			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 24, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2002-12503

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of CENTURION AIR CARGO, INC. (CENTURION), filed 2/10/06 for:

XX  Waiver of 90-day dormancy condition for U.S.-Ecuador all-cargo
services

Background:

By Notice of Action Taken, dated December 14, 2005 (Notice), the
Department granted to Centurion, among other things, two available
frequencies to conduct scheduled U.S.-Ecuador all-cargo air
transportation services.  The award was subject to our standard dormancy
condition under which the carrier was required to commence service with
the frequencies no later than March 14, 2006.  On March 10, 2006,
Centurion filed an application in the captioned docket for a waiver of
the startup condition imposed by the Notice, and asked that the startup
period be extended through June 12, 2006.  By Notice of Action Taken,
dated March 14, 2006, we granted Centurion an interim waiver of the
dormancy condition until March 24, 2006, so that the applicant could
retain its frequency allocation while we awaited any responsive
pleadings to the application.  We also stated that we would consider the
applicant’s request for a longer term waiver upon expiration of the
period for filing answers, which was March 21, 2006.

Applicant rep.: Lonnie Anne Pera<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst: Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

Answers/Responsive Pleadings:

On March 21, 2006, Arrow Air, Inc. (Arrow) filed an answer opposing
Centurion’s request for a waiver.  Arrow states that it believes that
the Ecuador market is well served at the present with ample capacity
provided by all-cargo carriers now authorized and operating.  Arrow
further states that at the present time, Centurion cannot demonstrate
that it has met all operational requirements to provide scheduled
all-cargo service to and from Ecuador and that it has not demonstrated a
need that would justify grant of a waiver here.

On March 23, 2006, Centurion filed a reply to Arrow’s opposition.
Centurion states that Arrow’s arguments for denying the waiver request
are an attempt by Arrow to shield itself from competition by eliminating
a new entrant in the U.S.-Ecuador market.  Centurion further states that
it has a solid history of charter cargo services in the U.S.-Ecuador
market, that it is firmly committed to offering scheduled all-cargo
services in the U.S.-Ecuador market, that it has taken the appropriate
steps to implement those services, but that the process of obtaining
authority in Ecuador can be complicated and lengthy.

Disposition:

We grant the application filed by Centurion for a waiver, and extend,
through June 12, 2006, the startup deadline for the frequencies
allocated to Centurion.  In taking this action, we find that grant of
the requested waiver is in the public interest in the circumstances
presented; namely, that the carrier has indicated on the record that it
is working to complete the Ecuadorian licensing process and the
frequencies at issue here represent a valuable opportunity to promote
competition and service in the U.S.-Ecuador all-cargo market.

We had hoped that Centurion would have been able to commence operations
within the timeframe of our standard 90-day start-up condition. While it
has not done so, we believe that it has provided a basis on the record
for us to conclude that it is taking steps to begin its new scheduled
service. In these circumstances, we shall grant Centurion the waiver it
requests. However, we are putting Centurion on notice that there should
be no expectation that an additional request will similarly be granted.
As is our policy in considering waiver requests, we reserve the right to
reexamine whether grant of this waiver continues to be in the public
interest.

Any future request to extend the waiver for the frequencies at issue
here will have to be considered in light of the specific arguments
offered and responses thereto, and in the context of the circumstances
present at that time, including whether another carrier seeks to use the
frequencies at issue.

The above action was effective when taken: March 24, 2006.

XX  Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
______

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy, and (2) grant of the request was consistent with the public
interest.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

  Extension of the startup deadline is effective through June 12, 2006,
or until the date on which Centurion begins service with the allocated
U.S.-Ecuador frequencies, whichever occurs earlier.  As to any frequency
with which Centurion does not begin service by June 12, 2006, the
allocation with respect to that frequency will expire automatically and
revert to the Department for reallocation.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 10599]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

91st Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 159, Global Positioning
Systems (GPS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 159, RTCA Special
Committee 159, Global Positioning Systems (GPS).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
ninety-first meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 159, Global
Positioning Systems (GPS).

DATES: The meeting will be held March 11-14, 2014 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 159. The agenda will
include the following:

Working Group Sessions

March 11

     Working Group 2, GPS/WAAS, MacIntosh-NBAA Room and Colson
Board Room.

March 12

     Working Group 2, GPS/WAAS, ARINC & A4A Rooms Room.

March 12

     Working Group 2 Working Group 4, GPS/Precision Landing,
MacIntosh-NBAA Room and Colson Board Room.

March 13

     Working Group 4, GPS/GPS/Precision Landing Guidance
MacIntosh-NBAA Room and Colson Board Room.
     Afternoon--1:00-5:00 p.m., Working Group 7, GPS/Antennas,
ARINC & A4A Room.

March 14

     Chairman's Introductory Remarks.
     Approval of Summary of the Ninetieth Meeting held March
15, 2013, RTCA Paper No. 197-13/SC159-1009.
     Review Working Group (WG) Progress and Identify Issues for
Resolution.
     GPS/3nd Civil Frequency (WG-1)
     GPS/WAAS (WG-2)
     GPS/GLONASS (WG-2A)
     GPS/Inertial (WG-2C)
     GPS/Precision Landing Guidance (WG-4)
     GPS/Airport Surface Surveillance (WG-5)
     GPS/Interference (WG-6)
     GPS/Antennas (WG-7)
     Review of EUROCAE Activities.
     Briefing--DOT's GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility Plan
     Assignment/Review of Future Work
     Other Business.
     Date and Place of Next Meeting.
     Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 12, 2014.
Paige Williams,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-03916 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Form for Compliance with E. O. 12866 Docket Requirements Title of Regulation: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definition of " Waters of the United States" [ Pre proposal stage]

Contact person: Donna Downing [ EPA] Phone number: 202/ 566 1366 Contact person: Thaddeus Rugiel [ Corps] Phone number: 202/ 761 4595 Was this ANPRM reviewed by OMB under Executive Order 12866  Regulatory Planning and Review?

XX Yes

No.

If you checked " no", you are done with this form. Simply place it in the docket for your regulation. If you checked " yes", please fill out the remainder of the form before placing it in the docket. Also docket any relevant documents referenced in the form.

For regulations that are checked " Yes" above:

This ANPRM was reviewed by OMB under Executive Order 12866  Regulatory Planning and Review.

Attached is the draft ANPRM and any other documents sent to OMB for review, such as analyses and assessments. E. O. 12866 requires agencies to make these publicly available.

E. O. 12866 also requires agencies to identify the substantive changes between the draft regulation sent to OMB for review and the regulation subsequently announced [ Please check the appropriate box below:]

XXX EPA/ Army made substantive changes to this ANPRM ( includes changes initiated by EPA/ Army or OMB). Attached is a document which: ( 1) identifies all the substantive changes made, and ( 2) notes those changes OMB suggested or recommended.

No substantive changes were made to this regulation Therefore, no further attachments are required..

If you have questions about this regulation, please call the Army or EPA contact person listed above.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23005-23007]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10499]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Advisers Act Release No. 4912; 803-00240]

BlackRock Advisors, LLC, et al.

May 11, 2018.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an exemptive order under Section 206A of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and Rule 206(4)-5(e).

APPLICANTS: BlackRock Advisors, LLC, BlackRock Financial Management,
Inc. and BlackRock Fund Advisors (Collectively the ``Applicants'' or
``Advisers'').

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ACT: Exemption requested under section 206A of
the Act and rule 206(4)-5(e) from rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Act.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants request that the Commission issue an
order under section 206A of the Act and rule 206(4)-5(e) exempting it
from rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Act to permit Applicants to receive
compensation from certain government entities for investment advisory
services provided to government entities within the two-year period
following a contribution by a covered associate of the Applicants to an
official of the government entities.

