Air Plan Revisions; California; Feather River Air Quality Management District, 9813-9815 [2024-02770]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Korea or Thailand as defined in this
section. Notwithstanding the provisions
of § 3.204(a)(1), VA will require the
types of evidence specified in §§ 3.209
and 3.210 sufficient to establish in the
judgment of the Secretary that a person
is the natural child of a Vietnam Veteran
or a Veteran with covered service in
Korea or Thailand.
(5) Spina bifida. For the purposes of
this section, the term ‘‘spina bifida’’
means any form and manifestation of
spina bifida except spina bifida occulta.
*
*
*
*
*
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1116A, 1116B,
1805, 1811, 1812, 1821, 1822, 1831, 1832,
1833, 1834, 5101, 5110, 5111, 5112)
8. Amend § 3.815 by revising
paragraph (c)(1) and the authority
citation at the end of the section to read
as follows:
■
§ 3.815 Monetary allowance under 38
U.S.C. chapter 18 for an individual with
disability from covered birth defects whose
biological mother is or was a Vietnam
Veteran; identification of covered birth
defects.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Vietnam Veteran. For the purposes
of this section, the term Vietnam
veteran means a person who performed
active military, naval, or air service in
the Republic of Vietnam during the
period beginning on February 28, 1961,
and ending on May 7, 1975, without
regard to the characterization of the
person’s service. Service in the Republic
of Vietnam includes service in the
waters offshore of the Republic of
Vietnam, as defined in 38 CFR
3.307(a)(6)(iii). Service in other
locations will constitute service in the
Republic of Vietnam if the conditions of
service involved duty or visitation in
the Republic of Vietnam.
*
*
*
*
*
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1116A, 1811, 1812,
1813, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1831, 1832, 1833,
1834, 5101, 5110, 5111, 5112)
9. Amend § 3.816 by revising
paragraph (f)(3) and the authority
citation at the end of the section to read
as follows:
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 3.816 Awards under the Nehmer Court
Orders for disability or death caused by a
condition presumptively associated with
herbicide exposure.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(3) Identifying payees. VA shall make
reasonable efforts to identify the
appropriate payee(s) under paragraph
(f)(1) of this section. For the purposes of
this section, reasonable efforts to locate
a Nehmer payee are limited to the
following:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:01 Feb 09, 2024
Jkt 262001
(i) Claims processors must review the
claims folder for beneficiary contact
information. Documents in the claims
folder that might contain this contact
information can include but are not
limited to:
(A) benefit applications;
(B) statements from the Veteran; and
(C) medical records
(ii) Claims processors must review
electronic claims processing systems for
potential beneficiary contact
information, including:
(A) corporate database review, and
(B) claims processing system notes
review
(iii) Claims processors must utilize
online public record investigation
software authorized by VA to locate
potential beneficiary contact
information.
(iv) If review of both the claims folder
and electronic claims processing
systems do not provide contact
information, VA will attempt to contact
any known or applicable authorized
representatives of record, next of kin,
individuals who provided first notice of
death, the executor/administrator of the
class member’s estate, or funeral homes
that provided funeral/burial services, if
that information is available.
(v) If no beneficiary, authorized
representative, next of kin, individuals
who provided first notice of death,
executor/administrator of the class
member’s estate, or funeral home that
provided funeral/burial services is
located in the review above, then claims
processors must:
(A) Send a letter to the last known
address of the veteran and wait 30 days
for a response, and
(B) Attempt contact via the Veteran’s
last known telephonic contact
information found in the Veteran’s file.
(vi) If, following such efforts, VA
releases the full amount of unpaid
benefits to a payee, and additional
qualifying payees subsequently identify
themselves to VA, VA will pay the
newly identified payees the portion of
the award to which they are entitled,
and then attempt to recover the
overpayment from the original payee(s).
*
*
*
*
*
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)
[FR Doc. 2024–02590 Filed 2–9–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9813
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0649; FRL–11647–
01–R9]
Air Plan Revisions; California; Feather
River Air Quality Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Feather River Air Quality
Management District (FRAQMD or
‘‘District’’) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns a rule submitted to
address section 185 of 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 March 13, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2023–0649 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
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
9814
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105; phone: (415) 972–3827; email:
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?
