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provision of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 740(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus,
in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s
role is to review state choices, and
approve those choices if they meet the
minimum criteria of the 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• 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 State 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 goal 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,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Dated: December 20, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2023–0599 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than
English or if you are a person with a
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2023–28525 Filed 12–26–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0599; FRL–11591–
01–R9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa
County Air Quality Department
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the Maricopa County Air
Quality Department (MCAQD) portion
of the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions concern a
rule that includes definitions for certain
terms that are necessary for the
implementation of local rules that
regulate sources of air pollution. We are
proposing to approve the rule under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are
taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 26, 2024.
SUMMARY:
89355
disability 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: Kira
Wiesinger, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105. By phone: (415) 972–3827 or by
email at wiesinger.kira@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. The EPA’s Recommendations to Further
Improve the Rule
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. 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 with the date that it was
adopted by the local air agency and
submitted by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to the
EPA.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE
Local
agency
Rule No.
Rule title
MCAQD
100 ......................................................................
General Provisions and Definitions .....................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Under CAA section 110(k)(1), the EPA
must determine whether a SIP submittal
meets the minimum completeness
criteria established in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V for an official SIP submittal
on which the EPA is obligated to take
action. We find that the ADEQ’s August
23, 2023 SIP submittal for MCAQD Rule
100 meets the completeness criteria in
40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of this
rulemaking?
We approved an earlier version of
MCAQD Rule 100 into the SIP on
February 15, 2022.2 The Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors adopted
revisions to the SIP-approved version on
1 ADEQ submitted the amendment to MCAQD
Rule 100 electronically on August 23, 2023. ADEQ’s
submittal letter is dated August 23, 2023.
2 See 87 FR 8418 (February 15, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
August 9, 2023, and the ADEQ
submitted them to us on August 23,
2023. If we take final action to approve
the August 9, 2023 version of Rule 100,
this version will replace the previously
approved version of this rule in the SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
The purpose of the submitted rule
revisions is to clarify and update
definitions in Rule 100 of the Maricopa
County portion of the Arizona SIP as
part of the MCAQD’s Title V permit
program revision. Revisions include the
following, but a more complete list and
discussion can be found in the technical
support document (TSD) for this action
found in the docket:
• The addition of definitions for the
terms ‘‘alternative operating scenario’’
and ‘‘business day or working day’’ and
a revision of the definition of ‘‘major
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Revised
8/9/2023
Submitted on
1 8/23/2023
source.’’ A definition for the term
‘‘alternative operating scenario’’ was
added to allow MCAQD Title V permit
applications the opportunity to submit
an alternative operating scenario for
their source. The ‘‘major source’’
definition has been revised to make it
consistent with the Title V permit
program definition of ‘‘major source,’’
by including language describing a 100
tons per year emission threshold.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the
rulemaking?
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable
(see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress or other CAA
requirements (see CAA section 110(l)),
and must not modify certain SIP control
requirements in nonattainment areas
E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM
27DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89351-89355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28525]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0590; FRL-11615-01-R9]
Air Plan Approval; California; Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, through parallel processing, state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions from the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD
or ``District'') to address Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS or ``standards''). These revisions concern emissions of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) from biomass boilers, and also address
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for major
sources of NOX in the portion of the Sacramento Metro, CA,
nonattainment area that is subject to YSAQMD jurisdiction. We are
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2023-0590 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
[[Page 89352]]
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than English or if you are a person with
a disability 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: Eugene Chen, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street (AIR-3-3), San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415)
947-4304 or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What documents did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of the submitted documents?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents?
B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What documents did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the documents addressed by this proposal with the
dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1--Submitted Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document/
Local agency rule No. Document title Revised Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD.............................. ........... Reasonably Available Control 09/13/2017 11/13/2017
Technology (RACT) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Analysis
for the 2008 Federal Ozone
Standard (``2017 RACT SIP'').
YSAQMD.............................. 2.43 Biomass Boilers (public draft ........... 11/27/2023
version submitted for parallel
processing).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 13, 2017, the YSAQMD adopted the ``Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Analysis for the 2008 Federal Ozone Standard'' (``2017 RACT SIP'') to
demonstrate that its stationary sources are subject to RACT rules for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On November 13, 2017, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) submitted the 2017 RACT SIP to the EPA for
approval as a revision to the California SIP. The EPA determined that
the negative declarations portion of the 2017 RACT SIP met the SIP
submittal completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V on April
11, 2018.\1\ The EPA determined that the remaining elements of the 2017
RACT SIP met the SIP completeness criteria on August 23, 2018.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter dated April 11, 2018, from Elizabeth J. Adams, Acting
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB. A ``negative declaration'' is an assertion by a state
or district that a nonattainment area contains no sources covered by
a particular control techniques guidelines (CTG) document.
