Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0508-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District
Posted Date: 2013-07-26T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45114-45116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18051]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0508; FRL-9838-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope 
Valley Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley 
Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) portion of the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern standards for 
continuous emissions monitoring systems and oxides of sulfur 
(SOX) emissions. We are approving local rules that regulate 
continuous emissions monitoring systems and standards for gaseous 
sulfur emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We 
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final 
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0508, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), 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 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 www.regulations.gov or email. 
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 email directly to EPA, your email 
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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. 
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, 
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947-4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov.

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 rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    D. 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 with the dates 
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVAQMD............................             218  Continuous Emission                 07/17/12        02/06/13
                                                     Monitoring.
AVAQMD............................           218.1  Continuous Emission                 07/17/12        02/06/13
                                                     Monitoring Performance
                                                     Specifications.
AVAQMD............................           431.1  Sulfur Content of Gaseous           08/21/12        04/22/13
                                                     Fuels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 9, 2013 for AVAQMD Rules 218 and 218.1, and on June 26, 
2013 for AVAQMD Rule 431.1, EPA determined the submittals 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?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 218 into the SIP on 
September 2, 2008 (73 FR 51226). AVAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on July 17, 2012 and CARB submitted them to us on 
February 6, 2013.
    There is no previous version of Rule 218.1 in the SIP. AVAQMD 
adopted Rule 218.1 on July 17, 2012 and CARB submitted it to us on 
February 6, 2013.
    We approved an earlier version of Rule 431.1 into the SIP on 
October 19, 1984 (49 FR 41028).\1\ AVAQMD adopted revisions to Rule 
431.1 on August 21,

[[Page 45115]]

2012 and CARB submitted them to us on April 22, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 1984 SIP approval of Rule 431.1 was actually for the 
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Antelope 
Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) was formed on July 1, 
1997 from the SCAQMD. All South Coast rules in effect at the time 
remain in effect under the newly formed AVAPCD until such time that 
Antelope Valley amended or rescinded the rule. On January 1, 2002, 
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District replaced the AVAPCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we can act on only the most recently submitted version of 
these rules, we have reviewed materials provided with previous 
submittals.

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

    Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) help produce ground-level 
ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the 
environment. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) exposure is associated 
with adverse respiratory effects and can contribute to fine particle 
pollution. Carbon Monoxide (CO) contributes to the formation of smog 
and can also harm human health. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 
States to submit regulations that control the primary and secondary 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which includes 
NOX, SO2, and CO emissions.
    Rule 218 establishes requirements for continuous emission monitors 
of NOX, SO2, gaseous sulfur compounds, and CO. 
Rule 218 was amended to better define specifications and guidelines for 
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS), delete obsolete 
language, and clarify administrative requirements. The original SIP 
approved rule was separated into an administrative portion and a 
technical portion. Rule 218 now contains the administrative 
requirements for CEMS and covers applicability, the application and 
approval process for CEMS, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
for CEMS. The technical requirements for CEMS were update and form the 
basis for a new rule, Rule 218.1.
    Rule 218.1 is a new rule and contains requirements for the 
certification of CEMS, the performance specifications of CEMS, and the 
operation and maintenance of CEMS.
    Rule 431.1 limits the sulfur content of fuels such as landfill 
gases, sewage digester gases, refinery gases and other gaseous fuels.
    EPA's technical support documents (TSD) have more information about 
these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 
193). The AVAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as 
severe for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. AVAQMD is in attainment for the 
1971 primary CO standard and designated as ``better than national 
standard'' for the 1971 primary SO2 standard (see 40 CFR 
Part 81.305).
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability requirements consistently include the following:

1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. 40 CFR 60 Appendix B--Performance Specifications.
4. 40 CFR 60 Appendix F--Quality Assurance Procedures.
5. SO2 Guideline Document, EPA 452/R-94-008, February 
1994.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. AVAQMD's staff 
report for Rule 431.1 estimates there is a maximum SOx emissions 
shortfall of approximately 10 pounds per day (~2 tons per year) when 
the locally enforced limit of 40 ppm is raised to 250 ppm. Since the 
existing SIP limit is 250 ppm, we do not consider this a SIP 
relaxation. AVAQMD also amended the 250 ppm sulfur limit in Rule 431.1 
for selling sewage digester gases. The rule now allows two compliance 
options. The first option, a 40 ppm daily average, is clearly more 
stringent than the existing 250 ppm SIP limit. The second option, a 40 
ppm monthly average combined with a 500 ppm 15-minute average allows 
short term intermittent emissions to exceed the existing 250 ppm SIP 
limit for selling sewage digester gas. We do not believe this short 
term 500 ppm 15-minute average would adversely impact the District's 
ability to maintain the SO2 NAAQS for the following reasons: 
(1) A 40 ppm monthly average effectively limits a facility from 
emitting 500 ppm more than two days per month before it will exceed the 
40 ppm monthly average limit; (2) District staff indicated there are 
two publicly owned treatment works and to their knowledge, the sewage 
digester gases are burned or flared (800 ppm existing SIP limit) and 
are not sold (250 ppm existing SIP limit); and (3) AVAQMD is in 
attainment for the 1971 primary SO2 NAAQS, and California 
points out that for the 2010 SO2 primary standard, ambient 
air quality monitoring in the Mojave Desert Air Basin shows a 2009 1-
hour SO2 design value of 10 ppb, well below the 2010 federal 
standard of 75 ppb and that there have been no violations of the 
federal 1-hour SO2 standard measured over the last two 
decades, and violations are not expected in the future.\2\ Since AVAQMD 
is in attainment for the SO2 NAAQS, Rule 431.1 is not a 
required SIP submittal. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Letter from the California Air Resources Board (James 
Goldstene) to EPA Region 9 (Jared Blumenfeld) dated June 20, 2011, 
Page A24-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    Our comments to draft Rule 431.1 recommended AVAQMD revisit its 
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis at a future date and 
consider cost information and data that may become available on carbon 
adsorption technology being tested under an experimental research 
permit in the South Coast Air Quality Management District. We are 
including this recommendation for the District to evaluate the next 
time AVAQMD amends Rule 431.1. We have no recommendations for Rules 218 
or 218.1.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant 
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them 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 
approval 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve State law 
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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.);

[[Page 45116]]

     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide 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 proposed action 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: July 12, 2013.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-18051 Filed 7-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P