[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43576-43586]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18408]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0133; FRL-9982-76--Region 9]

Air Plan Revisions; California; Technical Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
delete various local rules from the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that were approved in error. These rules include general
nuisance provisions, certain federal performance requirements, hearing
board procedures, variance provisions, and local fee provisions. The
EPA has determined that the continued presence of these rules in the
SIP is potentially confusing and thus problematic for affected sources,
the state, local agencies, and the EPA. The intended effect of this
proposal is to delete these rules to make the SIP consistent with the
Clean Air Act. The EPA is also proposing to make certain other
corrections to address errors made in previous actions taken by the EPA
on California SIP revisions.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0133 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Kevin
Gong, at [email protected]. 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 whose disclosure 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3073, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the SIP?
II. What is the EPA's authority to correct errors in SIP
rulemakings?
III. Which rules are proposed for deletion?
IV. What other corrections is the EPA proposing to make?
V. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the SIP?

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') was first enacted in 1970. In
the 1970s and early 1980s, thousands of state and local agency
regulations were submitted to the EPA for incorporation into the SIP to
fulfill the new federal requirements. In many cases, states submitted
entire regulatory air pollution programs, including many elements not
required by the Act. Due to time and resource constraints, the EPA's
review of these submittals focused primarily on the new substantive
requirements, and we approved many other elements into the SIP with
minimal review. We now recognize that many of these elements were not
appropriate for approval into the SIP. In general, these elements are
appropriate for state and local agencies to adopt and implement, but it
is not necessary or appropriate to make them federally enforceable by
incorporating them into the applicable SIP. These include:
    A. Rules that prohibit emissions causing general nuisance or
annoyance in the community.\1\ Such rules address local issues but have
essentially no connection to the purposes for which SIPs are developed
and approved, namely the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of the

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). See CAA section
110(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An example of such a rule is as follows: A person shall not
discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment,
nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to
the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety
of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural
tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Local adoption of federal New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) or National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) requirements either by reference or by adopting text identical
or modified from the requirements found in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 60 or 61. Because the EPA has independent
authority to implement 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, it is not appropriate to
make parallel local authorities federally enforceable by approving them
into the applicable SIP.
    C. Rules that govern local hearing board procedures and other
administrative requirements such as fees, frequency of meetings,
salaries paid to board members, and procedures for petitioning for a
local hearing.
    D. Variance provisions that provide for modification of the
requirements of the applicable SIP. State- or district-issued variances
provide an applicant with a mechanism to obtain relief from state
enforcement of a state or local rule under certain conditions. Pursuant
to federal law, specifically section 110(i) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7410(i), neither the EPA nor a state may revise a SIP by issuing an
``order, suspension, plan revision or other action modifying any
requirement of an applicable implementation plan'' without a plan
promulgation or revision. The EPA and California have long recognized
that a state-issued variance, though binding as a matter of state law,
does not prevent the EPA from enforcing the underlying SIP provisions
unless and until the EPA approves that variance as a SIP revision. The
variance provisions included in this action are deficient for various
reasons, including their failure to address the fact that a state- or
district-issued variance has no effect on federal enforceability unless
the variance is submitted to and approved by the EPA as a SIP revision.
Therefore, their inclusion in the SIP is inconsistent with the Act and
may be confusing to regulated industry and the general public.
Moreover, because state-issued variances require independent EPA
approval to modify the substantive requirements of a SIP, removal of
these variance provisions from the SIP will have no effect on regulated
entities. See Industrial Environmental Association v. Browner, No. 97-
71117 (9th Cir., May 26, 2000).
    E. Local fee provisions that are not economic incentive programs
and are not designed to replace or relax a SIP emission limit. While it
is appropriate for local agencies to implement fee provisions, for
example, to recover costs for issuing permits, it is generally not
appropriate to make local fee collection federally enforceable.

II. What is the EPA's authority to correct errors in SIP rulemakings?

    Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, as amended in 1990, provides that,
whenever the EPA determines that the EPA's action approving,
disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part
thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification or
reclassification was in error, the EPA may in the same manner as the
approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as
appropriate without requiring any further submission from the state.
Such determination and the basis thereof must be provided to the state
and the public. We interpret this provision to authorize the EPA to
make corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown to our
satisfaction (or we discover) that (1) we clearly erred by failing to
consider or by inappropriately considering information made available
to the EPA at the time of the promulgation, or the information made
available at the time of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to
have been clearly inadequate, and (2) other information persuasively
supports a change in the regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763
(November 30, 1992) (correcting designations, boundaries, and
classifications of ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and lead
areas).

III. Which rules are proposed for deletion?

    The EPA has determined that the rules listed in Table 1 below are
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP, but were previously approved
into the SIP in error. Dates that these rules were submitted by the
state and approved by the EPA are provided. We are proposing deletion
of these rules and any earlier versions of these rules from the
individual air pollution control district portions of the California
SIP under CAA section 110(k)(6) as inconsistent with the requirements
of CAA section 110. A brief discussion of the proposed deletions is
provided in the following paragraphs.