\2\ Letter dated August 23, 2018, from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 27, 2023, CARB submitted a public draft version of
amendments to Rule 2.43, ``Biomass Boilers,'' along with a request for
parallel processing.\3\ The EPA has reviewed the submitted public draft
version of Rule 2.43 and finds that it fulfills the completeness
criteria of appendix V, with the exception of the requirements of
paragraphs 2.1(e)-2.1(h), which do not apply to rules submitted for
parallel processing. CARB's November 27, 2023 letter states that the
YSAQMD Governing Board was scheduled to consider adoption of the
amended rule on December 13, 2023, and that if it was approved, CARB
would submit the final package to the EPA as a revision to the SIP.
While our evaluation of Rule 2.43 herein is based on the public draft
of the rule submitted by CARB on November 27, 2023, the YSAQMD
Governing Board has since approved the rule amendments from this draft,
and the EPA is now awaiting the final rule submittal from CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Parallel processing'' refers to a process established
under section 2.3 of Appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 that utilizes
concurrent state and federal proposed rulemaking actions. Generally,
the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other
revisions to the EPA before conducting its public hearing and
completing its public comment process under state law. The EPA
reviews this proposed state or district action and prepares a notice
of proposed rulemaking under federal law. In some cases, the EPA
publishes its notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register
during the same timeframe that the state or District is holding its
own public hearing and public comment process. If, after completing
its public comment process and after the EPA's public comment
process has run, the state materially changes its final SIP
submission to the EPA from the initial proposed submission, the EPA
evaluates those changes and decides whether to publish another
notice of proposed rulemaking in light of those changes or to
proceed to taking final action on its proposed action with a
description of the state's changes. Any final rulemaking action by
the EPA will occur only after the state formally adopts and submits
its final submission to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Are there other versions of the submitted documents?
On June 30, 2023, we took final action to partially approve and
partially disapprove the 2017 RACT SIP.\4\ Our partial disapproval
related solely to the RACT element for major sources of NOX
that we are now proposing to approve in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 88 FR 42252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We approved an earlier version of Rule 2.43 into the SIP on July 2,
2012.\5\ The District adopted amendments to the SIP-approved version of
Rule 2.43 on April 12, 2023, and CARB submitted these amendments to the
EPA on June 8, 2023. We will consider this earlier submittal to be
superseded, by the time of our final action, by the version of Rule
2.43 that has been submitted for parallel processing once it is
submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision. Therefore, we are proposing to
act only on the version of the rule submitted on November 27, 2023,
which includes all revisions made in the June 8, 2023 submittal.
However, we have reviewed materials provided with the June 8, 2023
submittal, and our evaluation below considers the amendments made in
that version of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 77 FR 39181. The EPA published a correcting amendment on
March 28, 2018 (83 FR 13190) that corrected an error in the
regulatory text of the July 2, 2012 final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?
Emissions of NOX contribute to the production of ground-
level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health
and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to
submit plans that provide for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. In addition, CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f)
require that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as
``Moderate'' or higher implement RACT for any category of sources
covered by a control techniques guidelines (CTG)
[[Page 89353]]
document and for any major source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
or NOX. The YSAQMD regulates the Yolo and Solano County
portions of the Sacramento Metro, CA, ozone nonattainment area, which
is classified as ``Severe'' nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\
Therefore, the YSAQMD must, at a minimum, ensure that all categories of
sources covered by a CTG document and all major sources of VOCs or
NOX within the District implement RACT-level controls. Any
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 25
tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX in a Severe ozone
nonattainment area is considered a major stationary source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The YSAQMD relies upon Rule 2.43 to implement RACT for major
sources of NOX.\7\ As we explained in our June 30, 2023
final action on the 2017 RACT SIP, the current SIP-approved version of
Rule 2.43 contains a provision that explicitly exempts affected units
from complying with rule standards during periods of startup and
shutdown and does not provide for an alternative emission limitation
during such periods. This provision is inconsistent with the EPA's
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Policy as established in the
EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action.\8\ This deficiency was the basis for our
disapproval of the major source NOX element of the 2017 RACT
SIP. The Rule 2.43 amendments adopted on April 12, 2023, are intended
to address this by establishing numeric NOX and carbon
monoxide (CO) limits that apply during periods of startup and shutdown.
The Rule 2.43 amendments that YSAQMD has proposed, will also establish
additional recordkeeping and periodic reporting requirements. Our
technical support document (TSD) has more detailed information about
these rule revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 2017 RACT SIP, pages 5 and 45.
\8\ ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to
SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents?
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require the implementation of RACT for
each category of sources covered by a CTG, as well as each major source
of NOX or VOC in ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate or higher (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The YSAQMD regulates a
portion of an ozone nonattainment area classified as ``Severe'' for the
2008 ozone NAAQS and is therefore responsible for ensuring the
applicable sources implement RACT-level controls for that ozone
standard. The YSAQMD relies upon Rule 2.43 to require the applicable
sources to implement RACT-level controls to fulfill the requirements
associated with the major source NOX element for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
We note that the April 12, 2023 amendments to Rule 2.43 also
establish emission standards for CO, which is not an ozone precursor,
and therefore we are not assessing in this action whether the CO
standard implements RACT-level controls. As a result, we have not
evaluated CO emission standards in Rule 2.43 for stringency, but we
have evaluated them under the enforceability and SIP relaxation
criteria.
B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria?