FILING DATES: The application was filed on May 26, 2017, and amended
and restated applications were filed on November 21, 2017 and March 28,
2018.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on June 5, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing
by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: BlackRock Advisors, LLC and
BlackRock Financial Management, Inc., 55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY
10055 and BlackRock Fund Advisors, 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Loko, Senior Counsel, or Holly
Hunter-Ceci, Assistant Chief Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/iareleases.shtml or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. Applicants are registered with the Commission as investment
advisers pursuant to the Act. BlackRock, Inc. (``BlackRock'') is the
parent company of the Advisers. Applicants act as advisers to
registered investment companies and investment companies exempt from
registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
    2. The individual who made the campaign contribution that triggered
the two-year compensation ban (the ``Contribution'') is Mark Wiedman
(the ``Contributor''). The Contributor is a Senior Managing Director at
BlackRock, the head of BlackRock's ETF and Index Investments business,
and a member of BlackRock's Global Executive Committee. BlackRock's ETF
business focuses on selling interests in RICs directly to investors,
including certain government entities, which is not covered business
under rule 206(4)-5. However, Applicants submit that, as a member of
BlackRock's Global Executive Committee, the Contributor is, and at the
time of the Contribution was, an executive officer of the Advisers
under rule 206(4)-5(f)(4), and thus by definition is and at all
relevant times was a covered associate pursuant to rule 206(4)-
5(f)(2)(i).
    3. Certain Ohio government entities have selected mutual funds
(``RICs'') advised by BlackRock Advisors, LLC and BlackRock Fund
Advisors to be options in their participant-directed plans and one Ohio
government pension plan has invested in an unregistered fund managed by
BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. Such government entities, are
``government entities'' as defined under Rule 206(4)-5(f)(5) and,
throughout the application, are referred to individually as a
``Client'' and collectively as the ``Clients.''
    4. The recipient of the Contribution was John Kasich (the
``Official''), the Governor of Ohio, in his campaign for President of
the United States. The investment decisions of each Client are overseen
by a board of trustees or directors (the ``Board'' or the ``Boards''),
to which the Governor appoints certain members. The Applicants submit
that due to the power of appointment, the Governor is an ``official''
of each Client under rule 206(4)-5.
    5. The Contribution that triggered rule 206(4)-5's prohibition on
compensation under rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) was made on January 15, 2016
(``the Contribution Date'') for the amount of $2,700 to the Official's
campaign for President of the United States via credit card to attend a
lunch hosted by the campaign at the invitation of a business
acquaintance who was an independent director of a BlackRock fund and
who shared the Contributor's personal political views. Applicants
submit that the Contribution was not motivated by any desire to
influence the award of investment advisory business. Applicants
represent that in addition to being entitled to vote in the
presidential election, the Contributor was interested in the GOP
presidential primary. Aside from a brief introduction while Governor
Kasich welcomed a group of attendees at lunch, the Contributor has
never met the Official or dealt with the Official or his staff in any
capacity. Moreover, the

Contribution is consistent with other contributions made by the
Contributor over the years. Applicants state that the Contributor made
the Contribution without pre-clearance from BlackRock's Legal
department. Applicants also represent that at the time he attended the
campaign lunch where he made the Contribution, the Contributor was
focused on the Official in his capacity as a candidate for President of
the United States, and the potential that a contribution to such a
federal candidate would be covered under rule 206(4)-5 simply did not
occur to him in that frame of mind. The Contributor never told any
prospective or existing investor (including the Clients) about the
Contribution, and did not discuss the Contribution with BlackRock, the
Advisers or any of their covered associates.
    6. The initial selection process pursuant to which each Client
decided to invest in a fund advised by an Adviser or to select a RIC
advised by an Adviser as an investment option in a participant-directed
plan, as applicable, had been completed before the contribution was
made. Applicants state that the Contributor had no intention to seek,
and no action was taken by the Contributor or the Applicants, to obtain
any direct or indirect influence from the Official or any other person
with respect to those investments. The Contributor did not participate
in any capacity in soliciting those investments or any other investment
advisory business covered under rule 206(4)-5 from any government
entity.
    7. The Contribution was discovered on October 6, 2016 by
Blackrock's Compliance department in the course of internal compliance
testing. Specifically, Blackrock discovered the Contribution after a
routine search on the Federal Election Commission's website. The
Contributor requested a refund of the full $2,700 on November 11, 2016
and received a refund on November 23, 2016. Applicants represent that
all compensation earned that is attributable to the Clients'
investments since the Contribution Date has been placed in escrow
pending the outcome of this Application.
    8. BlackRock's political contribution policies and procedures (the
``Policy'') which apply to BlackRock as well as its subsidiaries,
including the Advisers, were adopted and implemented in order to
coincide with the effective date of rule 206(4)-5, well before the
Contribution was made. The Applicants submit that at the time of the
Contribution, the Policy required, and continues to require, that all
employees pre-clear all political contributions made in the United
States. There is no de minimis exception from the pre-clearance
requirement. Under the existing Policy, BlackRock requires employees to
certify annually to their compliance with the Policy, sends reminders
about the Policy and its pre-clearance requirement twice every year,
and requires all employees to complete an annual computer-based
training module that addresses the Policy and its pre-clearance
requirement. In addition, BlackRock periodically conducts searches of
public websites for contributions made by employees.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Act prohibits a registered
investment adviser from providing investment advisory services for
compensation to a government entity within two years after a
contribution to an official of a government entity is made by the
investment adviser or any covered associate of the investment adviser.
Each of the Clients is a ``government entity,'' as defined in rule
206(4)-5(f)(5), the Contributor is a ``covered associate'' as defined
in rule 206(4)-5(f)(2), and the Official is an ``official'' as defined
in rule 206(4)-5(f)(6).
    2. Section 206A of the Act authorizes the Commission to
``conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person or transaction . .
. from any provision or provisions of [the Act] or of any rule or
regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of [the Act].''
    3. Rule 206(4)-5(e) provides that the Commission may conditionally
or unconditionally grant an exemption to an investment adviser from the
prohibition under rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) upon consideration of the factors
listed below, among others:
    (1) Whether the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act;
    (2) Whether the investment adviser: (i) Before the contribution
resulting in the prohibition was made, adopted and implemented policies
and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the rule;
and (ii) prior to or at the time the contribution which resulted in
such prohibition was made, had no actual knowledge of the contribution;
and (iii) after learning of the contribution: (A) Has taken all
available steps to cause the contributor involved in making the
contribution which resulted in such prohibition to obtain a return of
the contribution; and (B) has taken such other remedial or preventive
measures as may be appropriate under the circumstances;
    (3) Whether, at the time of the contribution, the contributor was a
covered associate or otherwise an employee of the investment adviser,
or was seeking such employment;
    (4) The timing and amount of the contribution which resulted in the
prohibition;
    (5) The nature of the election (e.g., federal, state or local); and
    (6) The contributor's apparent intent or motive in making the
contribution which resulted in the prohibition, as evidenced by the
facts and circumstances surrounding such contribution.
    4. Applicants request an order pursuant to section 206A and rule
206(4)-5(e), exempting them from the two-year prohibition on
compensation imposed by rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) with respect to investment
advisory services provided to the Clients within the two-year period
following the Contribution.
    5. Applicants submit that the exemption is necessary and
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Act. Applicants further submit that the other factors
set forth in rule 206(4)-5(e) similarly weigh in favor of granting an
exemption to the Applicants to avoid consequences disproportionate to
the violation.
    6. Applicants contend that given the nature of the Contribution,
and the lack of any evidence that the Advisers or the Contributor
intended to, or actually did, interfere with any Client's merit-based
process for the selection or retention of advisory services, the
Clients' interests are best served by allowing the Advisers and their
Clients to continue their relationship uninterrupted. Applicants state
that causing the Advisers to forgo the impacted compensation
attributable to the two-year period would result in a financial loss of
approximately $37 million or 13,700 times the amount of the
Contribution. Applicants suggest that the policy underlying rule
206(4)-5 is served by ensuring that no improper influence is exercised
over investment decisions by governmental entities as a result of
campaign contributions and not by withholding compensation as a result
of unintentional violations.
    7. Applicants represent that the Policy was adopted and published
well before the Contribution was made. Applicants further represent
that, the Policy has conformed to the requirements of rule