                             Table 1--Local Air District Rules Proposed for Deletion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rule or regulation                  Title                   Submittal date              EPA approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Amador County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 5............................  Nuisance.............  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 6............................  Additional Exception.  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles County APCD Rule 51...  Nuisance.............  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Bay Area AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 11.......................  Hydrogen Sulfide.....  February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                1972).
Section 11101.....................  [establishes hydrogen  November 2, 1973...............  42 FR 23802 (May 11,
                                     sulfide limits].                                        1977); corrected at
                                                                                42 FR 42219 (August
                                                                                22, 1977).
Regulation 8......................  Emission Standards     January 10, 1975...............  42 FR 23802 (May 11,
                                     for Hazardous                                           1977).
                                     Pollutants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Butte County AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2-1.......................  [general nuisance      February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                     provision].                                             1972).
Rule 619..........................  Effective Date of      February 10, 1986..............  52 FR 3226 (February
                                     Decision.                                               3, 1987).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              Calaveras County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 205..........................  Nuisance.............  July 22, 1975..................  42 FR 23803 (May 11,
                                                                                1977); corrected at
                                                                                42 FR 42219 (August
                                                                                22, 1977).
Rule 603..........................  Hearing Board Fees...  July 22, 1975..................  42 FR 23803 (May 11,
                                                                                1977); corrected at
                                                                                42 FR 42219 (August
                                                                                22, 1977).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Colusa County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4.5..........................  Nuisance.............  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 4.6..........................  Additional Exception.  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Eastern Kern APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kern County APCD Rule 419.........  Nuisance.............  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Kern County APCD Rule 420.........  Exception............  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              El Dorado County AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 52...........................  Nuisance.............  February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 53...........................  Exceptions to Rule 52  February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 706..........................  Failure to Comply      May 23, 1979...................  46 FR 27115 (May 18,
                                     with Rules.                                             1981).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Feather River AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuba County Rule 9.7..............  Permit Actions.......  March 30, 1981.................  47 FR 15585 (April
                                                                                12, 1982).
Yuba County Rule 9.8..............  Variance Actions.....  March 30, 1981.................  47 FR 15585 (April
                                                                                12, 1982).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Glenn County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 78...........................  Nuisance.............  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 79...........................  Exceptions...........  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Great Basin Unified APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 402..........................  Nuisance.............  April 21, 1976.................  42 FR 28883 (June 6,
                                                                                1977).
Rule 617..........................  Emergency Variances..  December 17, 1979..............  46 FR 8471 (January
                                                                                27, 1981).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Imperial County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 117..........................  Nuisances............  February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 513..........................  Record of Proceedings  November 4, 1977...............  43 FR 35694 (August
                                                                                11, 1978).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Lake County AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1602......................  Petition Procedures..  March 30, 1981.................  47 FR 15784 (April
                                                                                13, 1982).
Section 1701.Q....................  [excess emissions      February 10, 1986..............  52 FR 3226 (February
                                     estimate for                                            3, 1987).
                                     variance petitions].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Lassen County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 3:2..........................  Permit Fees..........  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 3:3..........................  Permit Fee Schedules.  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 3:4..........................  Analysis Fees........  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 3:5..........................  Technical Reports,     June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                     Charges For.                                            (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 4:2..........................  Nuisance.............  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Mariposa County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 205..........................  Nuisance.............  January 10, 1975...............  42 FR 42219 (August
                                                                                22, 1977).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Mendocino County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 4.A..........................  General..............  February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 620..........................  Hearing Procedures...  August 6, 1982.................  47 FR 50864
                                                                                (November 10,
                                                                                1982).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Modoc County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 3:2..........................  Nuisance.............  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Rule 3:6..........................  Additional Exception.  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                               Mojave Desert AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riverside County Rule 51..........  Nuisance.............  February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                1972).
Riverside County APCD Rule 106....  Record of Proceedings  February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                1972).
South Coast AQMD Rule 1231........  Judicial Review......  January 2, 1979................  45 FR 30626 (May 9,
                                                                                1980).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Monterey Bay Air Resources District
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monterey-Santa Cruz County Unified  Nuisance.............  February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
 APCD Rule 402.                                                                              1972).
San Benito County APCD Rule 403...  Nuisance.............  February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                1972).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            North Coast Unified AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Del Norte County APCD Regulation    [untitled but          February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
 IV, introductory paragraph.         represents a general                                    1972).
                                     nuisance type of
                                     provision].
Del Norte County APCD Rule 340....  Technical Report       November 10, 1976..............  43 FR 25677 (June
                                     Charges.                                                14, 1978).
Del Norte County APCD Rule 620....  Hearing Procedures...  November 10, 1976..............  43 FR 25677 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Del Norte County APCD Rule 620....  Hearing Procedures...  August 6, 1982.................  47 FR 50864
                                                                                (November 10,
                                                                                1982).
Del Norte County APCD Rule 630....  Decisions............  November 10, 1976..............  43 FR 25677 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Del Norte County APCD Rule 640....  Record of Proceedings  November 10, 1976..............  43 FR 25677 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Del Norte County APCD Rule 650....  Appeal of Decision...  November 10, 1976..............  43 FR 25677 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Humboldt County APCD Rule 51......  Prohibited Emissions.  February 21, 1972..............  37 FR 10842 (May 31,
                                                                                1972).
Trinity County APCD Regulation IV,  [untitled but          June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
 introductory paragraph.             represents a general                                    (September 22,
                                     nuisance type of                                        1972).
                                     provision].
Trinity County APCD Rule 56.......  Failure to Comply      June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                     with Rules.                                             (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Trinity County APCD Rule 62.......  Preliminary Matters..  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Trinity County APCD Rule 67.......  Lack of Permit.......  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Trinity County APCD Rule 68.......  Issuance of            June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                     Subpoenas, Subpoenas                                    (September 22,
                                     Duces Tecum.                                            1972).
Trinity County APCD Rule 620......  Hearing Procedures...  August 6, 1982.................  47 FR 50864
                                                                                (November 10,
                                                                                1982).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Northern Sierra AQMD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada County APCD Rule 700.......  Applicable Articles    June 6, 1977...................  43 FR 41039
                                     of the Health and                                       (September 14,
                                     Safety Code.                                            1978).
Nevada County APCD Rule 703         Contents of Petitions  June 6, 1977...................  43 FR 41039
 (paragraphs (E) and (I)).                                                                   (September 14,
                                                                                1978).
Nevada County APCD Rule 711.......  Evidence.............  April 10, 1975.................  43 FR 25687 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Plumas County APCD Rule 51........  Prohibited Emissions.  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
Plumas County APCD Rule 516         Emergency Variance     June 22, 1981..................  47 FR 17486 (April
 (paragraph (C)).                    Provisions.                                             23, 1982).
Plumas County APCD Rule 701.......  General..............  January 10, 1975...............  43 FR 25680 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Plumas County APCD Rule 702.......  Filing Petitions.....  January 10, 1975...............  43 FR 25680 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Plumas County APCD Rule 703.......  Contents of Petitions  June 22, 1981..................  47 FR 17486 (April
                                                                                23, 1982).
Plumas County APCD Rule 704.......  Petitions for          January 10, 1975...............  43 FR 25680 (June
                                     Variances.                                              14, 1978).
Plumas County APCD Rule 710.......  Notice of Public       June 22, 1981..................  47 FR 17486 (April
                                     Hearing.                                                23, 1982).
Plumas County APCD Rule 711.......  Evidence.............  January 10, 1975...............  43 FR 25680 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Plumas County APCD Rule 712.......  Preliminary Matters..  January 10, 1975...............  43 FR 25680 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Plumas County APCD Rule 713.......  Official Notice......  January 10, 1975...............  43 FR 25680 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Plumas County APCD Rule 714.......  Continuances.........  January 10, 1975...............  43 FR 25680 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Plumas County APCD Rule 715.......  Decision.............  January 10, 1975...............  43 FR 25680 (June
                                                                                14, 1978).
Plumas County APCD Rule 716.......  Effective Date of      January 10, 1975...............  43 FR 25680 (June
                                     Decision.                                               14, 1978).
Sierra County APCD Rule 516         Emergency Variance     June 22, 1981..................  47 FR 17486 (April
 (paragraph (C)).                    Provisions.                                             23, 1982).
Sierra County APCD Rule 703.......  Contents of Petitions  June 22, 1981..................  47 FR 17486 (April
                                                                                23, 1982).
Sierra County APCD Rule 710.......  Notice of Public       June 22, 1981..................  47 FR 17486 (April
                                     Hearing.                                                23, 1982).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Northern Sonoma County APCD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52................................  Nuisance.............  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
85................................  Failure to Comply      June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                     with Rules.                                             (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
91................................  Preliminary Matters..  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
96................................  Lack of Permit.......  June 30, 1972..................  37 FR 19812
                                                                                (September 22,
                                                                                1972).
600...............................  Authorization........  October 16, 1985...............  52 FR 12522 (April
                                                                                17, 1987).
610...............................  Petition Procedure...  October 16, 1985...............  52 FR 12522 (April
                                                                                17, 1987).
620...............................  Hearing Procedures...  August 6, 1982.................  47 FR 50864
                                                                                (November 10,
                                                                                1982).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amador County APCD