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. Proposed action and public comment
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 dates that it was
amended by the local air agency and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE
Local agency
Rule No.
FRAQMD ................................
7.15
On October 28, 2022, the EPA
determined that the submittal for Rule
7.15 met 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 rule?
There are no previous versions of
Rule 7.15 in the California SIP. The
FRAQMD originally adopted an earlier
version of this rule on December 6,
2010, but that version of the rule was
never submitted for inclusion in the SIP.
The FRAQMD amended Rule 7.15 on
April 4, 2022. If we take final action to
approve the April 4, 2022 version of
Rule 7.15, this version will be
incorporated into the SIP.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule?
Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), (f) and
185 of the Act, states with ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
‘‘Severe’’ or ‘‘Extreme’’ are required to
submit a SIP revision that requires
major stationary sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) or oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) emissions in the area to
pay a fee if the area fails to attain the
standard by the attainment date. The
required SIP revision must provide for
annual payment of the fees, computed
in accordance with CAA section 185(b).
The Sacramento Metro, CA ozone
nonattainment area has been classified
as Severe for the 1979 1-hour, 1997 8hour, and 2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The Sacramento Metro area
includes a portion of Sutter County that
is under the jurisdiction of the
FRAQMD. The EPA has previously
issued a finding that the State of
California had failed to submit the
required revisions for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS for portions of the Sacramento
Metro area, including the portion under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:01 Feb 09, 2024
Jkt 262001
Rule title
Amended
Clean Air Act Nonattainment Fees .........................................
the jurisdiction of the FRAQMD.1 The
FRAQMD submitted Rule 7.15 for the
portion of the Sacramento Metro area
under the jurisdiction of the District to
satisfy the requirement to submit a CAA
section 185 fee program for each federal
ozone NAAQS for which the
Sacramento Metro area is classified as
Severe or Extreme.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
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). The EPA is also evaluating the rule
for consistency with the statutory
requirements of CAA section 185.
Guidance and policy documents that
we used to evaluate enforceability,
revision/relaxation and rule stringency
requirements for the applicable criteria
pollutants include the following:
1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the
Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
1 January 5, 2010 (75 FR 232). Although the
imposition of sanctions due to this finding was
deferred on May 18, 2011 (76 FR 28661), and was
permanently stopped with our October 28, 2022
completeness letter, there remains an obligation for
the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation
plan (FIP) associated with the January 5, 2010
action.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
04/04/2022
07/05/2022
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
This rule meets CAA requirements
and is consistent with relevant guidance
regarding enforceability and SIP
revisions. The EPA’s technical support
document (TSD) has more information
on our evaluation.
C. The EPA’s Recommendations To
Further Improve the Rule
The TSD includes recommendations
for the next time the local agency
amends the rule.
D. Proposed Action and Public
Comment
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to approve
submitted Rule 7.15 because it fulfills
all relevant requirements. The rule is
not limited to a particular ozone
NAAQS, and we therefore propose to
find that it satisfies the District’s
obligations under the 1979 1-hour, 1997
8-hour, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until March 13,
2024. If we take final action to approve
the submitted rule, our final action will
incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP and address the EPA’s
obligation to promulgate a FIP arising
from our previous finding that the State
of California has failed to submit the
required CAA section 185 SIP revisions
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the
portion of the Sacramento Metro area
under the jurisdiction of the FRAQMD.
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
FRAQMD Rule 7.15, ‘‘Clean Air Act
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Nonattainment Fees,’’ amended on
April 4, 2022, which addresses the CAA
section 185 fee program requirements.
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 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. Law 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:01 Feb 09, 2024
Jkt 262001
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, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: February 5, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024–02770 Filed 2–9–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9815
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2023–0419; FRL–11736–
01–R3]
Redesignation of Portions of
Westmoreland and Cambria Counties,
Pennsylvania for the 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS):
Notification of Availability and Public
Comment Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability and public
comment period.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
providing notice of our intent to
redesignate portions of Westmoreland
County and Cambria County,
Pennsylvania, to ‘‘nonattainment’’ for
the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or
standard). Westmoreland County is
currently designated ‘‘attainment/
unclassifiable,’’ and Cambria County is
currently designated ‘‘unclassifiable.’’