206(4)-5 and has been more rigorous than rule 206(4)-5's requirements
as BlackRock has monitored compliance with the Policy by searching for
an individual employee's past political contributions on the Federal
Election Commission's database whenever an individual makes a request
to BlackRock to pre-clear a contribution to a federal candidate.
Applicants submit that BlackRock is in the process of enhancing this
monitoring protocol.
    8. Applicants assert that at no time did any employee or covered
associate of BlackRock, the Advisers or any of their affiliates, other
than the Contributor have any knowledge that the Contribution had been
made before its discovery by the Compliance department in October 2016.
    9. Applicants assert that after learning of the Contribution and
confirming the Contributor's covered status, BlackRock caused the
Contributor to promptly obtain a full refund of the Contribution.
Applicants submit that in response to the contribution, BlackRock has
begun the process of implementing enhancements to the Policy that will
include (a) sending its employees, including employees of its
affiliates a third annual reminder to pre-clear all political
contributions in the United States, including those to federal
candidates (b) revising its annual computer-based training module to
highlight the need to pre-clear all political contributions in the
United States, including those to federal candidates, and (c) enhancing
its protocol to monitor compliance with the Policy's pre-clearance
requirements by searching the FEC's and certain states' campaign
finance databases for contributions made by a sampling of covered
associates on a quarterly basis. Finally, BlackRock's Compliance
department will remind the Contributor of the Policy's pre-clearance
requirement on at least a quarterly basis.
    10. Applicants state that the Contributor is and has, at all
relevant times, been a covered associate of the Advisers. Applicants
note that the Contributor has never solicited investment advisory
business covered under rule 206(4)-5 from government entities and has
had no direct contact or involvement with any of the Clients or the
members of their Boards regarding any business matters.
    11. Applicants assert that the Clients' initial investments with
the Advisers substantially predate the Contribution. They were done on
an arm's length basis and the Contributor and the Applicants took no
action to obtain any direct or indirect influence from the Official.
    12. Applicants submit that neither the Advisers nor the Contributor
sought to interfere with the Clients' merit-based selection process for
advisory services, nor did they seek to negotiate higher fees or
greater ancillary benefits than would be achieved in arms' length
transactions. Applicants further submit that there was no violation of
the Advisers' fiduciary duty to deal fairly or disclose material
conflicts given the absence of any intent or action by the Advisers or
the Contributor to influence the selection process. Applicants contend
that in the case of the Contribution, the imposition of the two-year
prohibition on compensation does not achieve rule 206(4)-5's purposes
and would result in consequences disproportionate to the mistake that
was made.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10499 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 190)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60623-60632]
[DOCID:fr01oc10-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0711; FRL-9207-7]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on December 9,
2009 and concerns oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from
solid fuel fired boilers, steam generators and process heaters. Under
authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act),
this action simultaneously approves a local rule that regulates these
emission sources and directs California to correct rule deficiencies.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on November 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0711 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3248<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On 12/09/09 (74 FR 65042), EPA proposed a limited approval and
limited disapproval of the following rule that the SJVUAPCD submitted
for incorporation into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title            Adopted         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD............................            4352   Solid Fuel Fired               05/18/06         10/05/06
                                                        Boilers, Steam
                                                        Generators and Process
                                                        Heaters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed a limited approval because we determined that this rule
improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA
requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because
some rule provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and
part D of the Act. Specifically:
     Section 5.1 of the Rule establishes the emission limits.
We proposed to find that, with the exception of the NOX
emission limit for biomass fuel-fired units, SJVUAPCD has not
adequately demonstrated that the NOX emission limits (i.e.,
NOX limits for units burning municipal solid waste or other
solid fuels, such as coal) satisfy Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirements. As explained further in the TSD for the
proposed action, EPA's 1994 Alternative Control Techniques Document for
NOX emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional
Boilers (1994 ACT) contains lower emission ranges for similar boilers.
Source-specific information from the SJVUAPCD also indicates that
emission limits lower than those in Rule 4352 are reasonably
achievable.
    We are now disapproving all of the NOX emission limits
in Rule 4352, including the limit for biomass fuel-fired units, because
the District has not adequately demonstrated that these limits satisfy
RACT. Our proposed action and our response to comments below contain
more information on the basis for this rulemaking and our evaluation of
the submittal.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the following parties.
    1. Sarah Jackson, Earthjustice; letter and e-mail dated and
received January 8, 2010.
    2. Seyed Sadredin, SJVUAPCD; letter dated January 8, 2010 and
received January 11, 2010.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment #1: Earthjustice supported EPA's proposed disapproval of
the NOX emission limits in Rule 4352 for municipal solid
waste-burning and other solid fuel-burning units and agreed that the
District had failed to demonstrate that these limits satisfy CAA RACT
requirements.
    Response #1: No response needed.
    Comment #2: Earthjustice disagreed with EPA's proposal to approve
the NOX emission limit in Rule 4352 for biomass-fired units
as RACT. Earthjustice provided several arguments in support of its
objection to EPA's proposal, each of which we address in separate
comment summaries below.
    Response #2: Although we do not agree with all of the arguments
provided in support of this comment, we have changed our position based
on this comment and agree that the District has failed to provide
adequate support for its conclusion that the NOX emission
limit in Rule 4352 for biomass-fired units satisfies RACT. We believe
our conclusion on this issue is a logical outgrowth of our proposed
rule.
    Comment #2.a: Earthjustice challenged EPA's conclusion that the
NOX emission limit of 115 ppm at 3% O2 for
biomass-fired units in Rule 4352 is more stringent than the level
provided in EPA's 1994 ACT, given that the 1994 ACT provides achievable
NOX levels ranging from 23 to 155 ppm at 3% O2
for wood-fired boilers with fluidized bed combustors. Additionally,
Earthjustice asserted that this range of NOX emission levels
undermines EPA's conclusion that the 40 ppm limit in other districts'
rules is not feasible.
    Response #2.a: We acknowledge that our previous statement that Rule
4352's requirements for biomass-fired units are more stringent than the
levels in the 1994 ACT was not entirely accurate. In this action, we
are clarifying that the NOX emission limit in Rule 4352 for
biomass-fired boilers (115 ppm at 3% O2) falls in the mid-
range of achievable emission levels provided in the 1994 ACT for this
source category (24 ppm to 187 ppm at 3% O2).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The range of emission levels that Earthjustice identifies
(23 to 155 ppm at 3% O2) are presented in the TSD for our
proposed action and are calculated based on the lb/MMBtu values
shown in Table 2-6 of the ACT. We note, however, that the values
presented in Appendix B of the ACT (24 ppm to 187 ppm at 3%
O2) are more reliable because they were compiled from
numerous sources including technical reports, EPA documents,
compliance records, and manufacturers' literature, while Table 2-6
is simply a summary of Appendix B.