    Amador County APCD Rule 5 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 5 was inappropriate for inclusion in
the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Amador County APCD
Rule 6 (Additional Exception) provides an exception to Amador County
APCD Rule 5 and should be deleted if Rule 5 is deleted. In this action,
we are proposing to delete Amador County APCD Rules 5 and 6 from the
Amador County portion of the California SIP.

Antelope Valley AQMD

    Formed in 1997, the Antelope Valley AQMD administers air quality
management programs in the Southeast Desert portion of Los Angeles
County that is referred to as ``Antelope Valley.'' The Antelope Valley
AQMD portion of the California SIP includes rules adopted by various
air pollution control agencies that had jurisdiction over stationary
sources in Antelope Valley since 1972, including the Los Angeles County
APCD, the Southern California APCD, the South Coast AQMD, and the
Antelope Valley AQMD. Los Angeles County APCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) is a
general-nuisance type of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 51 was
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the
EPA in error. Although Rule 51 was rescinded in the South Coast AQMD
portion of Los Angeles County at 64 FR 71660 (December 22, 1999), the
rescission did not apply within the Antelope Valley AQMD portion of the
county because, by the time of the 1999 action, the South Coast AQMD no
longer had jurisdiction within the Antelope Valley portion of Los
Angeles County. In this action, we propose to delete Los Angeles County
APCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) from the Antelope Valley AQMD portion of the
California SIP.

Bay Area AQMD

    Bay Area AQMD Division 11 (Hydrogen Sulfide) (including sections
11100, 11101, 11102, 11102.1-11102.8) was approved as part of the
original SIP for the Bay Area AQMD portion of the California SIP.
Section 11101, which is untitled but establishes hydrogen sulfide
limits, was superseded by approval of Section 11101 at 42 FR 23802 (May
11, 1977), as corrected and recodified at 42 FR 42219 (August 22,
1977). There has never been a NAAQS for hydrogen sulfide, and thus, Bay
Area AQMD Division 11 (including sections 11100, 11101, 11102, 11102.1-
11102.8) does not relate to the NAAQS and was approved in error.
    Bay Area AQMD Regulation 8 (Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants), as approved in 1977, includes certain definitions and four
substantive rules: Rule 1 (NESHAPS General Provisions), Rule 2
(Emission Standard for Asbestos), Rule 3 (Emission Standard for
Beryllium), and Rule 4 (Emission Standard for Beryllium Rocket Motor
Firing). Bay Area AQMD Regulation 8 adopts text identical or modified
from the requirements found in 40 CFR part 60 or 61, and because the
EPA has independent authority to implement 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, it
was not appropriate to make parallel local authorities federally
enforceable by approving Regulation 8 into the Bay Area AQMD portion of
the California SIP. In this action, we are proposing to delete Division
11 (including the amended version of section 11101), and Regulation 8
from the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP.

Butte County AQMD

    Butte County AQMD Section 2-1 is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Section 2-1 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Butte County
AQMD Rule 619 (Effective Date of Decision) relates to hearing board
procedures, and as such, was inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and
was thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are proposing
to delete Section 2-1 and Rule 619 from the Butte County AQMD portion
of the California SIP.

Calaveras County APCD

    Calaveras County APCD Rule 205 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance
type of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 205 was inappropriate for
inclusion in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error.
Calaveras County APCD Rule 603 (Hearing Board Fees) relates to hearing
board procedures, and as such, was inappropriate for inclusion in the
SIP and was thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are
proposing to delete Rules 205 and 603 from the Calaveras County APCD
portion of the California SIP.

Colusa County APCD

    Colusa County APCD Rule 4.5 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4.5 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Colusa County
APCD Rule 4.6 (Additional Exception) provides an exception to Colusa
County APCD Rule 4.5 and should be deleted if Rule 4.5 is deleted. In
this action, we are proposing to delete Rules 4.5 and 4.6 from the
Colusa County APCD portion of the California SIP.

Eastern Kern APCD

    Kern County APCD Rule 419 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 419 was inappropriate for inclusion in
the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Kern County APCD
Rule 420 (Exception) provides an exception to Kern County APCD Rule 419
and should be deleted if Rule 419 is deleted. In this action, we are
proposing to delete Rules 419 and 420 from the Eastern Kern APCD
portion of the California SIP.

El Dorado County AQMD

    El Dorado County AQMD Rule 52 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 52 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. El Dorado
County AQMD Rule 53 (Exceptions to Rule 52) provides an exception to El
Dorado County AQMD Rule 52 and should be deleted if Rule 52 is deleted.
El Dorado County AQMD Rule 706 (Failure to Comply with Rules)
establishes certain hearing board procedures, and as such, was
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and was thus approved by the EPA
in error. In this action, we are proposing to delete Rules 52, 53, and
706 from the El Dorado County AQMD portion of the California SIP.

