[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28942-28944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12443]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0460; FRL-9309-5]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing both an approval and a limited approval and
limited disapproval of permitting rules submitted for the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD or District)
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The District
is required under Parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
to adopt and implement SIP-approved New Source Review (NSR) and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit programs. These
rules update and revise the District's NSR and PSD permitting programs
for new and modified major sources of air pollution. If EPA finalizes
the limited approval and limited disapproval action, as proposed, then
a sanctions clock would be triggered. We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by June 20, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0460, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: [email protected].
3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under EPA-R09-
OAR-2011-0460. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and
some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To
inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during
normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3534, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the
dates they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
[[Page 28943]]
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule
Local agency No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMAQMD....................................... 214 Federal New Source Review...... 10/28/10 12/07/10
SMAQMD....................................... 203 Prevention of Significant 1/27/11 1/28/11
Deterioration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 13, 2011 and May 12, 2011, EPA determined that the
submittals for SMAQMD Rules 214 and 203, respectively, met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
There are no previous versions of Rules 203 or 214 in the SIP, but
SIP approved Rule 202 (New Source Review), which these rules will
replace in the SIP, was approved on June 19, 1985 (50 FR 25417).
The SMAQMD originally adopted new Rule 203 on February 26, 1991,
and CARB submitted the rule to EPA on October 30, 2001, however EPA has
not taken action on this submittal. While we can act on only the most
recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with
the previous submittal.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that include a pre-construction permit program for certain new or
modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program
as required by Parts C and D of Title I of the CAA.
The purpose of District Rule 214 (Federal New Source Review) and
Rule 203 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) is to implement a
federal preconstruction permit program for new and modified sources.
These two new rules will replace in its entirety, the existing SIP
approved NSR/PSD programs contained in Rule 202. The basic NSR program
requirements from Rule 202 have been included in Rule 214, with
revisions made to clarify that the rule only applies to major sources
and all modifications at such sources, major agricultural sources and
only applies to pollutants for which the District is designated as
nonattainment. In accordance with the District's May 5, 2010 (75 FR
24409) reclassification as a severe ozone nonattainment area, the rule
lowers the BACT \1\ and offset applicability thresholds to 25 tpy or
less, and increases the required offset ratio to 1.3 to 1. Pursuant to
the 2002 NSR Reforms adopted by EPA (67 FR 80186), the rule adds
provisions for calculating emission increases from proposed
modifications by adding a definition for ``Federal Major
Modifications'' which incorporates the necessary provisions to perform
this calculation. The rule does not contain a provision for the
implementation of Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) as required by
40 CFR 51.165(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While the District uses the term BACT as the level of
control required, a review of the definition has shown that it is
equivalent to the requirements for federal LAER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic PSD program requirements from Rule 202 have been included
in Rule 203. This rule mainly incorporates by reference the federal PSD
program as codified in 40 CFR 52.21 which only applies to new major
sources and major modifications at existing major sources. The rule
also revises several terms used within 40 CFR 52.21 to replace NSR
Reform provisions with pre-reform language and requirements. (67 FR
80186)
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the submitted
rules include Parts C and D of Title I of the CAA, section
110(a)(2)(C), section 110(l) and section 182(d). Section 110(a)
requires a pre-construction permit programs for certain new or modified
stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program as
required by Parts C and D of Title I, while section 110(l) precludes
EPA approval of SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or
any other applicable requirement of the Act. Section 182(d) (together
with section 182(f) for NOX), requires NSR SIPs in
``severe'' nonattainment areas to define ``major sources'' and ``major
modifications'' to be sources that emit 25 tpy or more of VOC or
NOX, and have an offset ratio of at least 1.3 to 1. In
addition, we have reviewed the submitted rules for compliance with EPA
implementing regulations for NSR, including 40 CFR 51.160 through 40
CFR 51.166.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
EPA has reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the Rule
Evaluation criteria described above. The TSD for this action contains a
complete discussion of our evaluation. EPA is proposing to find that
these rules meet the statutory requirements for SIPs as specified in
sections 110(a), 110(l), 182(d) and 193 of the CAA. In addition, except
for the deficiencies noted in the TSD and summarized in the Proposed
Action section of this notice, we are proposing to find that the rules
meet the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR
51.166. EPA is proposing to find that it is acceptable for SMAQMD to
not incorporate the NSR Reform provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166
into their SIP approved NSR programs because the same level of control
will be required for modified sources, with or without inclusion of
these provisions in the SIP, and SMAQMD's program will not be any less
stringent than the federal program.
The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
For the reasons given above, under CAA section 110(k)(3) and
301(a), we are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
Rule 214 because, although it would strengthen the SIP and meets the
applicable requirements for SIPs in general, it contains certain
deficiencies related to NSR SIPs in particular that prevent our full
approval. The primary deficiencies pertain to missing definitions, the
removal of public notice requirements for the minor source program from
the SIP, and missing provisions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii) and
40 CFR 51.307(b)(2). Please refer to the TSD for this action for
additional information. The deficiencies in Rule 214 can be remedied by
the District by revising Rule 214 to provide the missing definitions,
and necessary provisions pursuant to the 40 CFR part 51 sections cited
above. The minor source public notice program deficiency can be
remedied by either adding such provisions to Rule 201 or 214,
submitting an analysis showing why a
[[Page 28944]]
minor NSR program for minor sources is not needed, submitting an
approvable justification for why a chosen level of public notice is
appropriate, or submitting local District Rule 202 (State New Source
Review) to EPA for SIP approval. If EPA finalizes the limited approval
and limited disapproval action, as proposed, then a sanctions clock,
and EPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal implementation plan, would
be triggered because the revisions to the District rule for which a
limited approval and limited disapproval is proposed is required under
the 8-hour ozone standard.
Because EPA has determined that Rule 203 fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable
SIP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 13, 2011.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-12443 Filed 5-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P