
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58538-58540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18401]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0925; FRL-10943-01-R9]


Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Great Basin Unified 
Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (GBUAPCD or ``District'') portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). In this action, we are proposing to approve 
one rule governing the issuance of permits for new and modified major 
sources in nonattainment areas under part D of title I of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or ``the Act'') in the District. We are also proposing to find 
that PM10 precursors are not significant contributors to 
PM10 levels in the Mono Basin, as the majority of direct PM 
emissions come from dry lake beds. We are taking comments on this 
proposal and a final action will follow.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 27, 
2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0925 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from 
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish 
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically 
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by 
statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment 
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, 
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission 
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI and multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language 
other than English or if you are a person with disabilities who needs a 
reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nidia Trejo, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3968, or by 
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,'' 
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Is there another version of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. The EPA's Evaluation
    A. What is the background for this proposal?
    B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    C. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal including the 
date it was adopted by the District and the date on which it was 
submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB or 
``the State'').

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Rule No.                                   Rule title                  Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 222......................................  NSR Requirements for New and Modified      01/06/22     07/05/22
                                                 Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 5, 2023, the submittal for District Rule 222 was deemed 
by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 
51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Is there another version of this rule?

    There is no previous version of Rule 222 in the California SIP.

[[Page 58539]]

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    Rule 222 is intended to address the CAA's statutory and regulatory 
requirements for Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permit programs 
for major sources emitting nonattainment air pollutants and their 
precursors.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. What is the background for this proposal?

    Historically, the District had four designated PM10 
nonattainment areas, including the Owens Valley and Coso Junction 
Planning Areas in Inyo County, CA, and the Mono Basin and Mammoth Lake 
Planning Areas in Mono County, CA. Currently, however, only the Mono 
Basin and Owens Valley Planning Areas are designated nonattainment for 
PM10. The designation of the Mono Basin and Owens Valley 
Planning Areas as federal PM10 nonattainment areas triggered 
the requirement for the District to develop and submit an NNSR program 
to the EPA for approval into the California SIP. The District's NNSR 
program must satisfy the NNSR requirements applicable to a Moderate 
PM10 nonattainment area for the Mono Basin and a Serious 
PM10 nonattainment area for the Owens Valley.
    Our Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action contains 
additional information regarding the history of the District's 
PM10 nonattainment areas. The District is designated 
attainment/unclassifiable for all other NAAQS.

B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    The EPA reviewed Rule 222 for compliance with CAA requirements for: 
(1) stationary source preconstruction permitting programs as set forth 
in CAA part D, including CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173; (2) the review 
and modification of major sources in accordance with 40 CFR 51.160-
51.165 as applicable in Moderate and Serious PM10 
nonattainment areas; (3) the review of new major stationary sources or 
major modifications in a designated nonattainment area that may have an 
impact on visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area in 
accordance with 40 CFR 51.307; (4) SIPs in general as set forth in CAA 
sections 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(E)(i); \1\ and 
(5) SIP revisions as set forth in CAA section 110(l) \2\ and 193.\3\ 
Our review evaluated the submittals for compliance with the NNSR 
requirements applicable to nonattainment areas designated Moderate and 
Serious, and ensured that the submittals addressed the NNSR 
requirements for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted 
to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable, and 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that states have adequate 
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out their 
proposed SIP revisions.
    \2\ CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to 
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal 
by states to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision 
that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable 
requirement of the CAA.
    \3\ CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-
approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in 
a nonattainment area, unless the modification ensures equivalent or 
greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 
110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after 
reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public 
process documentation included in the July 5, 2022 submittal of Rule 
222, we find that the District has provided sufficient evidence of 
public notice, opportunity for comment, and a public hearing prior to 
adoption and submittal of this rule to the EPA.
    With respect to the substantive requirements found in CAA sections 
172(c)(5), 173, 189 and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165, we have evaluated Rule 
222 in accordance with the applicable CAA and regulatory requirements 
that apply to NNSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act 
for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS. We find that Rule 222 satisfies 
these requirements as they apply to sources subject to NNSR permit 
program requirements applicable to Moderate and Serious PM10 
nonattainment areas. As part of our determination, we relied on a 
previous finding from our 2016 final action approving the Owens Valley 
1987 PM10 attainment plan that PM10 precursors 
are not significant contributors to PM10 in the area,\4\ and 
a comparative analysis of emission sources in the Mono Basin to 
determine that PM10 precursors are also not significant 
contributors to PM10 in the Mono Basin.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 82 FR 13390, (March 13, 2017). See also 81 FR 89407, 
(December 12, 2016).
    \5\ See GBUAPCD 1995 PM10 State Implementation Plan 
for Mono Basin Planning Area, Table 4.1--PM10 Emissions 
Summary; see also 82 FR 13390 (Mar. 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also determined that this rule satisfies the related 
visibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.307. In addition, we find that 
Rule 222 satisfies the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) that 
regulations submitted to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally 
enforceable and that the submittal demonstrates in accordance with CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) that the Districts have adequate personnel, 
funding, and authority under state law to carry out the proposed SIP 
revision.
    Regarding the additional substantive requirements of CAA sections 
110(l) and 193, our action will result in a more stringent SIP, while 
not relaxing any existing provision contained in the SIP. We have 
concluded that our action would comply with section 110(l) because our 
approval of Rule 222 will not interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other CAA 
applicable requirement. In addition, our approval of Rule 222 will not 
relax any pre-November 15, 1990 requirement in the SIP, and therefore 
changes to the SIP resulting from this action ensure greater or 
equivalent emission reductions of PM10 and its precursors in 
the District; accordingly, our action is consistent with the 
requirements of CAA section 193.
    Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a 
more detailed discussion of our analysis of Rule 222.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD also includes recommendations for an additional clarifying 
revision to consider for adoption when the District next modifies Rule 
222.

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA 
is proposing approval of the submitted rule because it fulfills the 
relevant CAA requirements and strengthens the SIP. We have concluded 
that our approval of the submitted rule would comply with the relevant 
provisions of CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 173, 189, and 
193, and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307.
    If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be codified 
through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a (Identification of plan--in part). 
This action would incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP. In 
conjunction with the EPA's SIP approval of the District's visibility 
provisions for sources subject to the NNSR program as meeting the 
relevant requirements of 40 CFR 51.307, this action would also revise 
the

[[Page 58540]]

regulatory provision at 40 CFR 52.281(d) concerning the applicability 
of the visibility Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) at 40 CFR 52.28 as 
it pertains to California, to provide that this FIP does not apply to 
sources subject to review under the District's SIP-approved NNSR 
program.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until 
September 27, 2023.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the GBUAPCD rule listed in Table 1 of this preamble, which 
regulates the issuance of permits for new and modified major sources in 
nonattainment areas in the District. The EPA has made, and will 
continue to make, this document available electronically through 
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX 
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law 
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean 
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The District did not evaluate environmental justice considerations 
as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing 
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA 
did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. 
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there 
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goals of 
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 17, 2023.
Cheree Peterson,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-18401 Filed 8-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