Feather River AQMD

    Formed in 1991, the Feather River AQMD administers air quality
management programs in Yuba County and Sutter County. The Feather River
AQMD portion of the California SIP includes rules adopted by the
predecessor agencies, the Yuba County APCD and the Sutter County APCD,
to the extent that such rules have not been superseded or removed
through EPA approval of rules or rescissions adopted by the Feather
River AQMD. Yuba County APCD Rules 9.7 (Permit Actions) and 9.8
(Variance Actions) establish certain hearing board procedures, and as
such, were inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and were thus
approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are proposing to
delete Rules 9.7 and 9.8 from the Feather River AQMD portion of the
California SIP.

Glenn County APCD

    Glenn County APCD Rule 78 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 78 was inappropriate for inclusion in
the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Glenn County APCD
Rule 79

(Exceptions) provides an exception to Glenn County APCD Rule 78 and
should be deleted if Rule 78 is deleted. In this action, we are
proposing to delete Rules 78 and 79 from the Glenn County APCD portion
of the California SIP.

Great Basin Unified APCD

    Great Basin Unified APCD Rule 402 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance
type of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 402 was inappropriate for
inclusion in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Great
Basin Unified APCD Rule 617 (Emergency Variance) allows an owner or
operator of stationary sources to file a petition for an emergency
variance under certain circumstances and provides for review and action
on the petition by the APCO and hearing board. As described above, such
provisions are inconsistent with section 110(i) of the CAA and were
thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are proposing to
delete Rules 402 and 617 from the Great Basin Unified APCD portion of
the California SIP.

Imperial County APCD

    Imperial County APCD Rule 117 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 117 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Imperial County
APCD Rule 513 (Record of Proceedings) establishes certain hearing board
procedures, and as such, was inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and
was thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are proposing
to delete Rules 117 and 513 from the Imperial County APCD portion of
the California SIP.

Lake County AQMD

    Lake County AQMD Section 1602 (Petition Procedures) establishes
certain hearing board procedures, and as such, was inappropriate for
inclusion in the SIP and was thus approved by the EPA in error. Lake
County AQMD Section 1701.Q requires that petitions for variances
include an excess emission estimate and supporting documentation. As
described above, variance provisions are inconsistent with section
110(i) of the CAA and were thus approved by the EPA in error. In this
action, we are proposing to delete Sections 1602 and 1701.Q from the
Lake County AQMD portion of the California SIP.

Lassen County APCD

    Lassen County APCD Rules 3:2, 3:3, 3:4, and 3:5 are local fee
provisions that were not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP and thus
were approved by the EPA in error. On January 18, 2002 (67 FR 2573),
the EPA deleted without replacement earlier versions of these same
rules that had been submitted as part of the original California SIP on
February 21, 1972 and approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), but we
did not recognize at the time of our 2002 action that the subject rules
had been superseded by rules submitted on June 30, 1972 and approved on
September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812). In this action, we propose to delete
the later-submitted and approved fee rules for Lassen County. Lassen
County APCD Rule 4:2 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4:2 was inappropriate for inclusion in
the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we
are proposing to delete Rule 4:2 and the fee rules discussed above from
the Lassen County APCD portion of the California SIP.

Mariposa County APCD

    Mariposa County APCD Rule 205 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 205 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. In this action,
we are proposing to delete Rule 205 from the Mariposa County APCD
portion of the California SIP.

Mendocino County APCD

    Mendocino County APCD Rule 4.A (General) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 4.A was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Mendocino
County APCD Rule 620 (Hearing Procedures) establishes certain hearing
board procedures, and as such, was inappropriate for inclusion in the
SIP and was thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are
proposing to delete Rules 4.A and 620 from the Mendocino County APCD
portion of the California SIP.

Modoc County APCD

    Modoc County APCD Rule 3:2 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 3:2 was inappropriate for inclusion in
the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Modoc County APCD
Rule 3:6 (Additional Exception) provides an exception to Modoc County
APCD Rule 3:2 and should be deleted if Rule 3:2 is deleted. In this
action, we are proposing to delete Rules 3:2 and 3:6 from the Modoc
County APCD portion of the California SIP.

Mojave Desert AQMD

    Regulation of stationary air pollution sources in Riverside County
is split between the South Coast AQMD (which has jurisdiction over all
Riverside County except the Palo Verde Valley) and the Mojave Desert
AQMD (which has jurisdiction over the Palo Verde Valley portion of
Riverside County). The Palo Verde Valley portion of Riverside County
left the South Coast AQMD and joined the Mojave Desert AQMD on July 1,
1994. The applicable SIP for the Riverside County portion of the Mojave
Desert AQMD (i.e., the Palo Verde Valley) consists, in part, of rules
that were adopted originally by the Riverside County APCD and by the
South Coast AQMD and then approved by the EPA prior to July 1, 1994,
and that have not yet been superseded or rescinded through EPA approval
of SIP revisions adopted by the Mojave Desert AQMD.
    Riverside County APCD Rule 51 (Nuisance) is a general-nuisance type
of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 51 was inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error. Riverside
County APCD Rule 106 (Record of Proceedings) is proposed herein for
deletion because it establishes certain hearing board procedures and
was thus inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and approved by the EPA
in error. South Coast AQMD Rule 1231 (Judicial Review), also proposed
herein for deletion, establishes certain district board procedures, and
as such, was inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and approved by the
EPA in error.\2\ In this action, we are proposing to delete Riverside
County Rules 51 and 106 and South Coast AQMD Rule 1231 from the
Riverside County portion of the Mojave Desert AQMD portion of the
California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA approved the rescission of South Coast AQMD Rule
1231 at 64 FR 71660 (December 22, 1999), but the rescission was not
applicable within the Palo Verde Valley portion of Riverside County
because the Palo Verde Valley had joined Mojave Desert AQMD several
years before the rescission was approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monterey Bay Air Resources District

    The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (formerly named the
Monterey Bay Unified APCD) was formed in 1974 when the Monterey-Santa
Cruz County Unified APCD merged with the San Benito County APCD. The
rules adopted by the predecessor agencies remain in the SIP to the
extent they have not been superseded or rescinded through EPA approvals
of rules or rescissions adopted by the unified air district. Monterey-
Santa Cruz County Unified APCD Rule 402 (Nuisance) and San Benito
County APCD Rule 403 (Nuisance) are general-nuisance type of
prohibitory rules. As such, Rules 402 and 403 were inappropriate for
inclusion in the SIP and, thus, were

approved by the EPA in error. In this action, we are proposing to
delete Rules 402 and 403 from the Monterey Bay Air Resources District
portion of the California SIP.