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

    As to the commenter's assertion that the range of emission levels
in the 1994 ACT undermines EPA's conclusion that a NOX limit
of 40 ppm is not feasible for biomass-fired boilers, however, we
disagree. In the TSD for our proposal, we referenced a 40 ppm
NOX emission limit based on SJVUAPCD's April 16, 2009 RACT
SIP analysis, which identified four other California districts' rules
that contain emission limits of 40 ppm at 3% O2 for units
firing ``non-gaseous fuels'': The South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) Rule 1146 (as amended September 5, 2008); Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Rule 411 (as
amended August 23, 2007); Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) Regulation 9 Rule 7 (as amended July 30, 2008) \2\; and
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Rule 74.15 (as
amended November 8, 1994). See SJVUAPCD, RACT Demonstration for Ozone
SIP, Chapter 4: Rule Analysis, at 4-64 to 4-67 (April 16, 2009) (``RACT
SIP analysis''). In response to this comment, we contacted each of
these districts to determine whether there are any biomass-fired units
subject to the NOX emission limits in these rules. None of
these districts provided information indicating that any biomass-fired
boiler has achieved a NOX limit of 40 ppm at 3%
O2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The District's RACT SIP analysis provides an incorrect
adoption date of November 7, 2007, for this regulation. The version
of Regulation 9 Rule 7 that is currently effective in the Bay Area
was last amended on July 30, 2008. See e-mail dated August 11, 2010,
from Dan Belik (BAAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA Region 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, we are not aware of any biomass-fired boiler that is
or has been subject to the 40 ppm NOX emission limit in
VCAPCD Rule 74.15 or SCAQMD Rule 1146.\3\ See e-mail dated June 7,
2010, from Kerby Zozula (VCAPCD) to Shirley Rivera (EPA Region 9); e-
mail dated August 10, 2010, from Charles Tupac (SCAQMD) to Idalia Perez
(EPA Region 9). The BAAQMD has issued one permit for a biomass-fired
unit at a facility called Standard Structures, Inc., but we have no
information indicating that this unit is achieving emission levels as
low as 40 ppm at 3% O2. See e-mail dated June 7, 2010, from
Barry Young (BAAQMD) to Shaheerah Kelly (EPA Region 9); Facsimile
Transmittal dated June 8, 2010, attaching Evaluation Report and
Engineering Evaluation for Standard Structures, Inc., from Art Valla
(BAAQMD) to S. Kelly (EPA Region 9); e-mail dated June 8, 2010, from
Charles McClure (BAAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA Region 9). In the
Sacramento Metro area, one source has operated a biomass-fired boiler
in the past 20 years, but that source was subject to an earlier version
of SMAQMD's Rule 411 containing significantly higher NOX
emission limits until it ceased operating in March 1996. See Response
2.b, below. We have no information indicating that a
NOX emission level of 40 ppm at 3% O2 is
generally achievable for biomass-fired units, and the commenter has not
identified any such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Note that SCAQMD Rule 1146 applies only to ``combustion
equipment fired with liquid and/or gaseous (including landfill and
digester gas) and/or solid fossil fuel. * * *'' Rule 1146 (as
amended September 5, 2008), sections (a), (b)(4), and (b)(12)
(emphasis added). As such, this rule does not apply to biomass-fired
units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACT documents describe available control techniques and their cost
effectiveness but do not define presumptive RACT levels as the CTGs do.
The 1994 ACT (at Appendix B, pages B20-B21) identifies NOX
emission levels for biomass-fueled boilers ranging from 24 ppm to 187
ppm at 3% O2, based on the use of SNCR controls with ammonia
or urea injection. This wide range of emission levels reflects the
broad technical diversity among the types of boilers that fire biomass
as fuel, including stokers, circulating fluidized bed boilers and
bubbling fluidized bed boilers. It also reflects the variety of fuels
that the term ``biomass'' covers, including various kinds of plant
materials, wood materials and agricultural wastes.
    Given the broad technical diversity of existing biomass-fired
boilers and their varying fuel compositions, the NOX
emission levels achievable for one operation (e.g., 24 ppm) may not
necessarily be achievable for others. Even where boiler type, control
technology, and fuel type are the same, achievable emission levels may
differ significantly from boiler to boiler depending on a number of
site-specific factors, including furnace dimensions and operating
characteristics, design and condition of burner controls, design and
condition of stream control systems, and fan capacity. See, for
example, 1994 ACT Appendix B (at page B-20), showing achievable
NOX emission levels ranging from 25 to 160 ppm at 3%
O2 for wood-fired stoker boilers using SNCR with ammonia
injection.
    Thus, the range of emission levels for biomass-fired boilers in the
1994 ACT does not necessarily establish that a NOX emission
level of 40 ppm at 3% O2 is reasonably achievable for such
boilers generally. It does, however, warrant a more detailed evaluation
of the biomass-fired units in the SJV area, as discussed further below.
    Comment #2.b: Earthjustice asserted that the District's claim that
there are no solid-fuel fired units in the Sacramento area that
currently meet the 70 ppm limit in the SMAQMD's Rule 411 is
``misleading and irrelevant to answering the feasibility question.''
Earthjustice stated that according to CARB and SMAQMD staff, ``there
was, in fact, at least one source in the Sacramento Metropolitan air
district that burned biomass as a fuel, and that source met the
emission limit of this rule until it decided to switch to landfill gas
as a fuel source.'' In support of these assertions, Earthjustice
referenced a letter to EPA dated June 29, 2007, in which it had made
these same assertions. Earthjustice concluded that the SMAQMD's
NOX limit of 70 ppm for biomass-fired units in Rule 411
``has been demonstrated as feasible,'' and that ``EPA must conduct its
own review of the feasibility of Sacramento's limit,'' rather than
``rely[] on the District's misleading claims.''
    Response #2.b: First, the difference between the limit in SMAQMD's
Rule 411 and the limit in SJVUAPCD's Rule 4352 is not as significant as
the commenter contends. The current 70 ppm NOX emission
limit in Rule 411 is expressed in parts per million corrected to 12%
carbon dioxide (ppm at 12% CO2), which equates to
approximately 100 ppm at 3% O2. See Rule 411 (as amended
August 23, 2007), section 303.1.\4\ As such, the appropriate comparison
is between a limit of 100 ppm at 3% O2 (not 70 ppm at 3%
O2) in SMAQMD's Rule 411 and a limit of 115 ppm at 3%
O2 in SJVUAPCD's Rule 4352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We have converted the emission limit into its approximate
equivalent at 3% O2 to allow for more direct comparison
to the emission limits in SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 and the other rules we
have evaluated, which are also generally expressed in ppm at 3%
O2. Briefly, using equations available in EPA Method 3B
along with F Factors obtained from Method 19, we calculated the
O2 that should be obtained during combustion if there is
12% CO2 in the flue gas and corrected the NO2
concentration obtained to 3% O2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, to the extent the commenter intended to argue that an
emission level of 70 ppm at 3% O2 has been achieved in the
Sacramento area, this argument is unsupported. In both the comments
submitted for this rulemaking and the June 29, 2007 comment letter,
Earthjustice refers to, without identifying, a source in the Sacramento

Metropolitan area that at some point burned biomass and that met the
emission limits in Rule 411 before it decided to switch to landfill gas
as a fuel source. It appears that Earthjustice is referring to an
almond processing facility called Blue Diamond, which we understand was
the only source in the Sacramento Metropolitan area to have operated a
biomass-fired boiler in the past 20 years. See e-mail dated May 13,
2010, from Bruce Nixon (SMAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA Region 9).
    According to SMAQMD staff, the Blue Diamond facility ceased
operations in March 1996. See e-mail dated February 8, 2010, from Bruce
Nixon (SMAQMD) to Idalia Perez (EPA Region 9). Prior to this time, the
facility was subject to Rule 411 as adopted on February 2, 1995, which
contained a limit for NOX emissions from biomass-fired
boilers of 110 ppm at 12% CO2, or approximately 156 ppm at
3% O2.\5\ See Section 303.1, Rule 411 (as adopted February
2, 1995). Notably, this limit was significantly higher than the
NOX limit for biomass-fired boilers in SJVUAPCD's current
Rule 4352 (115 ppm at 3% O2). Assuming Blue Diamond's
biomass-fired boiler was in compliance with the applicable limit in the
1995 version of Rule 411, i.e., approximately 156 ppm at 3%
O2, this does not demonstrate that a NOX emission
limit of 70 ppm at 3% O2 is achievable.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See fn. 4, supra, for an explanation of the conversion
methodology from ppm at 12% CO2 to ppm at 3%
O2.
    \6\ The 1995 version of SMAQMD Rule 411 also contained a lower
limit of 70 ppm at 12% CO2 (~100 ppm at 3% O2)
which took effect May 31, 1997. See Section 306.1, Rule 411 (as
adopted February 2, 1995). On October 27, 2005, SMAQMD revised Rule
411 by eliminating the NOX emission limit of 110 ppm at
12% CO2 (~156 ppm at 3% O2) but retaining the
NOX emission limit of 70 ppm at 12% CO2 (~100
ppm at 3% O2). At that time, however, no facility in the
SMAQMD area operated a biomass-fired boiler subject to this limit.
See e-mail dated May 13, 2010, from Bruce Nixon (SMAQMD) to Idalia
Perez (EPA Region 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #2.c: Earthjustice asserted that ``the evidence EPA has put
in the record suggests that much lower limits for biomass-fired units
are not only reasonably available but, in fact, are already being
achieved by just about every facility in the Valley.'' Earthjustice
provided an excerpt from a document EPA had identified in the TSD and
asserted that according to this document, which contained information
about solid fuel-fired units and associated permit limits in the SJV
area, ``[a]ll but one biomass-fired unit is already meeting the more
stringent SMAQMD limit of 70 ppm at 12% CO2 (~100 ppm at 3%
O2) and most are permitted well below this limit * * *.''
Earthjustice also stated that the permitted levels do not necessarily
reflect the level of emissions from these facilities, and that EPA
should consider source test data for these facilities ``to aid in the
determination of what is reasonably achievable.''
    Response #2.c: The commenter correctly notes that biomass-fired
boilers in the SJV area are achieving NOX emission levels
below the levels required by Rule 4352. In fact, based on information
we have gathered in response to these comments, it appears that all of
the existing biomass-fired boilers in the SJV area that are subject to
Rule 4352 are achieving emission levels significantly below 115 ppm at
3% O2. In the absence of information indicating that these
lower emission levels are not reasonably achievable in the SJV area, we
conclude that the District has not adequately demonstrated that the
NOX limit in Rule 4352 (115 ppm at 3% O2)
represents RACT.
    Ten biomass-fired boilers in the SJV area are currently subject to
the NOX emission limit in Rule 4352. We have reviewed source
test data for four of these units and found that each unit is achieving
actual NOX emission levels between 44 and 79 ppm at 3%
O2. We also evaluated source test data for two biomass-fired
units in Placer County and one unit in Yolo County, California, which
indicate actual NOX emission levels between 45 and 103 ppm
at 3% O2. See Table 1. These source test results indicate
that biomass-fired units both within the SJV area and elsewhere in
California are currently achieving NOX emission levels
significantly below 115 ppm at 3% O2.