In our June 30, 2023 final action on the 2017 RACT SIP, we
evaluated the stringency of the 90 parts per million (ppm) (24-hour
block average) NOX emissions limit established by the SIP-
approved version of Rule 2.43.\9\ However, the 90 ppm limit did not
apply during periods of startup and shutdown. As a result, we
determined that the emission limits in SIP-approved Rule 2.43 achieve
RACT-level stringency but found that the lack of a continuous emissions
limit that applies at all times (including periods of startup and
shutdown) precluded us from determining that Rule 2.43 implemented
RACT. We have not identified any information since our June 30, 2023
approval to alter our evaluation of the stringency of the SIP-approved
NOX emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 88 FR 42252. See also TSD for that action, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The April 12, 2023 amendments to Rule 2.43 established a
NOX limit of 215 ppm on a 24-hour block average that applies
during periods of startup and shutdown. We consider this emission limit
to be consistent with the use of either combustion controls or good
combustion practices that are the most stringent control measures that
can be feasibly utilized during periods of startup and shutdown. In
addition, the YSAQMD identified other California air district rules for
biomass boilers and indicated that these rules either exempted periods
of startup and shutdown or had startup/shutdown limits that are less
stringent than those in Rule 2.43. This supports an EPA determination
that the amended rule establishes a RACT-level of control. Finally, we
determined that the amended Rule 2.43 is consistent with each of the
seven specific criteria recommended in the EPA's SSM Policy as
appropriate considerations for developing emission limitations in SIP
provisions applicable during startup and shutdown. Additional
information regarding our evaluation of Rule 2.43 with the seven
criteria is discussed in greater detail in our TSD for this action.
The Rule 2.43 amendments adopted by YSAQMD on December 13, 2023,
explicitly require that the results of any relative accuracy test audit
(RATA) performed be maintained by the source as required records, and
will also establish a requirement for the owner/operator of an affected
source to submit all records required by the recordkeeping provisions
of the rule to the EPA at least once every six months.\10\ These
reporting provision amendments will assist in ensuring compliance with
emission standards and other rule requirements, and will also ensure
that Rule 2.43 is enforceable by the District and the EPA as well as by
members of the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The amendments require that these records be submitted to
the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) or an analogous EPA electronic submission system. CEDRI is
an internet-based service maintained by the EPA that allows
regulated sources to submit various reports for purposes of
demonstrating compliance with federal requirements. In addition to
regulated sources, state and local agency personnel may create user
accounts on CEDRI and access the information submitted by sources
located within their agency's jurisdiction. Additional information
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the stringency of the existing SIP-approved NOX
limits, combined with the NOX limits established for periods
of startup and shutdown, we propose to approve Rule 2.43 as complying
with EPA's SSM policy and as implementing RACT for this source
category. As discussed previously, the absence of an emission limit
during startup and shutdown was the basis for our disapproval of the
major source NOX element of the 2017 RACT SIP. Since we are
proposing to determine that Rule 2.43 satisfies the requirement to
implement RACT, we are
[[Page 89354]]
also proposing to determine that the District implements RACT for major
sources of NOX associated with the area's Severe
classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The existing SIP-approved version of the rule contains several
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions, including a
requirement to operate continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)
for NOX and CO; performance specification and calibration
requirements for the CEMS; and requirements to maintain daily logs of
emissions, fuel usage, and startup/shutdown durations. The amendments
adopted on December 13, 2023 establish a new requirement for all
records required by this rule to be submitted to the EPA at least once
every six months. We consider these provisions adequate to ensure that
compliance with rule requirements can be clearly determined, and that
the rule is enforceable by the District and the EPA, as well as by
members of the public. We are also proposing to determine that our
approval of these amendments would comply with CAA section 110(l)
because the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with any
applicable CAA requirements. In addition, CAA section 193 does not
apply to this action because Rule 2.43 is not a SIP-approved control
requirement that was in effect before November 15, 1990. Additional
information regarding our evaluation is discussed in greater detail in
our TSD for this action.
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
approve Rule 2.43, as amended on April 12, 2023, and as further amended
on December 13, 2023, into the California SIP. Based on our discussion
in Section II.B of this document, we propose to determine that Rule
2.43 as amended will comply with the EPA's SSM policy and other
applicable CAA requirements and will implement RACT for this source
category. In addition, we propose to approve the major source
NOX RACT element of the 2017 RACT SIP. Because our proposed
approval relies upon our evaluation of the public draft version of the
Rule 2.43 amendments, subsequently adopted on December 13, 2023, but
not yet formally submitted by CARB, we will not take final action until
these amendments are submitted to us as a revision to the California
SIP. If Rule 2.43 is not submitted in the form adopted on December 13,
2023, we will reconsider our proposed action accordingly. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal until January 26,
2024. If we take final action to approve the submitted documents, our
final action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable
SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference YSAQMD Rule 2.43, ``Biomass Boilers,'' amended on December
13, 2023, which regulates NOX and CO emissions from biomass-
fueled boilers. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provision of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 740(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review state choices,
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the 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 State 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 goal 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, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 89355]]
Dated: December 20, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-28525 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