North Coast Unified AQMD

    Established in 1982, the North Coast Unified AQMD has jurisdiction
over Del Norte, Humboldt and Trinity counties, and the North Coast
Unified AQMD portion of the applicable California SIP includes rules
that were adopted by these counties and approved by the EPA and not
superseded or rescinded through subsequent SIP actions. The
introductory paragraphs for Del Norte County APCD's Regulation VI
(Prohibitions) and Trinity County APCD's Regulation IV (Prohibitions)
and Humboldt County APCD Rule 51 (Prohibited Emissions) are general-
nuisance type of prohibitory rules. As such, the introductory
paragraphs of Regulation IV and Rule 51 were inappropriate for
inclusion in the SIP and, thus, were approved by the EPA in error. Del
Norte County APCD Rules 620 (Hearing Procedures), 630 (Decisions), 640
(Record of Proceedings) and 650 (Appeal of Decision) and Trinity County
APCD Rules 56 (Failure to Comply with Rules), 62 (Preliminary Matters),
67 (Lack of Permit), 68 (Issuance of Subpoenas, Subpoenas Duces Tecum)
and 620 (Hearing Procedures) establish certain hearing board
procedures, and as such, were inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP
and were approved by the EPA in error. Del Norte County APCD Rule 340
(Technical Report Charges) is a local fee provision that also was not
appropriate for inclusion in the SIP and was approved in error. In this
action, we are proposing to delete the various rules listed above from
the North Coast Unified AQMD portion of the California SIP.

Northern Sierra AQMD

    Established in 1986, the Northern Sierra AQMD has jurisdiction over
Nevada, Plumas, and Sierra counties, and the Northern Sierra AQMD
portion of the applicable California SIP includes rules that were
adopted by these counties and approved by the EPA and not superseded or
rescinded through subsequent SIP actions. Plumas County APCD Rule 51
(Prohibited Emissions) is a general-nuisance type of prohibitory rule.
As such, Rule 51 was inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and, thus,
was approved by the EPA in error. Nevada County APCD Rules 700
(Applicable Articles of the Health and Safety Code), 703 (Contents of
Petitions) (paragraphs (E) and (I)) and 711 (Evidence); Plumas County
APCD Rules 701 (General), 702 (Filing Petitions), 703 (Contents of
Petitions), 704 (Petitions for Variances), 710 (Notice of Hearing), 711
(Evidence), 712 (Preliminary Matters), 713 (Official Notice), 714
(Continuances), 715 (Decision) and 716 (Effective Date of Decision);
and Sierra County APCD Rules 703 (Contents of Petitions) and 710
(Notice of Public Hearing) establish certain hearing board procedures,
and as such, were inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP and were thus
approved by the EPA in error. Plumas County APCD Rule 516 (Upset and
Breakdown Conditions) (paragraph C (``Emergency Variance Provisions''))
and Sierra County APCD Rule 516 (Upset and Breakdown Conditions)
(paragraph C (``Emergency Variance Provisions'')) allow an owner or
operator of stationary sources to file a petition for an emergency
variance under certain circumstances and provides for review and action
on the petition by the APCO and hearing board. As described above, such
provisions are inconsistent with section 110(i) of the CAA and were
thus not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP and were approved by the
EPA in error. In this action, we are proposing to delete the various
rules listed above from the Northern Sierra AQMD portion of the
California SIP.

Northern Sonoma County APCD

    Northern Sonoma County APCD Rule 52 (Nuisance) is a general-
nuisance type of prohibitory rule. As such, Rule 52 was inappropriate
for inclusion in the SIP and, thus, was approved by the EPA in error.
Northern Sonoma County APCD Rules 85 (Failure to Comply with Rules), 91
(Preliminary Matters), 96 (Lack of Permit), 600 (Authorization), 610
(Petition Procedure) and 620 (Hearing Procedures) establish certain
hearing board procedures, and as such, were inappropriate for inclusion
in the SIP and were thus approved by the EPA in error. In this action,
we are proposing to delete Rules 52, 85, 91, 96, 600, 610 and 620 from
the Northern Sonoma County APCD portion of the California SIP.

IV. What other corrections is the EPA proposing to make?

    The EPA is also proposing certain error corrections not because the
rules were originally approved into the SIP in error but because of
other types of errors made in the course of the SIP rulemaking action.
Each such proposal is described in the following paragraphs.

Antelope Valley AQMD

    With respect to the Antelope Valley AQMD portion of the California
SIP, we are proposing three additional corrections related to the
following: Los Angeles County APCD Regulation VI (Orchard or Citrus
Grove Heaters), South Coast AQMD Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions
from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations), and Antelope
Valley AQMD Rules 107 (Certification of Submissions and Emission
Statements) and 1151 (Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating
Operations).
    Rescission of Los Angeles County APCD Regulation VI (Orchard or
Citrus Grove Heaters): Los Angeles County APCD Regulation VI includes
the following rules: Rule 100 (Definitions), Rule 101 (Exceptions),
Rule 102 (Permits Required), Rule 103 (Transfer), Rule 105 (Application
for Permits), Rule 106 (Action on Applications), Rule 107 (Standards
for Granting Permits), Rule 108 (Conditional Approval), Rule 109
(Denial of Applications), Rule 110 (Appeals), Rule 120 (Fees), and Rule
130 (Prohibitions). California submitted Los Angeles County APCD
Regulation VI on June 30, 1972, and the EPA approved it on September
22, 1972 (37 FR 19812). Rule 120 was deleted without replacement at 67
FR 2573 (January 18, 2002), but the other Regulation VI rules remain in
the SIP.
    Regulation VI was rescinded in the Southeast Desert portion of Los
Angeles County at 43 FR 40011 (September 8, 1978), but was reinstated
throughout Los Angeles County when the EPA approved a SIP revision
extending the jurisdiction of the South Coast AQMD to the Southeast
Desert portion of the county and replacing the SIP rules that had been
in effect for the Southeast Desert portion of Los Angeles County with
those that applied in the South Coast AQMD. See 48 FR 52451 (November
18, 1983). At that time, the applicable SIP for the South Coast AQMD
included Regulation VI because the EPA inadvertently failed to codify
the rescission of the rules in an action affecting the South Coast AQMD
portion of Los Angeles County published at 43 FR 25684 (June 14, 1978).
In the final action on June 14, 1978, the EPA indicated: ``The changes
to Regulation VI, Orchard Grove Heaters, contained in the above
mentioned submittals and being acted upon by this notice include total
replacement of county rules by California Health and Safety Code
sections covering Orchard Heaters.'' 43 FR at 25685. However, the
regulatory text deleting Regulation VI without replacement was not
included in the

