Quiero saber acerca de...

47048

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

submittal for compliance with the NNSR requirements applicable to Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, and ensured that the submittal addressed the NNSR requirements for the 1997 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
C. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110a2
and 110l 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 November 5, 2019 submittal of Rule 400, we find that the AAD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice, opportunity for comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to the EPA.
With respect to the substantive requirements found in CAA sections 172c5 and 173, and 40 CFR 51.160
51.165, we have evaluated Rule 400 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 all relevant ozone NAAQS, including the 2015 ozone NAAQS. With the exceptions noted below in Section II.D, we find that Rule 400 satisfies these requirements as they apply to sources subject to the NNSR
permit program requirements applicable to Moderate ozone nonattainment areas.
We have also determined that this rule satisfies the related visibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.307. In addition, we have determined that Rule 400 satisfies the requirement in CAA
section 110a2A that regulations submitted to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable, and have determined that the submittal demonstrates, in accordance with CAA
section 110a2Ei, that the District has adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out these proposed SIP revisions.
Regarding the additional substantive requirements of CAA sections 110l 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 110l because our limited approval of Rule 400 will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other CAA applicable requirement. In addition, our limited approval of Rule 400 will not relax any unless the modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutants.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:56 Aug 20, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 ozone and its precursors in the District.
Accordingly, we have concluded that our action is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 193.
D. What are the rule deficiencies?
The EPA identified five deficiencies in Rule 400. First, Section 4.5 of Rule 400 allows for the District to approve interprecursor trading IPT of ozone precursors to satisfy emission offset requirements, provided certain conditions are satisfied. However, on January 29, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sierra Club v. EPA, 984
F.3d 1055, issued a decision holding that the CAA does not allow IPT for ozone precursors and vacating the provisions in the EPAs NNSR
regulations allowing IPT for ozone precursors. In light of the Courts decision, the provision in Section 4.5
allowing for IPT for ozone precursors is no longer permissible. Second, Section 9.1biii of Rule 400 fails to reference Section 7.4 Relaxation in Enforceable Limitations. This apparent typographical error creates a deficiency in Section 9.1biii of the rule, because it suggests that the source and the District need not adhere to the General requirements for establishing Plant-wide Applicability Limitations PALs in Section 9.4, which are required by 40
CFR 51.165f4. Third, due to an apparent typographical error, Section 9.5 of the rule does not require the District to implement the public participation provisions of Section 8 for purposes of processing a request for a PAL to be established, renewed or increased in accordance with 40 CFR
51.165f5. Therefore, the provisions of Section 9.5 are deficient. This error also causes a related deficiency in Sections 9.4aii, 9.8biii, 9.10a, and 9.11c, because these rule sections crossreference Section 9.5, which refers to the wrong section of the rule for public participation requirements. Fourth, Section 9.10di references Section 9.5
when it should reference Section 9.6.
This error appears typographical in nature. However, this error creates a deficiency because it does not provide the correct reference for how to perform the emissions level calculation in accordance with 40 CFR
51.165f10ivA. Fifth, Section 9.12aiii includes a reference to Section 7.12 of the rule which does not exist, instead of Section 9.12. This apparent typographical error creates a deficiency in Section 9.12aiii, because it does not include the
PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

requirement to comply with the provisions of Section 9.12 in accordance with 40 CFR 51.165f12iC.
Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a more detailed discussion of our analysis of Rule 400.
E. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule The TSD also includes recommendations for additional clarifying revisions to consider for adoption when the AAD next modifies Rule 400.
F. Proposed Action and Public Comment As authorized in sections 110k3
and 301a of the Act, the EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the submitted rule because it fulfills most of the relevant CAA requirements, and strengthens the SIP, but also contains five deficiencies. We have concluded that our limited approval of the submitted rule would comply with the relevant provisions of CAA sections 110a2, 110l, 172c5, 173, and 193, 40 CFR 51.16051.165, 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 planin part. This action would incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval is limited because the EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the rule under CAA
section 110k3.
If finalized as proposed, our limited disapproval action would trigger an obligation on the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan FIP
unless the State corrects the deficiencies, and the EPA approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the final action. Additionally, because the deficiencies relate to NNSR
requirements under part D of title I of the Act, the offset sanction in CAA
section 179b2 would apply in Amador County 18 months after the effective date of a final limited disapproval, and the highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179b1
would apply in the area six months after the offset sanction is imposed. Section 179 sanctions will not be imposed under the CAA if the State submits, and we approve, prior to the implementation of the sanctions, a SIP revision that corrects the deficiencies that we identify in our final action. The EPA intends to work with the District to correct the deficiencies in a timely manner.

E:FRFM23AUP1.SGM

23AUP1