[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61794-61799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24506]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0746; FRL-9917-79-Region-9]


Approval, Disapproval, and Limited Approval and Disapproval of 
Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Monterey Bay Unified Air 
Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action 
on seven permitting rules submitted as a revision to the Monterey Bay 
Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD or District) portion of 
the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of 
California. We are proposing to disapprove one rule, we are proposing a 
limited approval and limited disapproval of one rule, we are proposing 
to repeal one rule, and we are proposing to approve the remaining four 
permitting rules. The submitted revisions include new and amended rules 
governing the issuance of permits for stationary sources, including 
review and permitting of minor sources, and major sources and major 
modifications under part C of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 
intended effect of these proposed actions is to update the applicable 
SIP with current MBUAPCD permitting rules and to set the stage for 
remedying certain deficiencies in these rules. If finalized as 
proposed, the limited disapproval actions would trigger an obligation 
for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan unless California 
submits and we approve SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies 
within two years of the final action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 14, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0746, by one of the following methods:

[[Page 61795]]

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (AIR-3), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's 
normal hours of operation.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. 
www.regulations.gov is an anonymous access system, and EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all 
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some 
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly 
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, by phone: (415) 972-
3534 or by email at [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittals
    A. Which rules did the State submit?
    B. What are the existing MBUAPCD rules governing stationary 
source permits in the California SIP?
    C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    1. Minor Source Permits
    2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
    3. Nonattainment New Source Review
    4. Section 110(l) of the Act
    5. Conclusion
III. Public Comment and Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittals

A. Which rules did the State submit?

    On December 13, 2000, March 21, 2001, October 16, 2002, and April 
20, 2011, the MBUAPCD submitted amended regulations to EPA for approval 
as revisions to the MBUAPCD portion of the California SIP under the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Collectively, the submitted regulations 
comprise the District's current program for preconstruction review and 
permitting of new or modified stationary sources. These SIP revision 
submittals, referred to herein as the ``SIP submittal'' or ``submitted 
rules,'' represent a minor update to the District's preconstruction 
review and permitting program and are intended to satisfy the 
requirements under part C (prevention of significant deterioration) 
(PSD) of title I of the Act as well as the general preconstruction 
review requirements for minor sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the 
Act (minor NSR).
    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that they were adopted by the District and submitted to EPA by the 
California Air Resources Board, which is the governor's designee for 
California SIP submittals.

                      Table 1--Submitted NSR Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Adopted or
      Rule No.            Rule title          amended        Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
200.................  Permits Required..        12/13/00          5/8/01
203.................  Application.......        10/16/02        12/12/02
204.................  Cancellation of            3/21/01         5/31/01
                       Applications.
206.................  Standards for              3/21/01         5/31/01
                       Granting
                       Applications.
207.................  Review of New or           4/20/11         5/12/11
                       Modified Sources.
208.................  Standards for             12/13/00          5/8/01
                       Granting Permits
                       to Operate
                       (Request to
                       Repeal).
212.................  Public                    10/16/02        12/12/02
                       Availability of
                       Emission Data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of these submittals was deemed by operation of law to meet the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, six months after 
the date of submittal. These criteria must be met before formal EPA 
review. Each of these submittals includes evidence of public notice and 
adoption of the regulation. While we can act only on the most recently 
submitted version of each regulation (which supersedes earlier 
submitted versions), we have reviewed materials provided with previous 
submittals. Our technical support document (TSD) provides additional 
background information on each of the submitted rules.

B. What are the existing MBUAPCD rules governing stationary source 
permits in the California SIP?

    Table 2 lists the rules that make up the existing SIP-approved 
rules for new or modified stationary sources in MBUAPCD. All of these 
rules, except for Rule 200, would be replaced or otherwise deleted from 
the SIP by the submitted set of rules listed in table 1 if EPA were to 
take final action as proposed herein.

[[Page 61796]]



                       Table 2--Existing SIP Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Federal
      Rule No.            Rule title       SIP approval      Register
                                               date          Citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
200.................  Permits Required..          7/1/99     64 FR 35577
204.................  Cancellation of             7/1/99     64 FR 35577
                       Applications.
206.................  Standards for              7/13/87     52 FR 26148
                       Granting
                       Applications.
207.................  Review of New or            2/4/00      65 FR 5433
                       Modified Sources.
208.................  Standards for              7/13/87     52 FR 26148
                       Granting Permits
                       to Operate
                       (Request to
                       Repeal).
212.................  Public                     7/13/87     52 FR 26148
                       Availability of
                       Emission Data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to present our evaluation 
under the CAA and EPA's regulations of the submitted rules adopted by 
the District as identified in table 1. We provide our reasoning in 
general terms below but provide more detailed analysis in our TSD, 
which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