                     Table 1--NOX Source Test Data for Selected Boilers Firing Biomass in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Test
                Facility                         Air  district           year                Emission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madera Power, LLC.......................  SJVUAPCD..................       2009  44.3 ppm at 3% O2.
Covanta Delano, Inc.....................  SJVUAPCD..................       2009  Unit 1--0.07 lbs/MMBtu (~54 ppm
                                                                                at 3% O2)
                                                                                ...............................
                                                                      .........  Unit 2--0.063 lbs/MMBtu (~49
                                                                                ppm at 3% O2).
Sierra Power Corporation................  SJVUAPCD..................       2009  78.7 ppm at 3% O2.
Sierra Pacific Industries, Lincoln......  Placer County APCD               2009  51.2 ppm at 12% CO2 (~103 ppm
                                           (PCAPCD).                              at 3% O2).
Rio Bravo Rocklin.......................  PCAPCD....................       2009  37.6 ppm at 12% CO2 (~76 ppm at
                                                                                3% O2)
Woodland Biomass Power, LTD.............  Yolo-Solano APCD..........       2010  45.34 ppm at 3% O2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining six biomass-fired units in the SJV area are subject
to NOX permit limits ranging from 62 to 83 ppm at 3%
O2. See Table 2.

      Table 2--NOX Permit Limits for Biomass Facilities in SJVUAPCD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Permit No.               Size of unit          NOX Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-825.........................  317 MMBtu/hr.....  27.8 lb/hr (~83 ppm
                                                    at 3% O2).
C-1820........................  352 MMBtu/hr.....  0.08 lb/MMBTU (~62
                                                    ppm at 3% O2).
N-1026........................  259 MMBtu/hr.....  27.2 lb/hr (~83 ppm
                                                    at 3% O2).
N-4607........................  185 MMBtu/hr.....  0.08 lb/MMBtu (~83
                                                    ppm at 3% O2).
S-285.........................  11.5 MW..........  0.09 lb/MMBtu (~70
                                                    ppm at 3% O2).
C-6923........................  185 MMBtu/hr.....  0.08 lb/MMBtu (~62
                                                    ppm at 3% O2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that each of the biomass-fired units located in the SJV
area that is subject to Rule 4352 is also subject to a NOX
emission limit representing the Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) \7\ in its District-issued permit, and that the BACT standard
often requires a more stringent control level than RACT. BACT
requirements are established prior to construction on an emissions-unit
by emissions-unit basis through the District's permitting process. See
SJVUAPCD Rule 2201 (as amended December 18, 2008), sections 2.0 and
4.1. RACT, on the other hand, applies to existing sources and is
defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is
capable of meeting ``by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.'' 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979). EPA historically has
recommended source-category-wide presumptive RACT limits based on
capabilities that are general to an industry, although RACT decisions
may also be made on a case-by-case basis. See 57 FR 55620 at 55624
(November 25, 1992) (``NOx Supplement to General Preamble'').
Similarly, a RACT prohibitory rule may establish emission limits based
on capabilities that are general to the covered source category, rather
than based on source-specific analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ SJVUAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source
Review Rule) defines BACT, in relevant part, as ``the most stringent
emission limitation or control technique * * * achieved in practice
for such category and class of source * * *.'' SJVUAPCD Rule 2201
(as amended December 18, 2008), section 3.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the stringency and source-specific nature of the BACT
requirement, a BACT limit established in a pre-construction permit does
not necessarily represent RACT for the source category in general. This
does not mean, however, that the two standards may never result in
similar emission levels based on the same or similar controls. In some
cases, RACT may even result in more stringent control levels than a
source-specific control standard like BACT or the Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER). See Memorandum dated March 30, 1994, from Tom
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, to Region V Air
Enforcement Branch, ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Questions from Ohio EPA'';
Memorandum dated December 1, 1988, from Gerald Emison, Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to William Spratlin, Director,
Air and Toxics Division, Region VII, ``RACT Requirements in Ozone
Nonattainment Areas'' (noting that LAER is determined at the time of
permit issuance). Fundamentally, each of these standards requires a
specific evaluation of the types of controls that are available to the
source--or, in the case of a prohibitory rule, to the covered sources
in the relevant area--taking into account, where appropriate,
technological and economic feasibility.
    In this case, every existing biomass-fired boiler in the SJV area
that is subject to this rule is already achieving lower NOX
levels based on BACT controls. Absent information indicating that these
controls may not be technologically or economically feasible for
sources in the area, we have no basis for concluding that these
emissions levels are not also reasonably available and appropriate as
RACT in the SJV area.
    Comment #2.d: Earthjustice asserted that, in addition to
identifying the control technology that can achieve a RACT level of
control, EPA must provide an ``analysis that identifies the
appropriately stringent emission limit within the range of control
achievable by this technology.''
    Response #2.d: We agree that a RACT analysis generally should
identify not only reasonably available control technologies but also
appropriately stringent emission limitations based on these controls.
We are disapproving all of the NOX emission limits in Rule
4352 because the District has not adequately demonstrated that these
limits satisfy RACT.
    Comment #3: Earthjustice asserted that EPA should evaluate the
source test data available to it in evaluating Rule 4352, rather than
``relying strictly on outdated technology reviews and ignoring the fact
that SNCR and other similar technologies have radically improved over
the last fifteen years* * *.'' Earthjustice provided a list of
California biomass facilities at http://www.calbiomass.org/county.htm
and stated that this could be a good starting point for EPA's
investigation. Finally, Earthjustice reiterated its assertions that
``[t]he 70 ppm limit for biomass-fired units in the Sacramento rule has
been proven, not just by the source that used to operate in Sacramento,
but also by the many biomass-burning facilities in the Valley that are
already meeting that standard,'' and that EPA should disapprove all of
the limits in Rule 4352 as RACT.
    Response #3: Although we do not agree with the commenter's
assertion that a NOX emission level of 70 ppm at 3%
O2 has been achieved by a biomass-fired unit in the
Sacramento area, our review of source test data and permits for
biomass-fired units in the SJV area indicate that emission levels
between 44 and 83 ppm at 3% O2 are currently being achieved.
See Responses 2.b. and 2.c above. We are disapproving
all of the NOX limits in Rule 4352, including the limit for
biomass-fired units, because the District has not demonstrated that
these limits satisfy RACT.
    Comment #4: Earthjustice requested confirmation that any alternate
source-specific RACT emission limit requested by the owner or operator
of a source under section 5.4 of Rule 4352 will be approved by EPA only
after notice and comment rulemaking.
    Response #4: We understand that section 5.4 requires the District
to provide an opportunity for public comment on any alternate source-
specific RACT limit that it seeks to approve through issuance of a
Permit to Operate under Rule 2520 (as amended June 21, 2001), subject
to EPA review, as explained further below. Before we approve any
alternate limit under this provision, EPA intends to ensure that the
District has satisfied the procedural requirements of Rule 2520 and
that the Permit to Operate ensures compliance with applicable CAA
requirements, including RACT, consistent with the requirements of CAA
title V.
    Specifically, section 5.4 of Rule 4352 states that, for a unit
operating at or below 50 percent of the rated heat input (i.e., the
heat input capacity specified on the nameplate of the unit), ``the
APCO, ARB, and EPA may approve an increased emission limit if the
owner/operator submits an application for a Permit to Operate, which
provides a justification for the requested limit.'' Upon approval by
the APCO, ARB, and EPA, the source owner/operator may comply with this
higher limit in lieu of the applicable limits in Table 1 of the rule.
    Importantly, the rule allows the District, ARB, and EPA to approve
an alternate limit only after the owner/operator submits an application
for a Permit to Operate (PTO) that provides a justification for the
requested limit. Any source in the SJV area that is subject to Rule
4352 based on its potential to emit at least 10 tons per year (tpy) of
NOX is also subject to the District's EPA-approved title V
permit program because it is a ``major source.'' See SJVUAPCD Rule
2520, ``Federally Mandated Operating Permits'' (as amended June 21,
2001), sections 2.3 and 3.19 (applying program to any ``major source''
as defined in SJVUAPCD Rule 2201); SJVUAPCD Rule 2201, ``New and
Modified Stationary Source Review Rule'' (as amended December 18,
2008),