final rule, and thus, Regulation VI became part of the legacy SIP
inherited by the Antelope Valley AQMD when it was established in 1997
in the Southeast Desert portion of Los Angeles County. In this action,
we are proposing to add regulatory text deleting Regulation VI
consistent with our action as described in the preamble to the June 14,
1978 final rule and to delete Los Angeles County APCD Regulation VI
from the South Coast AQMD portion of the California SIP and to thereby
delete Los Angeles County APCD Regulation VI from the Antelope Valley
AQMD portion of the California SIP.
    Deletion of South Coast Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions from
Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations) for Implementation
in the Antelope Valley AQMD: In a final rule published at 72 FR 64946
(November 19, 2007), the EPA added a paragraph to 40 CFR
52.220(c)(278)(i)(A) deleting South Coast AQMD Rule 1186 without
replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley AQMD. This
paragraph was added in error. Originally adopted on February 14, 1997,
no version of South Coast AQMD Rule 1186 has been approved by the EPA
for implementation in the Antelope Valley. See footnote 4 in the
proposed rule (63 FR 42786, August 11, 1998).\3\ Thus, we are proposing
to delete the erroneous regulatory language that was added by the
November 19, 2007 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Footnote 4 states: ``As indicated above, the SCAQMD has
jurisdiction over the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and Coachella
Valley PM-10 serious nonattainment areas. This Federal Register
action for the SCAQMD excludes the Los Angeles County portion of the
Southeast Desert AQMA, otherwise known as the Antelope Valley Region
in Los Angeles County, which is now under the jurisdiction of the
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District as of July 1, 1997.''
63 FR 42786, at 42788 (August 11, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reorganization of the CFR Affecting Antelope Valley AQMD Rules 107
and 1151: In a final rule published at 80 FR 13495 (March 16, 2015), we
approved a rule adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD but the
amendatory instructions revising paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(423) were
in error such that rules that had been approved and listed under ``(i)
Incorporation by reference,'' were erroneously moved under the ``(ii)
Additional materials'' portion of paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(423),
including Antelope Valley AQMD Rules 107 (Certification of Submissions
and Emission Statements) and 1151 (Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment
Coating Operations), which were approved in 2013. See 78 FR 21545
(April 11, 2013) (approval of Rule 107) and 78 FR 58459 (September 24,
2013) (approval of Rule 1151). We are proposing to revise paragraph 40
CFR 52.220(c)(423) consistent with the rulemakings affecting that
paragraph.

Eastern Kern APCD

    Approval of 15% and Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress (ROP) Elements for
the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS: On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), the EPA took
final action to approve revisions to the California SIP for ozone for
six nonattainment areas, including the San Joaquin Valley ozone
nonattainment area, which at the time was defined to include all of
Kern County (as well as seven other counties in the Central Valley) and
thus subject to the jurisdiction of two air districts: The San Joaquin
Valley Unified APCD and the Eastern Kern APCD. Among other elements,
the EPA approved ``the ROP plans (the original 1994 submittal for 15%
ROP requirements and the Kern District portion of the San Joaquin
Valley, and the 1996 substitute submittal for post-1996 requirements)
as meeting the 15% ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1) and the post-
1996 ROP requirements of section 182(c)(2) of the Act.'' 62 FR at 1172.
In the corresponding regulatory language of the January 8, 1997 final
rule, the EPA explicitly identified the approved 15% and post-1996 ROP
elements from the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD but failed to do the
same for the Eastern Kern APCD. Compare 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(D)(1)
(for the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD) with 40 CFR
52.220(c)(205)(i)(A)(1) (for the Eastern Kern APCD). 62 FR at 1186. To
clarify that, in our 1997 final rule, the EPA approved the 15% and
post-1996 ROP demonstrations from the Eastern Kern APCD for the 1-hour
ozone standard, we propose to revise 40 CFR 52.220(c)(205)(i)(A)(1) to
explicitly add the 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP plans to the existing list
of approved elements.
    Incorporation by Reference of Approved Rules 108 and 417: On April
22, 2004 (69 FR 21713), the EPA took final action to approve certain
rules adopted by the Eastern Kern APCD, including Rules 108 (Stack
Sampling) and 417 (Agricultural and Prescribed Burning). Due to
erroneous amendatory instructions, the CFR was not updated to reflect
this final action. More specifically, the amendatory instructions on
page 21715 of the April 22, 2004 final rule should have added paragraph
(c)(321)(i)(A) to section 40 CFR 52.220 instead of paragraph
(c)(321)(i)(B) because the latter was already in use to identify
certain rules adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD. We
propose to fix this error by correcting the amendatory instructions.

El Dorado County AQMD

    Reorganization of the CFR Affecting El Dorado County AQMD Rule 101:
On October 10, 2001 (66 FR 51578), the EPA approved revisions to the El
Dorado County AQMD portion of the California SIP. Among the approved
revisions was El Dorado County AQMD Rule 101 (General Provisions and
Definitions). The final rule codifies the approval of Rule 101 in
paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(280)(i)(B), which lists approved rules
adopted by the El Dorado County AQMD, but due to a publishing error,
the codification of the approval of Rule 101 is found in paragraph 40
CFR 52.220(c)(280)(i)(C), which lists EPA-approved rules adopted by the
Yolo-Solano AQMD. We propose to fix this error accordingly.
    Approval of El Dorado County AQMD Rule 1000.1 (Emission Statement
Waiver): On May 26, 2004 (69 FR 29880), the EPA approved emissions
statement rules for seven air districts in California, including Rule
1000 (Emission Statement) submitted for the El Dorado County AQMD
portion of the California SIP. All but one of the emissions statement
rules that were approved on May 26, 2004 include language providing a
waiver to any class or category of stationary sources that emit less
than 25 tons per year of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) if certain conditions are met, which is
consistent with CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii). Unlike the rules that
provide for the waiver as a paragraph within the emissions statement
rule itself, the El Dorado County AQMD provides for the exemption in a
separate rule, namely, Rule 1000.1 (Emission Statement Waiver).\4\
Although Rule 1000.1 was submitted along with Rule 1000 on November 12,
1992, we only listed the latter rule as approved in our May 26, 2004
final action but should have listed both. We propose to add Rule 1000.1
(Emission Statement Waiver) in paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(190)(i)(C)(1)
to clarify that our May 26, 2004 approval included both Rule 1000 and
Rule 1000.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ El Dorado County AQMD Rule 1000.1 provides: ``The APCO may
waive this requirement to any class or category of stationary
sources which emit less than 25 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen
or reactive organic gas if the district provides the Air Resources
Board with an emission inventory of sources emitting greater than 10
tons per year of nitrogen oxides or reactive organic gas based on
the use of emission factors acceptable to the Air Resources Board.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reorganization of the CFR Affecting El Dorado County AQMD Actions
Listed