II. EPA's Evaluation

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    EPA has reviewed the rules submitted by MBUAPCD governing PSD and 
minor NSR for stationary sources for compliance with the CAA's general 
requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA's regulations for 
stationary source permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, sections 
51.160 through 51.164 and 51.166, and the CAA requirements for SIP 
revisions in CAA section 110(l).\1\ As described below, EPA is 
proposing a combination of actions consisting of disapproval of Rule 
200 (Permits), limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 207 
(Review of New or Modified Sources), repeal of Rule 208 (Standards for 
Granting Permits to Operate) and approval of Rules 203, 204, 206 and 
212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require 
that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice 
and public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural 
requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These 
requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement 
in the relevant geographic area, of a public hearing on the proposed 
revisions, a public comment period of at least 30 days, and an 
opportunity for a public hearing.
    Based on our review of the public process documentation included in 
the various submittals, we find that MBUAPCD has provided sufficient 
evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public 
hearings prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to EPA.
    With respect to substantive requirements, we have evaluated each 
submitted rule in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements 
that apply to: (1) General preconstruction review programs for minor 
sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.160-164, 
and (2) PSD permit programs under part C of title I of the Act and 40 
CFR 51.166. For the most part, the submitted rules satisfy the 
applicable requirements for these permit programs and would strengthen 
the applicable SIP by updating the regulations and adding requirements 
to address new or revised PSD permitting requirements promulgated by 
EPA in the last several years, but the submitted rules also contain 
specific deficiencies which prevent full approval. Below, we discuss 
generally our evaluation of MBUAPCD's submitted rules and the 
deficiencies that are the basis for our proposed action on these rules. 
Our TSD contains a more detailed evaluation and recommendations for 
program improvements.
1. Minor Source Permits
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires that each SIP include a 
program to provide for ``regulation of the modification and 
construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the 
plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards 
are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D'' 
of title I of the Act. Thus, in addition to the permit programs 
required in parts C and D of title I of the Act, which apply to new or 
modified ``major'' stationary sources of pollutants, each SIP must 
include a program to provide for the regulation of the construction and 
modification of any stationary source within the areas covered by the 
plan as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. These general 
pre-construction requirements are commonly referred to as ``minor NSR'' 
and are subject to EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.160-
51.164.
    Rules 200--Permits Required, 203--Application, 204--Cancellation of 
Applications, 206--Standards for Granting Applications, 207--Review of 
New or Modified Sources, and 212--Public Availability of Emission Data, 
contain the requirements for review and permitting of individual minor 
stationary sources in MBUAPCD. Except for Rule 200, these regulations 
satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for minor NSR 
programs. The changes the District made to the rules listed above were 
largely administrative in nature and provide additional clarity to the 
rules. However, language added to Rule 200 in Part 4 conflicts with the 
provisions of 40 CFR 52.23 which provides that all permit conditions 
issued under an EPA-approved permit program which are incorporated into 
the SIP, are federally enforceable conditions subject to enforcement 
under section 113 of the CAA. Thus, the default enforcement status of 
permit conditions issued as part of a federally approved permit program 
is that they are federally enforceable, regardless of the origin of the 
authority for the conditions. Because the new language in Rule 200, 
Part 4, explicitly contravenes the provisions contained in 40 CFR 
52.23, the revisions to Rule 200 cannot be approved into the SIP. 
Therefore EPA is proposing to disapprove submitted Rule 200--Permits 
Required. If we finalize our action as proposed, the current SIP 
approved version of Rule 200--Permits Required will remain in effect. 
(64 FR 35577 July 1, 1999).

[[Page 61797]]

