Rule2024-03894
Air Plan Approval; CA; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 27, 2024
Effective
March 28, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), on behalf of SJVAPCD, in response to the EPA's May 22, 2015 finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call for certain provisions in the SIP related to exemptions and affirmative defenses applicable to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. The EPA is finalizing approval of the SIP revisions because the Agency has determined that they are in accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) and correct deficiencies identified in the May 22, 2015, SIP call.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14412-14415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03894]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0604; FRL-10574-02-R9]
Air Plan Approval; CA; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District (SJVAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), on behalf of SJVAPCD, in
response to the EPA's May 22, 2015 finding of substantial inadequacy
and SIP call for certain provisions in the SIP related to exemptions
and affirmative defenses applicable to excess emissions during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. The EPA is finalizing approval
of the SIP revisions because the Agency has determined that they are in
accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act) and correct
[[Page 14413]]
deficiencies identified in the May 22, 2015, SIP call.
DATES: This rule is effective March 28, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0604. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with 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: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947-4125 or by
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#33455a5d564a5241571d505b415a40475a5d56735643521d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d7b646368746c7f69236e657f647e796463684d687d6c236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On February 22, 2013, the EPA issued a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to
SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. The EPA analyzed specific SSM
SIP provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply
with the CAA with regard to excess emission events.\1\ For each SIP
provision that the EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, the
EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP
call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, the EPA issued
a document supplementing and revising what the Agency had previously
proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C. Circuit decision that
determined the CAA precludes authority of the EPA to create affirmative
defense provisions applicable to private civil suits. The EPA outlined
its updated policy that affirmative defense SIP provisions are not
consistent with CAA requirements. The EPA proposed in the supplemental
proposal document to apply its revised interpretation of the CAA to
specific affirmative defense SIP provisions and proposed SIP calls for
those provisions where appropriate (79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA
finalized ``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,'' hereafter referred to as the ``2015 SSM SIP
Action.'' \2\ The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified, restated, and updated
the EPA's interpretation that SSM exemptions and affirmative defense
SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP
Action found that certain SIP provisions in 36 states were
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call
to those states to submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies.
The EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the affected states
had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required to submit
corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP calls by
November 22, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 80 FR 33839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum),
which stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs
could be viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\3\ Importantly,
the 2020 Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the
determinations made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific
state SIP provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the
requirements of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no
direct impact on the SIP call issued to SJVAPCD in 2015. The 2020
Memorandum did, however, indicate the EPA's intent at the time to
review SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to
determine whether the EPA should maintain, modify, or withdraw
particular SIP calls through future agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2021, the EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the
2020 Memorandum and announced the EPA's return to the policy
articulated in the 2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\4\ As
articulated in the 2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain
exemptions or affirmative defense provisions are not consistent with
CAA requirements and, therefore, generally are not approvable if
contained in a SIP submission. This policy approach is intended to
ensure that all communities and populations, including overburdened
communities, receive the full health and environmental protections
provided by the CAA.\5\ The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the prior
statement from the 2020 Memorandum of EPA's plans to review and
potentially modify or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no
longer reflects the EPA's intent. The EPA intends to implement the
principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the Agency takes
action on SIP submissions, including SJVAPCD's SIP submittal, provided
in response to the 2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
\5\ 80 FR 33985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to SJVAPCD, the SIP call identified Rules 110, 111,
and 113 because the rules contained improper affirmative defenses for
excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction events. On
August 10, 2023 (88 FR 54257), the EPA proposed to approve removal of
the rules in the following table from the California SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Joaquin Valley APCD (Fresno 110 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
County APCD).
San Joaquin Valley APCD 110 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
(Stanislaus County APCD).
[[Page 14414]]
San Joaquin Valley APCD (Kern 111 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
County APCD).
San Joaquin Valley APCD (Kings 111 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
County APCD).
San Joaquin Valley (Tulare County 111 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
APCD).
San Joaquin Valley APCD (Madera 113 Equipment Breakdown................... 2/17/2022 4/14/2022
County APCD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the proposal, the EPA proposed to approve the
removal of these rules from the SJVAPCD portions of the California SIP
because such removal is consistent with CAA requirements and would
correct the deficiencies identified by the Agency in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action. SJVAPCD is retaining the affirmative defenses solely for state
law purposes, outside of the EPA approved SIP. Removal of the
affirmative defenses from the SIP is also consistent with the EPA
policy for exclusion of ``state law only'' provisions from SIPs and
will serve to minimize any potential confusion about the
inapplicability of the affirmative defense provisions in Federal court
enforcement actions.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received one comment from the Sierra Club and
Environmental Integrity Project in support of the proposed rulemaking.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, and for the reasons identified in the
August 22, 2023 proposal, the EPA is fully approving the removal of
these rules from the SJVAPCD portion of the California SIP. The
Agency's final approval of this submission fully corrects the
inadequacies in the SJVAPCD portion of the California SIP that were
identified in the EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is amending regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. As described in section I of the preamble
and as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52, the EPA is
removing provisions from the Fresno County, Kern County, Kings County,
Madera County, Stanislaus County, and Tulare County portions of the
California SIP, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with
the requirements of 1 CFR 51. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents available through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and at the
EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the 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 they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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
Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of
color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United
[[Page 14415]]
States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 29, 2024.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of the final
rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: February 5, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (c)(47)(ii)(C);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(47)(iii)(C); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(47)(iii)(D), (c)(51)(ix)(E) and (F),
(c)(51)(x)(D) and (E), (c)(52)(iv)(H) and (I), (c)(126)(iii)(D), and
(c)(138)(v)(F).
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(47) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Previously approved on October 24, 1980, in paragraph
(c)(47)(ii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 110, ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(iii) * * *
(C) Previously approved on October 24, 1980, in paragraph
(c)(47)(iii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement for
implementation in the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District: Rule
111, ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(D) Previously approved on October 24, 1980, in paragraph
(c)(47)(iii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement for
implementation in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District: Rule 111, ``Equipment Breakdown.''
* * * * *
(51) * * *
(ix) * * *
(E) Previously approved on December 9, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(51)(ix)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 110 (A), (B), and (D)-(I), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(F) Previously approved on June 18, 1982, in paragraph
(c)(51)(ix)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 110 (C), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(x) * * *
(D) Previously approved on December 9, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(51)(x)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement: Rule
111 (a), (b), and (d)-(i), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(E) Previously approved on June 18, 1982, in paragraph
(c)(51)(x)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement: Rule
111(c), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
* * * * *
(52) * * *
(iv) * * *
(H) Previously approved on December 9, 1981, in paragraph
(c)(52)(iv)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 111 (A), (B), and (D)-(I), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
(I) Previously approved on June 18, 1982, in paragraph
(c)(52)(iv)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 111(C), ``Equipment Breakdown.''
* * * * *
(126) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) Previously approved on June 1, 1983, in paragraph
(c)(126)(iii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 110, ``Equipment Breakdown.''
* * * * *
(138) * * *
(v) * * *
(F) Previously approved on November 18, 1983, in paragraph
(c)(138)(v)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement:
Rule 113, ``Equipment Breakdown.''
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-03894 Filed 2-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 27, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.