in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(27)(viii): On July 9, 2008 (73 FR 39237), the EPA
approved revisions to the Northern Sierra AQMD portion of the
California SIP, including rescission of certain rules that had been
adopted by the Nevada County APCD. In the July 9, 2008 final rule, we
added regulatory language to reflect the rule rescissions in paragraph
40 CFR 52.220(c)(27)(vii), which lists rules and rule rescissions
applicable to the Nevada County APCD portion of the California SIP, but
due to a publisher's error, the regulatory language is found in
paragraph 40 CFR 52.220(c)(27)(viii), which lists rules and rule
rescissions applicable to the El Dorado County AQMD portion of the
California SIP. We propose to fix this error accordingly.

Great Basin Unified APCD

    Disapproval of Great Basin Unified APCD Rule 401 (Fugitive Dust):
On August 13, 2009 (74 FR 40750), the EPA took final action to
disapprove revisions to the Great Basin Unified APCD portion of the
California SIP. Specifically, the EPA disapproved Great Basin Unified
APCD Rule 401 (Fugitive Dust); however, we mistakenly added a paragraph
incorporating this rule by reference in 40 CFR 52.220 (``Identification
of plan'') as if we had approved the rule as part of the California
SIP. To correct this error, we propose to remove the corresponding
paragraph (i.e., 40 CFR 52.220(c)(350)(i)(A)(2)) from 40 CFR 52.220.

Lake County AQMD

    Reinstatement of Lake County AQMD Tables I through IV: On June 27,
1997 (62 FR 34641), the EPA took final action to correct certain errors
in previous actions on SIPs and SIP revisions by deleting without
replacement the affected local rules. With respect to certain rules
that were adopted by the Lake County AQMD, submitted by California on
February 10, 1977, and approved by the EPA on August 4, 1978 (43 FR
34463), we added a paragraph, i.e., (c)(37)(iv)(D), to 40 CFR 52.220
(Identification of plan) that states: ``Previously approved on August
4, 1978 and now deleted without replacement Rules . . . , and Tables I
to V.'' 62 FR at 34645. First, Lake County AQMD Table V (Table of
Standards, Applicable Statewide) was disapproved on August 4, 1978 (43
FR 34463), and because it was disapproved, it was not part of the SIP
and need not be deleted. Second, Lake County AQMD Table I (Agencies
Designated to Issue Agricultural Burning Permits), Table II (Daily
Quota of Agricultural Material that May Be Burned by Watershed), Table
III (Guides for Estimating Dry Weights of Several California Fuel
Types), and Table IV (Particulate Matter Emissions Standard for Process
Units and Process Equipment) are substantive provisions relied upon by
certain prohibitory rules and were not approved ``in error.'' We are
proposing to reinstate Lake County AQMD Tables I through IV by revising
the regulatory language in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(37)(iv)(D) accordingly.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Since 1997, the EPA has approved newer versions of Lake
County AQMD Tables I and II, and thus, as a practical matter,
reinstatement of Tables I through IV, as approved in 1978, would
only reinstate Tables III and IV as part of the current applicable
SIP for the Lake County AQMD portion of the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mojave Desert AQMD

    Rescission of Riverside County APCD Regulation V (Orchard or Citrus
Grove Heaters): Riverside County APCD Regulation V includes the
following rules: Rule 75 (Definitions), Rule 76 (Exceptions), Rule 77
(Permits Required), Rule 78 (Application of Permits), Rule 79 (Action
on Applications), Rule 80 (Standards for Granting Permits), Rule 81
(General Restrictions and Conditions of Permits), Rule 83 (Denial of
Applications), Rule 84 (Appeals), Rule 85 (Classification of Orchard,
Field Crop or Citrus Grove Heaters), and Rule 86 (Prohibitions).
California submitted Riverside County APCD Regulation V on February 21,
1972 as part of the original California SIP, and the EPA approved it on
May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842).
    Regulation V was rescinded in the Southeast Desert portion of
Riverside County at 43 FR 40011 (September 8, 1978), but was reinstated
throughout Riverside County when the EPA approved a SIP revision
extending the jurisdiction of the South Coast AQMD to the Southeast
Desert portion of the county and replacing the SIP rules that had been
in effect for the Southeast Desert portion of Riverside County with
those that applied in the South Coast AQMD. See 47 FR 25013 (June 9,
1982). At that time, the applicable SIP for the South Coast AQMD
included Regulation V because the EPA inadvertently failed to codify
the rescission of the rules in an action affecting the South Coast AQMD
portion of Riverside County published at 43 FR 25684 (June 14, 1978).
In the June 14, 1978, final action, the EPA indicated: ``The changes to
Regulation VI, Orchard Grove Heaters, contained in the above mentioned
submittals and being acted upon by this notice include total
replacement of county rules by California Health and Safety Code
sections covering Orchard Heaters.'' 43 FR at 25685. However, the
regulatory text deleting Regulation V without replacement was not
included in the final rule, and thus, Regulation V became part of the
legacy SIP inherited by the Mojave Desert AQMD when the Palo Verde
Valley portion of Riverside County joined the Mojave Desert AQMD in
1994. In this action, we are proposing to add regulatory text deleting
Regulation V consistent with our action as described in the preamble to
the June 14, 1978 final rule and to delete Riverside County APCD
Regulation V from the South Coast AQMD portion of the California SIP
and to thereby delete Riverside County APCD Regulation V from the
Mojave Desert AQMD portion of the California SIP.