EPA’s intended redesignation of
portions of these counties is based on
modeled violations of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. If the redesignation to
nonattainment is finalized, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would
be required to undertake certain
planning requirements to reduce SO2
concentrations within this area,
including, but not limited to, the
requirement to submit within 18 months
of redesignation a revision to the
Pennsylvania state implementation plan
(SIP) that provides for attainment of the
SO2 standard as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of redesignation to
nonattainment.
Notice is hereby given that EPA has
posted on our public electronic docket
and internet website the intended
redesignation for relevant portions of
Westmoreland and Cambria counties,
Pennsylvania under the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. The Agency invites the public
to review and provide input on our
intended redesignation during the
comment period specified in the DATES
section. EPA notified the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of our
intended redesignation action via a
letter to the Governor on or about
February 17, 2023, which is included in
the docket for this notice of availability
(NOA).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 28, 2024. Please refer to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9813-9815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02770]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0649; FRL-11647-01-R9]
Air Plan Revisions; California; Feather River Air Quality
Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Feather River Air Quality Management District
(FRAQMD or ``District'') portion of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). This revision concerns a rule submitted to address section
185 of 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 March 13, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2023-0649 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 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
[[Page 9814]]
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3827; email:
[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 rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
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. Proposed action and public comment
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 dates
that it was amended by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.
Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRAQMD................................ 7.15 Clean Air Act 04/04/2022 07/05/2022
Nonattainment Fees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2022, the EPA determined that the submittal for Rule
7.15 met 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 rule?
There are no previous versions of Rule 7.15 in the California SIP.
The FRAQMD originally adopted an earlier version of this rule on
December 6, 2010, but that version of the rule was never submitted for
inclusion in the SIP. The FRAQMD amended Rule 7.15 on April 4, 2022. If
we take final action to approve the April 4, 2022 version of Rule 7.15,
this version will be incorporated into the SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), (f) and 185 of the Act, states with
ozone nonattainment areas classified as ``Severe'' or ``Extreme'' are
required to submit a SIP revision that requires major stationary
sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
emissions in the area to pay a fee if the area fails to attain the
standard by the attainment date. The required SIP revision must provide
for annual payment of the fees, computed in accordance with CAA section
185(b).
The Sacramento Metro, CA ozone nonattainment area has been
classified as Severe for the 1979 1-hour, 1997 8-hour, and 2008 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Sacramento
Metro area includes a portion of Sutter County that is under the
jurisdiction of the FRAQMD. The EPA has previously issued a finding
that the State of California had failed to submit the required
revisions for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for portions of the Sacramento
Metro area, including the portion under the jurisdiction of the
FRAQMD.\1\ The FRAQMD submitted Rule 7.15 for the portion of the
Sacramento Metro area under the jurisdiction of the District to satisfy
the requirement to submit a CAA section 185 fee program for each
federal ozone NAAQS for which the Sacramento Metro area is classified
as Severe or Extreme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ January 5, 2010 (75 FR 232). Although the imposition of
sanctions due to this finding was deferred on May 18, 2011 (76 FR
28661), and was permanently stopped with our October 28, 2022
completeness letter, there remains an obligation for the EPA to
promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) associated with the
January 5, 2010 action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
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). The EPA is also evaluating the rule
for consistency with the statutory requirements of CAA section 185.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
This rule meets CAA requirements and is consistent with relevant
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions. The EPA's
technical support document (TSD) has more information on our
evaluation.
C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
The TSD includes recommendations for the next time the local agency
amends the rule.
D. Proposed Action and Public Comment
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
approve submitted Rule 7.15 because it fulfills all relevant
requirements. The rule is not limited to a particular ozone NAAQS, and
we therefore propose to find that it satisfies the District's
obligations under the 1979 1-hour, 1997 8-hour, and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until
March 13, 2024. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule,
our final action will incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP and address the EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP
arising from our previous finding that the State of California has
failed to submit the required CAA section 185 SIP revisions for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS for the portion of the Sacramento Metro area under the
jurisdiction of the FRAQMD.
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 FRAQMD Rule 7.15, ``Clean Air Act
[[Page 9815]]
Nonattainment Fees,'' amended on April 4, 2022, which addresses the CAA
section 185 fee program requirements. 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 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. Law 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, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 5, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-02770 Filed 2-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