2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
    Part C of title I of the Act contains the provisions for the 
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in areas 
designated ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'' for the NAAQS, 
including preconstruction permit requirements for new major sources or 
major modifications proposing to construct in such areas. EPA's 
regulations for PSD permit programs are found in 40 CFR 51.166. MBUAPCD 
is currently designated as ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' for all NAAQS pollutants.
    Rule 207 contains the requirements for review and permitting of 
minor and PSD sources in MBUAPCD. This Rule satisfies most of the 
statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs, but Rule 
207 also contains several deficiencies that form the basis for our 
proposed limited disapproval, as discussed below.
    First, 40 CFR 51.161(a) requires the District to provide an 
opportunity for public comment on proposed permit actions. In addition, 
40 CFR 51.161(d) specifies that a public notice must be provided for 
all lead point sources, as defined in 40 CFR 51.100(k). The provisions 
of Sections 6.9 and 4.2 provide specific public notice emission rate 
thresholds to determine when public notice is required. The rule 
provides thresholds for all NAAQS pollutants except PM2.5 
and lead. To correct this deficiency, the District should add public 
notice emission thresholds for both pollutants.
    Second, the definitions of ``Major Stationary Source'' and ``Major 
Modification to an Existing Source'' do not include the specific 
applicability thresholds provided in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1) and (2), 
respectively, for these terms. Instead both definitions provide a 
general reference to the ``. . . threshold levels provided by the 
federal Clean Air Act . . .'' to be used to determine the emission 
thresholds that constitute a Major Stationary Source and Major 
Modification to an Existing Source. This general reference is not 
sufficient to satisfy the requirement to provide definitions for these 
terms which are ``more stringent, or at least as stringent, in all 
respects as the corresponding definitions. . . .'' To correct the 
deficiency, the District should add the threshold levels provided in 
the 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1) and (2) to its definitions.
    Third, the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2) provides that a 
modification is ``major'' if it would result in a ``significant 
emissions increase'' and a ``significant net emissions increase'' of a 
pollutant, whereas the definition in Rule 207 provides that a 
modification is ``major'' if it may result in a ``potential to emit'' 
greater than the threshold levels provided by the federal CAA for the 
area designation and pollutant. This rule language means that only 
increases above the existing potential to emit levels are considered 
emission increases when determining if a project will result in a major 
modification. This calculation methodology is inconsistent with federal 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c) and (d), which specify that 
emission increases from a modification must be based on the difference 
between post-project projected actual or potential emissions and pre-
project actual emissions. Using the Rule 207 definition, a project that 
would be considered a major modification under federal regulations, may 
not be considered a major modification at an existing source under Rule 
207. The District should correct this deficiency by including an 
applicability test equivalent to the test provided in 40 CFR 
51.166(a)(7) to its rule.
    Fourth, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23) for the term ``significant'' contains 
three separate paragraphs ((i), (ii) and (iii)). While Rule 207 does 
not provide a specific definition for this term, we have determined 
that the emission thresholds provided in Table 4.1.1 of the rule 
provide an alternative definition that is at least as stringent as the 
provisions in paragraph (i). Paragraph (ii) specifies the definition of 
significant for any regulated NSR pollutant not listed in paragraph 
(i). We could not find any Rule 207 provisions that would satisfy the 
paragraph (ii) definition of significant. Paragraph (iii) defines ``any 
emissions rate or any net emissions increase [NEI] associated with a 
major stationary source or major modification, which would construct 
within 10 kilometers [6 miles] of a Class I area, and have an impact on 
such area equal to or greater than 1 [mu]g/m\3\ (24-hour average)'' as 
significant. While the provisions of Section 4.5, Protection of Class I 
Areas appear to satisfy the requirements for this definition by 
providing a range of 15 miles, impact levels of 1 [mu]g/m\3\ (24-hour 
average) or less for various pollutants, and a net emission increase 
threshold of zero, it provides for the calculation of a ``net emission 
increase'' in a manner entirely inconsistent with the 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(3) definition of this term. EPA's definition only allows 
contemporaneous emission increases and decreases (typically occurring 
within the last 5 years) to be used in determining the NEI from a 
project, whereas the definition of NEI in Section 2.36 requires the use 
of all emission increases and decreases since the specified baseline 
date for each pollutant. Except for PM2.5, these dates are 
between 20 and 30 years old. The District should correct this 
deficiency by including all of the provisions found in 40 CFR 
51.166(23)(iii) in Rule 207.
    Fifth, Rule 207 does not contain a provision to satisfy the 
requirement of 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iii) which requires the District to 
provide the opportunity for a public hearing to consider a proposed 
permit action. The District should correct this deficiency by including 
the opportunity for a public hearing for proposed permit actions in 
Rule 207.
    Finally, Rule 207 does not contain any provisions to satisfy the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2) which require permit 
programs to include specific language providing that (1) ``. . . 
approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the 
responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan 
and any other requirements under local, State or Federal law'' and (2) 
that if ``. . . a particular source or modification becomes a major 
stationary source or major modification solely by virtue of a 
relaxation in any enforceable limitation which was established after 
August 7, 1980, on the capacity of the source or modification otherwise 
to emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on hours of operation, then 
the requirements . . .'' of the PSD program shall apply to the source 
or modification as though construction had not yet commenced on the 
source or modification. This deficiency should be corrected by adding 
the language found in 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2).
    Compared to the existing SIP approved PSD program in Rule 207 
(approved February 4, 2000), however, submitted Rule 207 represents an 
overall strengthening of the District's PSD program, in large part 
because the rule includes updated PSD provisions to regulate new or 
modified major stationary sources of PM2.5 emissions, which 
is unregulated under the existing SIP PSD program. Because submitted 
Rule 207 strengthens the SIP, we are proposing a limited approval and 
limited disapproval based on the deficiencies listed above.
3. Nonattainment New Source Review
    The CAA defines ``nonattainment areas'' as air quality planning 
areas that exceed the primary or secondary