section 3.23 (defining ``major source'' to include any source that has
the potential to emit at least 20,000 pounds per year (10 tpy) of
NOX). Thus, any source owner/operator seeking to obtain an
alternate limit under Rule 4352 must submit an application under Rule
2520 either for an initial PTO (if it is a new source) or for a
``significant permit modification'' to its existing PTO. See Rule 2520,
sections 5.3.1, 3.29, and 3.20.3. Both initial PTOs and significant
modifications to existing PTOs are subject to a 30-day public comment
period and a 45-day EPA review period, during which EPA may object to
the permit if it does not meet applicable CAA requirements. See Rule
2520, sections 11.3 and 11.7. Furthermore, if EPA does not object in
writing to the District's preliminary decision during the 45-day review
period, any person may petition EPA to review the permit. See Rule
2520, section 11.3.7.
    These procedures ensure that the public will have an opportunity
not only to comment on any alternate limit proposed by the District
under section 5.4 of Rule 4352, but also to submit a title V petition
to EPA where EPA does not object to a proposed permit containing such
an alternate limit. Prior to approving any alternate limit requested
under section 5.4 of Rule 4352, EPA intends to ensure that the District
has satisfied these procedural requirements under Rule 2520 and that
the PTO, including the alternate limit, satisfies CAA RACT
requirements.
    Comment #5: SJVUAPCD agreed with EPA's proposal to approve the
NOX limit in Rule 4352 for biomass-fired units and stated
that all solid fuel-fired units in the area are equipped with SNCR or
SCR controls, which are more effective than SNCR.
    Response #5: As explained above, based on the comments we received,
we have determined that the District has not adequately demonstrated
that the NOX limit in Rule 4352 for biomass-fired units
satisfies RACT. See Responses 2.c and 2.d.
    Comment #6: SJVUAPCD disagreed with EPA's proposal to disapprove
the limit of 115 ppm at 3% O2 in Rule 4352 for solid fuels
other than municipal solid waste and biomass (i.e., coal, petroleum
coke, and/or tire-derived fuels). The District provided several
arguments in support of its objection to EPA's proposal, each of which
we address in separate comment summaries below.
    Response #6: For the reasons discussed below, we have concluded
that the District has not adequately demonstrated that the existing
limit in Rule 4352 for units firing solid fuels other than municipal
solid waste and biomass (i.e., coal, petroleum coke, and/or tire-
derived fuels) (115 ppm at 3% O2) satisfies RACT.
    Comment #6.a: The District stated that six facilities in the SJV
area operate seven boilers that are permitted to fire coal, petroleum
coke, and/or tire-derived fuels, and that all of these boilers have
installed SNCR controls, which represent BACT for this source category.
    Response #6.a: See Responses 2.c above and 8.d below.
    Comment #6.b: The District asserted that EPA's reliance on the
emission levels for coal-fired units in the 1994 ACT (29-65 ppm at 3%
O2 or 0.04 to 0.09 lb/MMBtu) as part of its RACT evaluation
was not appropriate because these emission levels apply only to
fluidized bed combustor (FBC) units fired exclusively on coal. SJVUAPCD
asserted that coal has less fuel-bound nitrogen compared to petroleum
coke and, therefore, results in less NOX formation during
combustion even with the same emission control technology.
    Response #6.b: Although we agree with the commenter that coal has
less fuel-bound nitrogen than petroleum coke, this does not provide a
basis for approving the current limit in Rule 4352 as RACT. Likewise,
an argument that the emission levels for coal-fired units provided in
the 1994 ACT (29-65 ppm at 3% O2 or 0.04 to 0.09 lb/MMBtu)
do not reflect reasonably available controls for boilers firing
combinations of coal, petroleum coke, and tire-derived fuels, also does
not demonstrate that the limit in Rule 4352 for these units (115 ppm at
3% O2) satisfies RACT.
    In determining the level of control that is reasonably available to
sources in the SJV area, the District must consider new information
that has become available, including information about control levels
currently achieved by similar sources. We note that the range provided
in the 1994 ACT reflects control technologies from over a decade ago,
and that RACT may change over time as new technology becomes available
or the cost of existing technologies decreases. As discussed in the TSD
for our proposed rule, it appears that boilers burning coal, petroleum
coke, and/or tire-derived fuels in the SJV area are generally achieving
NOX emission levels significantly below 115 ppm at 3%
O2, and the 1994 ACT indicates that coal-fired boilers with
SNCR and ammonia injection generally can achieve NOX
emission levels below 115 ppm at 3% O2. See TSD at 6; 1994
ACT at B-19. We also note that use of cleaner-burning fuels, work
practice standards, or other operation and maintenance requirements may
be considered as part of a RACT analysis. See Memorandum dated July 30,
1993, from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, to Air Division Directors, Regions I through X, ``Fuel
Switching to Meet the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Requirements for Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)''; Memorandum dated
November 7, 1996, from Sally Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies &
Standards Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions I through X,
``Approval Options for Generic RACT Rules Submitted to Meet the non-CTG
VOC RACT Requirement and Certain NOX RACT Requirements.''
The District has provided no technological or economic information to
support a conclusion that these lower emission levels are not
reasonably achievable in the SJV area.
    Comment #6.c: SJVUAPCD asserted that it had reviewed EPA's RACT/
BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) and had not identified any boilers in
the nation that fire a blend of coal/coke/tire-derived fuel and that
meet the emission range in the 1994 ACT. The District asserted that EPA
should not have referenced this emission range as part of its RACT
evaluation, and that the current limit in Rule 4352 should be
considered RACT for boilers firing coal, petroleum coke, and tire-
derived fuels.
    Response #6.c: We disagree. As shown in Table 3 below, the RBLC
identifies several boiler units firing combinations of coal, petroleum
coke, and/or tire-derived fuels that achieve emission levels in the
range provided in the 1994 ACT (29-65 ppm at 3% O2 or 0.04-
0.09 lb/MMBtu). The District has provided no technological or economic
information to support a conclusion that these lower emission levels
are not reasonably achievable in the SJV area. See Response
6.b.