Monterey Bay Air Resources District

    Disapproval of Monterey Bay Air Resources District Rule 200
(Permits Required): On March 26, 2015 (80 FR 15899), the EPA took final
action to approve or disapprove certain revisions to the Monterey Bay
Air Resources District portion of the California SIP. One of the
actions finalized on March 26, 2015 was the disapproval of an amended
version of Rule 200 (Permits Required) that had been submitted on May
8, 2001. Although we disapproved Rule 200, we mistakenly added a
paragraph incorporating this rule by reference in 40 CFR 52.220
(``Identification of plan'') as if we had approved the rule as part of
the California SIP. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(284)(i)(A)(5). To correct this
error, we propose to remove the corresponding paragraph (i.e.,
(c)(284)(i)(A)(5)) from section 52.220 (Identification of plan).
    Rescission of Monterey Bay Air Resources District Rule 208
(Standards for Granting Permits to Operate): In that same March 26,
2015, final rule (80 FR 15899), we approved the rescission of Monterey
Bay District Rule 208 (Standards for Granting Permits to Operate),
which had been submitted on February 6, 1985 and approved on July 13,
1987 (52 FR 26148), but we did not add corresponding regulatory
language to remove the rule from the SIP. We propose to add a paragraph
to 40 CFR 52.220(c)(159)(iii) to indicate that Monterey Bay District
Rule 208 has been deleted without replacement.

North Coast Unified AQMD

    Erroneous Amendatory Instruction for Disapproval of Certain Open
Burning Rules: On May 18, 1981 (46 FR 27116), the EPA disapproved
certain open burning rules adopted by the Santa Barbara County APCD,
but the amendatory instructions erroneously listed the disapproved
rules in

subparagraph (6) of 40 CFR 52.273(a), which lists disapproved rules
adopted by the Humboldt County APCD. The correct listing should have
been in subparagraph (19), which lists disapproved rules adopted by the
Santa Barbara County APCD. The erroneous amendatory instructions were
based on the previous format of 40 CFR 52.273 and failed to account for
the complete re-organization of 40 CFR 52.273 that the EPA published
that same year at 46 FR 3883 (January 16, 1981). We are proposing to
revise paragraph 40 CFR 52.273 to accurately reflect the 1981
disapproval of the Santa Barbara County open burning rules.

Northern Sierra AQMD

    Codification of Approval of Northern Sierra AQMD Rules 212 and 213:
On September 16, 1997 (62 FR 48480), the EPA took direct final action
to approve certain revisions to the Northern Sierra AQMD portion of the
California SIP. In the direct final rule, we indicated that we were
approving Northern Sierra AQMD Rules 212 (Process Weight Table) and 213
(Storage of Gasoline Products) along with many other district rules,
see 62 FR 48481/column 1 and 62 FR at 48482/column 2; however, in the
regulatory portion of the direct final rule, we failed to include Rules
212 and 213 in the list of approved rules. We are proposing to add
Rules 212 and 213 to the list of approved rules in 40 CFR
52.220(c)(246)(i)(A)(1).
    Reinstatement of Nevada County APCD Rule 404 (Excluding Paragraph
(D)): On June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34641), the EPA took final action to
correct certain errors in previous actions on SIPs and SIP revisions by
deleting without replacement the affected local rules. With respect to
a rule that was adopted by the Nevada County APCD, submitted by
California on October 15, 1979, and approved by the EPA on May 18, 1981
(46 FR 27115), we added a paragraph, i.e., (c)(52)(xii)(B), to 40 CFR
52.220 (Identification of plan) that states: ``Previously approved on
May 18, 1981 and now deleted without replacement Rule 404.'' 62 FR at
34646. In our proposed error correction, 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996),
we indicated that the rule we intended to delete was Rule 404
(``Emergency Variance Procedures''), but the correct title of Rule 404
is ``Upset Conditions, Breakdown or Scheduled Maintenance,'' and
``Emergency Variance Procedures'' is the title of paragraph (D) of Rule
404. Thus, we intended to delete only paragraph (D) of Rule 404 but
erroneously indicated in the final rule that we were deleting without
replacement the entire rule. Accordingly, we propose to amend paragraph
(c)(52)(xii)(B) to refer only to paragraph (D) of Rule 404.

V. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    The EPA has reviewed the rules listed in Table 1 above and
determined that they were previously approved into the applicable
California SIP in error. Deletion of these rules will not relax the
applicable SIP and is consistent with the Act. Therefore, under section
110(k)(6) of the CAA, the EPA is proposing to delete the rules listed
in Table 1 above and any earlier versions of these rules from the
corresponding air pollution control district portions of the California
SIP. These rules include general nuisance provisions, federal NSPS or
NESHAP requirements, hearing board procedures, variance provisions, and
local fee provisions. We are also proposing to make certain other
corrections to fix errors in previous rulemakings on California SIP
revisions as described in section IV above. We will accept comments
from the public on this proposal until September 26, 2018.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, for the most part, the EPA is proposing to delete
rules that were previously incorporated by reference from the
applicable California SIP. However, we are also proposing to include in
a final EPA rule regulatory text that reinstates incorporation by
reference of certain rules that were previously incorporated by
reference but deleted in error, and regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference of rules not previously incorporated. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
reinstate incorporation by reference Lake County AQMD Table I (Agencies
Designated to Issue Agricultural Burning Permits), Table II (Daily
Quota of Agricultural Material that May Be Burned by Watershed), Table
III (Guides for Estimating Dry Weights of Several California Fuel
Types), and Table IV (Particulate Matter Emissions Standard for Process
Units and Process Equipment) and Nevada County APCD Rule 404 (Upset
Conditions, Breakdown or Scheduled Maintenance) (excluding paragraph
(D)) and to incorporate by reference Eastern Kern APCD Rules 108 (Stack
Sampling) and 417 (Agricultural and Prescribed Burning), El Dorado
County AQMD Rule 1000.1 (Emission Statement Waiver) and Northern Sierra
AQMD Rules 212 (Process Weight Table) and 213 (Storage of Gasoline
Products), as described in section IV of this preamble. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
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).

VII. 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 corrects errors in previous
rulemakings 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     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; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or

environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally
permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    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 proposed 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:  2 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 8, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-18408 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P