[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34178-34180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09248]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0100; FRL-11790-01-R09]


Air Quality Plans; California; San Diego County Air Pollution 
Control District; Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a permitting rule which provides specific permit exemptions for 
sources otherwise requiring a permit, submitted as a revision to the 
San Diego County Air Pollution Control (APCD or ``District'') portion 
of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The proposed 
revisions would expand an existing provision that exempts tub grinders 
and trommel screens that process green material from permit 
requirements to include horizontal grinders and the processing of 
mixtures of green material and food material. The revisions also add a 
definition for ``food material.'' This action is being taken pursuant 
to the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and its implementing regulations. 
We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final 
action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0100 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 
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 or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.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: Camille Cassar, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105 or by email at 
[email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating this rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. 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 it 
was amended

[[Page 34179]]

by the District and submitted by the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Rule No.                             Rule title                Amended date      Submitted date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.....................................  Exemptions From Rule 10 Permit            10/13/2022         05/11/2023
                                          Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 11, 2023, the submittal for Rule 11 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. Are there other versions of this rule?

    The SIP-approved version of the submitted rule is identified in 
Table 2.

                                           Table 2--SIP Approved Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Federal Register
                Rule No.                             Rule title             SIP approval date       citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.....................................  Exemptions from Rule 10 Permit            09/28/2022        87 FR 58729
                                          Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the EPA finalizes the action proposed herein, this rule will be 
replaced in the SIP by the submitted rule listed in Table 1.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    The rule revision expands the exemption for tub grinders and 
trommel screens processing green material to include horizontal 
grinders and the processing of mixtures of green material and food 
material. A definition of the term ``food material'' has also been 
added to the rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    Under 40 CFR 51.160(e), a permit program must identify the types 
and sizes of facilities, buildings, structures, or installations that 
will be subject to review. A new source review (NSR) permitting program 
may exempt some new sources or modifications that are inconsequential 
to attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS), considering local air quality concerns.
    Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits the EPA from approving SIP 
revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any 
other applicable requirement of the CAA. Section 193 of the Act 
prohibits the modification of a 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 pollutant(s). With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) 
and 110(l) require that a state conduct reasonable notice and public 
hearing before adopting a SIP revision.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    Subsection (d)(10)(v) of Rule 11 currently exempts tub grinders and 
trommel screens processing green material from permit requirements. As 
a result of a recent California organic waste landfill diversion 
mandate, State of California Senate Bill (SB) 1383, San Diego County 
residents and businesses are now recycling food material along with 
yard waste. Consequently, composting facilities are now receiving, and 
processing, green material mixed with food material. Additionally, due 
to technological advancements, tub grinders are being replaced with 
more efficient horizontal grinders that are safer to operate. The rule 
revisions expand the existing exemption to include horizontal grinders 
and the processing of mixtures of green material and food material. A 
definition of the term ``food material'' has also been added to the 
rule.
    The emissions from tub grinders and horizontal grinders are related 
to the throughput of materials; therefore horizontal grinders do not 
produce emissions that are measurably different from those from a tub 
grinder. Therefore, we find this expanded exemption provision 
acceptable. The definition for the term ``food material'' is clear and 
provides clarification of the type of materials that can be processed 
in the exempt equipment. Therefore, we find this new definition 
acceptable.
    The submitted rule complies with the substantive and procedural 
requirements of CAA section 110(l). With respect to the procedural 
requirements, based on our review of the public process documentation 
included with the submitted rule, we find that the District has 
provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for 
comment and public hearings prior to submittal of this SIP revision and 
has satisfied the procedural requirements under CAA section 110(l).
    With respect to the substantive requirements of CAA section 110(l), 
we have determined that our approval of the submitted rule would not 
interfere with the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS or 
with any other applicable requirements of the CAA. Similarly, we find 
that the submitted rule is approvable under section 193 of the Act 
because it does not modify any control requirement in effect before 
November 15, 1990, without ensuring equivalent or greater emission 
reductions.
    For the reasons stated above and explained further in our technical 
support document, we find that the submitted San Diego County APCD Rule 
11 satisfies the applicable CAA and regulatory requirements for 
nonattainment NSR permit programs at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165 and 
other applicable requirements.

C. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing 
approval of San Diego County APCD Rule 11. We are proposing this action 
based on our determination that the submitted rule satisfies the 
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions governing regulation of 
stationary sources at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165. In support of our 
proposed action, we have concluded that our approval would comply with 
sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act because the amended rule will not 
interfere with continued attainment

[[Page 34180]]

of the NAAQS in San Diego County and does not relax control technology 
and offset requirements.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until May 
30, 2024. If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted 
rule into the SIP and our action would be codified through revisions to 
40 CFR 52.220, ``Identification of plan--in part.''

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 San Diego County APCD Rule 11, ``Exemptions From Rule 10 
Permit Requirements,'' amended October 13, 2022, which provides 
specific permit exemptions for sources otherwise requiring a permit. 
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. 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 rules do 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 air agency 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, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon oxides, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 22, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-09248 Filed 4-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P