 Table 3--RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse NOX Emission Levels for Boilers Firing Petroleum Coke, Coal, and/or Tire-
                                                  Derived Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limit (lb/
            RLBC ID                 Year               Fuel                 Control Technology         MMBtu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA-0202........................       2006  Pet Coke/Coal.............  SNCR......................        0.07
LA-0223........................       2008  Pet Coke..................  SNCR......................        0.07
MI-0258........................       2001  Coal/Tire/Wood............  SCR.......................        0.06
MS-0075........................       2003  Wood/Tires................  LNB, overfire air, good           0.0310
                                                                         combustion practices.
WI-0122........................       2001  Pet Coke..................  SNCR......................        0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #7: SJVUAPCD asserted that ``EPA has consistently
interpreted the Clean Air Act provisions to require only those feasible
measures necessary for expeditious attainment,'' and that ``if a
feasible measure alone or in combination with other measures, cannot
expedite attainment by at least one year then it is not considered to
be reasonably available.'' The District asserted that no additional
emission reduction would be achieved by reducing the limits in Rule
4352 to the NOX limits in the sources' permits ``because the
reduction from affected boilers has already occurred.'' Therefore, the
District argued, ``such action is not necessary for the District's
efforts for expeditious attainment of the ozone and PM2.5 standards.''
    Response #7: We disagree. Although EPA has long interpreted the
RACT requirement in section 172(c)(1) of the Act, known as ``subpart 1
RACT,'' as requiring only those control measures that will contribute
to timely attainment and meet reasonable further progress (RFP)
requirements (see 40 CFR 51.912(c) and 70 FR 71612 at 71653 (November
29, 2005)), this is not true for the more specific RACT requirements of
CAA section 182(b)(2), known as ``subpart 2 RACT.'' Section 182 of the
Act requires, for any ozone nonattainment area classified as moderate
or above, a SIP revision to require RACT for all major stationary
sources of NOX that are located in the area, among other
sources. CAA 182(b)(2)(C), 182(f); 40 CFR 51.912(a). These control
measures are mandated whether or not they advance attainment or
contribute to RFP. Because the SJV area is designated and classified as
an extreme ozone nonattainment area (40 CFR 81.305),\8\ the SIP for the
area must meet subpart 2 RACT requirements for all major NOX
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Effective June 4, 2010, the SJV area was reclassified from
``serious'' to ``extreme'' nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
See 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010). The SJV area also remains classified
as ``extreme'' nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR
81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, it is not clear that no additional emission reduction
would be achieved by reducing the limits in Rule 4352 for units burning
coal, petroleum coke, and/or tire-derived fuels. As explained above in
Responses 6.b and 6.c, both the 1994 ACT and EPA's
RBLC provide NOX emission levels ranging from 29 to 65 ppm
at 3% O2 (0.04-0.09 lb/MMBtu) for units burning coal,
petroleum coke, and/or tire-derived fuels. Information that the
District submitted to us indicates that the permit limits for units
burning coal, petroleum coke, and/or tire-derived fuels in the SJV area
range between 28 and 146.7 ppm at 3% O2. See Attachment
6 to TSD. Several of these permit limits exceed the
NOX emission levels provided in the 1994 ACT and the RBLC
for comparable units, one of these (146.7 ppm at 3% O2) by a
substantial margin. Absent technical or economic information indicating
that these units cannot reasonably achieve the emission levels
identified in the 1994 ACT and the RBLC, we conclude that the District
has not adequately demonstrated that the NOX limit in Rule
4352 (115 ppm at 3% O2) represents RACT.
    Moreover, the permit limits that the District references are not
approved into the SIP. We have no basis for evaluating permit limits
not submitted for SIP approval to support a RACT determination under
section 182(b)(2) of the CAA. See Response 8.d below.
    Comment #8: SJVUAPCD disagreed with EPA's proposal to disapprove
the limit of 200 ppm at 12% CO2 in Rule 4352 for units
firing municipal solid waste (MSW). The District provided several
arguments in support of its objection to EPA's proposal, each of which
we address in separate comment summaries below.
    Response #8: For the reasons discussed below, we have concluded
that the District has not adequately demonstrated that the existing
limit in Rule 4352 for units firing MSW (200 ppm at 12% CO2)
satisfies RACT.
    Comment #8.a: SJVUAPCD stated that there is one facility in the
District that operates two boilers firing MSW, and that both of these
boilers have SNCR controls, which represent BACT. The District asserted
that BACT is more stringent than RACT.
    Response #8.a: See Responses 2.c above and 8.d below.
    Comment #8.b: SJVUAPCD asserted that the emission levels for MSW-
fired units in the 1994 ACT (52-232 ppm at 3% O2), which EPA
had referenced in the TSD for the proposed rule, are based on ``short
term test data'' which are not necessarily representative of typical
day-to-day operations.
    Response #8.b: The comment implies that the emission levels for
MSW-fired units in the 1994 ACT are not appropriate for consideration
as RACT because they are based on emissions data that may not represent
typical operations. This argument is unsupported. ACT documents
describe available control techniques and their cost effectiveness,
although they do not define presumptive RACT, and it is EPA's long-
standing position that States may consider information available in
ACTs to identify available control options as part of a RACT analysis.
See, e.g., 70 FR 71612 at 71654-55 (November 29, 2005) (preamble to
final Phase II ozone implementation rule). The emission levels in the
1994 ACT are based on numerous sources of information in addition to
compliance records, including technical reports, EPA documents, and
manufacturers' literature. See footnote 1 above and 1994 ACT at B-1.
The District's comment does not support an argument that the emission
levels in the 1994 ACT are not appropriate for consideration in a RACT
analysis.
    The information provided in the 1994 ACT is, however, over a decade
old and may not provide an accurate picture of current control options.
It is possible that the controls identified in the 1994 ACT are now
more cost-effective or that new control options have since become
available. The District is required to consider not only the
information in the 1994 ACT but also any new information that has
become available in determining the control obligation and emissions
limitation that is consistent with RACT. 70 FR 71612 at 71655.

    Comment #8.c: SJVUAPCD asserted that the MSW-fired boilers in the
SJV area ``operate an SNCR system whereby the amount of ammonia
injected into the flue gas is closely controlled to prevent excessive
ammonia slip,'' and that any increase in ammonia injection above
certain established levels for purposes of achieving additional
NOX reductions would potentially increase PM10
emissions above allowable permit limits.
    Response #8.c: SJVUAPCD has not provided information to
substantiate this assertion. Recent source test data for the Covanta
Stanislaus facility, which operates the only two permitted MSW-fired
units in the SJV area, shows average total particulate emissions of
7.58 x 10-3 gr/DSCF for Unit 1 and 7.08 x 10-3
gr/DSCF for Unit 2. See letter dated August 20, 2009, from Richard L.
Wright, Air Quality Inspector, SJUAPCD, to Terry Coble, Covanta
Stanislaus, Inc., enclosing ``Summary of Source Test Results,'' Tables
2.1 and 2.3. These emission levels are well below the facility's permit
limit for total particulate emissions from each unit, which is 0.0275
gr/DSCF. Id. Additionally, the same source test data indicates average
ammonia concentrations in the flue gas of 1.54 ppm for Unit 1 and 3.47
ppm for Unit 2, both of which are well below the ammonia limit of 50
ppm for each unit. Id. Thus, it appears the Covanta Stanislaus facility
could substantially increase the amount of ammonia injection for
purposes of achieving additional NOX reductions without
violating permit requirements. The District's argument is unclear and,
in any case, does not support a conclusion that the NOX
limit in Rule 4352 for MSW-fired units satisfies RACT.
    Comment #8.d: SJVUAPCD asserted that although the rule limit for
MSW-fired boilers is 200 ppm at 12% CO2, the existing permit
limit of 165 ppm at 12% CO2 ``is within the range of
limit[s] recommended in the ACT for this boiler type, and therefore the
units meet RACT.''
    Response #8.d: It appears the District intended to argue that EPA
should evaluate the permit limits for MSW-fired boilers (165 ppm at 12%
CO2), rather than the limit in Rule 4352 (200 ppm at 12%
CO2), for RACT purposes. This would be appropriate if
SJVUAPCD were to adopt and submit the relevant permit limits for
approval into the SJVUAPCD portion of the California SIP. In this
action, however, we are evaluating Rule 4352 for approval into the SIP,
not the permit limits that the District references. We have no basis
for evaluating permit limits not submitted for SIP approval to support
a RACT determination under section 182(b)(2) of the CAA.
    As discussed in the TSD for our proposed action, the NOX
emission limit in Rule 4352 for MSW-fired units is 200 ppm at 12%
CO2, which equates to roughly 266 ppm at 3% O2.
The 1994 ACT provides NOX emission levels for MSW-fired
units ranging between 44 and 210 ppm at 3% O2,\9\ based on
the use of SNCR with ammonia or urea injection. See 1994 ACT at
Appendix B, pg. B-21. The District has provided no technological or
economic information to support a conclusion that these lower emission
levels are not reasonably achievable in the SJV area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The emission levels that the District identifies (52 to 232
ppm at 3% O2) are presented in the TSD for our proposed
action and are calculated based on the lb/MMBtu values shown in
Table 2-6 of the ACT. We note that the values presented in Appendix
B of the Act (44 to 210 ppm at 3% O2) are more reliable.
See fn. 1 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #8.e: SJVUAPCD asserted that EPA's RBLC does not indicate
any BACT emission level for boilers firing MSW fuels. The District
stated that the RBLC does identify a source called Mahoning Renewable
Energy, which operates two boilers that burn refuse-derived fuel (RDF)
and are equipped with Regenerative Selective Catalytic Reduction
(RSCR). Citing EPA's 1994 ACT, the District asserted that ``unlike MSW
and industrial solid waste fuels, which are burned in the same form as
they are received at the boiler site, RDF is fuel processed from
general solid waste'' and is generated by sorting and processing such
solid waste. SJVUAPCD concluded by asserting that because the Mahoning
facility's boilers ``use RSCR and are fired on RDF, RSCR cannot be
considered RACT for boilers fired on MSW fuel.''
    Response #8.e: The District's assertion that the RBLC does not
contain BACT emission levels for MSW fuel-fired boilers is not correct
(although we note that these entries are difficult to locate as they
are not categorized under fuel combustion (process type 10), as are
boilers burning other fuels). The RBLC includes MSW fuel-fired boiler
units under the process type 21.400, Waste Combustion Processes. For
example, the Lee County Waste-To-Energy Facility in Florida (RBLC ID
FL-0258) operates two mass-burn municipal waste combustion units that
are equipped with SNCR and subject to an emission limit of 150 ppm at
7% O2 (approximately 143 ppm at 12% CO2). Another
facility identified in the RBLC is the Resource Recovery Facility in
Virginia (RBLC ID VA-0277), which operates two MSW-fired units subject
to an emission limit of 160 ppm at 7% O2 (approximately 152
ppm at 12% CO2).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We have converted each of the emission limits we identified
in the RBLC into their approximate equivalent at 12% CO2
to allow for more direct comparison to the emission limit in
SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, which is also expressed in ppm at 12%
CO2. Briefly, using equations available in EPA Method 3B
along with F Factors obtained from Method 19, we calculated the
O2 that should be obtained during combustion if there is
12% CO2 in the flue gas and assumed this O2 in
correcting to 7% O2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we have examined source test data for other MSW-fired
units to determine what emission limits have been achieved in practice.
The Montenay Pacific Power Corporation has a facility in Long Beach,
California with three MSW fuel-fired units, each of which appears to
have NOX emission levels between 64 and 104 ppm at 7%
O2 (approximately 61-99 ppm at 12% CO2). Eco/
Pittsfield, LLC in Pittsfield, Massachusetts operates three MSW
combustors that appear to have average NOX emissions of 70.4
ppm at 7% O2 (approximately 67 ppm at 12% CO2).
These emission levels are significantly lower than 200 ppm at 12%
CO2.
    It appears the District believes that important distinctions
between the use of RDF and MSW as fuel justify the NOX
emission limit in Rule 4352 as RACT, but this argument is not
supported. The District has provided no technical or economic
information to support an argument that the control levels currently
achieved by MSW fuel-fired units elsewhere are not reasonably available
in the SJV area.
    Comment #8.f: SJVUAPCD stated that the permits for boilers firing
MSW have stringent limits for numerous hazardous air pollutants,
because the facility is subject to the Federal NESHAP for municipal
solid waste combustors. The District asserted that ``[t]here is no more
emission reduction that would result with the current SNCR system, even
if the rule limit is lowered to the permitted level since the emission
has already been reduced because of more stringent operating permit
emission limits.''
    Response #8.f: First, to the extent the District intended to argue
that NESHAP requirements provide a basis for approving the
NOX limits in 4352 as RACT, this argument is unsupported.
Federal NESHAPs regulate hazardous air pollutants under section 112 of
the CAA and do not necessarily establish RACT for NOX
control under section 182 of the Act. The District has provided no
support for an assertion that NESHAP controls satisfy RACT requirements
in this case.
    Second, the District appears to assume that lowering the
NOX emission