[[Page 61798]]

NAAQS for the given criteria pollutant. The MBUAPCD is not designated 
nonattainment for any NAAQS, although the District was classified as 
nonattainment in the past. Because the MBUAPCD is not currently 
classified nonattainment for any NAAQS, we are not evaluating the 
submitted rules for approval under 40 CFR 51.165, which contains the 
requirements for nonattainment NSR programs. To the extent some rules 
contain provisions typically associated with nonattainment NSR programs 
(e.g. offset provisions), we are approving those provisions only for 
purposes of the District's minor NSR program.
4. Section 110(l) of the Act
    Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a revision of a plan if 
the revision would ``interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any 
other applicable requirement of [the Act].''
    MBUAPCD is currently designated attainment or unclassifiable/
attainment for all NAAQS pollutants. We are unaware of any reliance by 
the District on the continuation of any aspect of the permit-related 
rules in the MBUAPCD portion of the California SIP for the purpose of 
continued attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Our approval of the 
MBUAPCD SIP submittal (and supersession of the existing SIP rules) 
would strengthen the applicable SIP in some specific respects and would 
relax the SIP in other specific respects. Taken in its entirety, we 
find that the SIP revision represents a strengthening of MBUAPCD's 
minor NSR and PSD programs compared to the existing SIP rules that we 
approved in 1987, 1999 and 2000, and that our approval of the SIP 
submittal would not interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
    Given all these considerations and in light of the air quality 
improvements in MBUAPCD, we propose to conclude that our approval of 
these updated NSR regulations into the California SIP would not 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any 
other applicable requirement of the Act.
5. Conclusion
    For the reasons stated above and explained further in our TSD, we 
find that the submitted rules satisfy most of the applicable CAA and 
regulatory requirements for the District's minor NSR and PSD permit 
programs under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and part C of title I of the 
Act. However, Rule 207 contains certain deficiencies that prevent us 
from proposing a full approval and we are proposing a limited approval 
and limited disapproval of that Rule. We do so based also on our 
finding that, while Rule 207 does not meet all of the applicable 
requirements, the Rule represents an overall strengthening of the SIP 
by clarifying and enhancing the permitting requirements for major and 
minor stationary sources in MBUAPCD. We are also proposing a full 
disapproval of Rule 200. We are proposing to approve the District's 
request to repeal Rule 208 from the SIP. Finally, we are proposing a 
full approval of the remaining four permitting rules.

III. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA and for the reasons provided 
above, EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
Rule 207, a full disapproval of Rule 200 and approval of the remaining 
revisions to the MBUAPCD portion of the California SIP that governs the 
issuance of permits for stationary sources under the jurisdiction of 
the MBUAPCD, including review and permitting of major sources and major 
modifications under part C of title I of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is 
proposing an action on MBUAPCD regulations listed in table 1, above, as 
a revision to the MBUAPCD portion of the California SIP.
    EPA is proposing this action because, although we find that the new 
and amended rules meet most of the applicable requirements for such 
permit programs and that the SIP revisions improve the existing SIP, we 
have found certain deficiencies that prevent full approval of Rule 207, 
as explained further in this preamble and in the TSD for this 
rulemaking. The intended effect of the proposed approval and limited 
approval and limited disapproval portions of this action is to update 
the applicable SIP with current MBUAPCD permitting regulations \2\ and 
to set the stage for remedying deficiencies in these regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Final approval of the rules in table 1, except Rule 200, 
would supersede all of the rules in the existing California SIP as 
listed in table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If finalized as proposed, the limited disapproval of Rule 207 would 
trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation 
Plan unless the State of California corrects the deficiencies, and EPA 
approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the final 
action.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposed action for 
30 days following publication in the Federal Register.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 
1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq., because this proposed action under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 
create any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves 
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is 
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's 
proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 
small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not 
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This 
proposed action under section 110 and subchapter I, part C of the Clean 
Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but 
simply disapproves certain State

[[Page 61799]]

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no 
opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from 
all or part of the rule. Therefore, this proposed action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval and limited 
disapproval portions of this action does not include a Federal mandate 
that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either 
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private 
sector. This action proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements 
under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, 
no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the 
private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves 
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply in 
Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed 
action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not 
subject to EO 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive 
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). These proposed actions under 
section 110 and subchapter I, part C of the Clean Air Act will not in-
and-of itself create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain 
State requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of 
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would 
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 30, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-24506 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P