limits for MSW-fired units in Rule 4352 to permit levels will satisfy
RACT. This is not correct. Although permit limits can in some cases
indicate a level of emissions control that is reasonably available,
source-specific permit limits do not in themselves establish RACT. See
Response 2.c above.
    Finally, the District appears to assert that the permits for MSW-
fired units in the SJV area contain emission limits more stringent than
the limit in Rule 4352. This also does not appear to be correct.
According to the list of permitted solid fuel-fired boilers that the
District provided to us and that we referenced as Attachment 6
to the TSD, the two MSW-fired boilers in the SJV area (at the Covanta
Stanislaus facility) are subject to District-issued permits, both of
which establish a NOX limit of 200 ppm at 12%
CO2. This permit limit is identical to the NOX
emission limit in Rule 4352 for MSW-fired units. The source test data
that we obtained for the Covanta Stanislaus facility indicate that each
of these two MSW-fired units is subject to both a limit of 200 ppm at
12% CO2 and a limit of 175 ppm at 12% CO2, but it
is not clear how and when these different permit limits apply. See
letter dated August 20, 2009, from Richard L. Wright, Air Quality
Inspector, SJUAPCD, to Terry Coble, Covanta Stanislaus, Inc., enclosing
``Summary of Source Test Results,'' Tables 2.1 and 2.3. In any case,
the District has provided no support for its assertion that reducing
the limit in Rule 4352 would result in no emissions reductions because
of ``more stringent operating permit emission limits.'' See also
Response 8.d.
    Comment #9: SJVUAPCD stated that the SJV area needs emission
reductions as quickly as feasible and is ``hesitant to divert resources
to conduct work that is not demonstrated to have significant potential
for additional reductions or enforceability.'' SJVUAPCD stated that its
focus on early and voluntary reductions from Fast Track measures,
incentive programs, and the Healthy Air Living program demonstrates the
District's earnest desire to expedite air quality improvement and that
it is conducting a study to determine the feasibility of retrofitting
solid fuel-fired boilers with SCR, in addition to SNCR, to achieve
significant NOX reductions. The District urged that its
efforts not be diverted without clear benefits.
    Response #9: As discussed above in Response 7, section 182
of the CAA requires, for any ozone nonattainment area classified as
moderate or above, a SIP revision to require RACT for all major
stationary sources of NOX that are located in the area,
among other sources. CAA 182(b)(2)(C), 182(f); 40 CFR 51.912(a).
Because the SJV area is designated and classified as an extreme ozone
nonattainment area (40 CFR 81.305), the SIP for the area must meet
subpart 2 RACT requirements for all major NOX sources.
    We recognize the District's substantial efforts to expedite air
quality improvement in the Valley, and we also recognize that it is not
clear that revising the NOX emission limits in this rule
will result in significant emissions reductions in the SJV area.
Nonetheless, we are obligated to review Rule 4352 for compliance with
the CAA, which requires, among other things, that the SJVUAPCD portion
of the California SIP provide for the implementation of RACT at a
minimum. We note that the District's reevaluation of the NOX
emission limits in Rule 4352 may reveal additional emission reductions
not yet considered and encourage the District to begin this process as
expeditiously as practicable, consistent with CAA requirements.

III. EPA Action

    Under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) and for the reasons set
forth above and in our December 9, 2009 proposed rule, we are
finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of amended
District Rule 4352, as submitted on October 5, 2006. We are finalizing
a limited approval of the submitted rule because we continue to believe
that the rule improves the SIP and is largely consistent with relevant
CAA requirements. This action incorporates amended Rule 4352, including
those provisions identified as deficient, into the District portion of
the Federally-enforceable California SIP. The amended rule approved
herein supersedes the version of Rule 4352 that we approved in February
1999 into the applicable SIP.
    We are finalizing a limited disapproval of the submitted rule
because the District has not adequately demonstrated that the
NOX limits in the rule for MSW-fired units, biomass-fired
units, and units burning other solid fuels (e.g., coal, petroleum coke,
and tire-derived fuels) satisfy RACT as required by the CAA. Our
reasons for disapproving the NOX limits for MSW-fired units
and units burning other solid fuels (e.g., coal, petroleum coke, and
tire-derived fuels) are explained in the proposed rule and further in
our responses to comments above. With respect to the NOX
emission limit for biomass-fired units, we are not finalizing our
proposal to approve this limit and are instead disapproving it because
the District has not adequately demonstrated that this emission limit
satisfies RACT, as explained in our responses to comments above. The
final limited disapproval triggers a sanctions clock and EPA's
obligation to promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP). Sanctions
will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of
this action. These sanctions would be imposed under section 179 of the
Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a FIP
under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months of the effective date of
this action. Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the
SJVUAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the
local agency from enforcing it.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals and limited approvals/
limited disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because
this limited approval/limited disapproval action does not create any
new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval
action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local
law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on November 1, 2010.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 30, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 26, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(347)(i)(A)(2) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (347) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Rule 4352, ``Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and
Process Heaters,'' amended on May 18, 2006.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2010-24686 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P