Document ID: EPA_FRDOC_0001-17319
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; South Coast Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits
Posted Date: 2015-05-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24821-24824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10239]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0087; FRL-9926-77-Region 9]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South 
Coast Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to approve Rule 1325, Federal PM2.5 New Source Review 
Program, into the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action 
was proposed in the Federal Register on February 17, 2015. Rule 1325 
governs the issuance of permits for major stationary sources and major 
modifications located in areas designated as nonattainment for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS to meet Clean Air Act Part D requirements for 
emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. EPA is 
taking this action under the Clean Air Act obligation to take action on 
State submittals for inclusion in state implementation plans. The 
intended effect is to update the SIP with nonattainment new source 
review (NNSR) rules for major stationary sources and major 
modifications emitting PM2.5 and certain PM2.5 
precursors.

[[Page 24822]]

DATES: This rule is effective on June 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0087] 
for this action. 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 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket 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 available in either location 
(e.g., confidential business information (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, by 
phone: (415) 972-3534 or by email at yannayon.laura@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comment
III. EPA Action and Response to Health Advocates Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8250), EPA proposed approval of South 
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1325, Federal 
PM2.5 New Source Review Program, for inclusion in the 
California SIP. Rule 1325 was adopted by SCAQMD on December 5, 2014, 
and submitted by the California Air Resources Board on December 29, 
2014.

II. Public Comment

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this time we received two comments. Only one of the comments, 
submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of Health Advocates \1\, objected 
to our proposed approval of SCAQMD Rule 1325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Health Advocates consists of Communities for a Better 
Environment, Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, and 
Sierra Club My Generation Campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Action and Response to Health Advocates Comment

    The letter submitted on behalf of Health Advocates objected to 
EPA's proposed approval of Rule 1325 on three grounds. Below we provide 
a summary of our response to each of Health Advocates' comments. Please 
see the Response to Comments document in the docket for this final 
action for our complete response.
    1. Approval of exclusion of ammonia as a precursor.
    CAA subpart 4 includes section 189(e), which requires NNSR controls 
for major stationary sources of PM10 precursors, and hence 
PM2.5 precursors, ``except where the Administrator 
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to 
PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.'' CAA 
section 189(e) (Emphasis added). EPA has identified ammonia as a 
precursor to the formation of PM2.5. See generally 80 FR 
15340, 15352 (Mar, 23, 2015) (Proposed PM2.5 Implementation 
Rule). EPA proposed to approve Rule 1325 even though it does not 
contain NNSR requirements for ammonia emissions because SCAQMD provided 
information that demonstrates major stationary sources of ammonia 
emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels 
exceeding the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS) in the South Coast Air Basin nonattainment area. 80 FR at 8251.
    Health Advocates disagreed with our proposal on three grounds, 
asserting that (1) EPA's determination that a contribution of 1.7 tons 
per day (tpd) of ammonia emissions to the ammonia inventory is small is 
``unjustified''; (2) EPA has not demonstrated that ammonia emissions do 
not contribute significantly to PM2.5 NAAQS violations in 
the South Coast Air Basin; and (3) it was arbitrary and capricious for 
EPA to consider the trends and actual air quality of PM2.5 
in the area. Earthjustice Letter at p.3.
    EPA disagrees with these comments. EPA applied a weight of the 
evidence approach taking into account several factors to determine if 
SCAQMD appropriately determined that major stationary sources of 
ammonia emissions do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 
nonattainment in the area.
    One factor we considered is that there are only four existing major 
stationary sources of ammonia and these four sources' emissions are 
only a small percentage (1.7%) of the total ammonia inventory for the 
South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area. Health Advocates did 
not submit any information or provide an explanation to show that 1.7% 
is not a small percentage. Health Advocates did not indicate what 
percentage would be justified as being small. For reasons explained 
fully in our Response to Comments, EPA continues to consider the 1.7% 
contribution of ammonia emissions from the four existing stationary 
sources to be relatively small compared to the rest of the ammonia 
inventory.
    A second factor we considered is whether major stationary sources 
of ammonia contribute significantly to levels exceeding the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the area, and whether potential new major 
stationary sources would be expected to contribute significantly to 
levels exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. The SCAQMD 
provided information showing that a regional increase of 10 tpd of 
ammonia (more than five times the amount currently emitted by all major 
stationary sources) would result in a 0.22 microgram per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\) increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations. This 
estimated increase in annual PM2.5 concentration would be 
1.5% of the 15 [mu]g/m\3\ 1997 PM2.5 annual standard. SCAQMD 
submitted additional information showing that decreasing ammonia 
emissions by 2.9 tpd near the Mira Loma monitor would result in a 
reduction of 0.16 [mu]g/m\3\ at that monitor.\2\ This estimated 
increase in 24-hr PM2.5 concentration would be 0.46% of the 
35 [mu]g/m\3\ 1997 PM2.5 24-hr standard. Based on these 
data, one can reasonably conclude that the current ambient contribution 
(in [mu]g/m\3\) of the four existing major stationary sources (with 
emissions of 1.7 tpd) and the ambient contributions from a new major 
source, to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard are likely 
to be less than the estimated changes in PM2.5 
concentrations indicated in the analyses cited above (which evaluated 
emission changes of 10 tpd and 2.9 tpd, respectively). Thus, EPA 
determined that existing and new major stationary sources of ammonia 
would make a relatively minor contribution to levels exceeding the 1997 
or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Draft Supplement to the 24-Hour PM2.5 State 
Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin dated January 2015 
at E-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A third factor we considered was the progress the SCAQMD has made 
and the overall severity of the PM2.5 nonattainment problem 
in the South Coast Air Basin. Health Advocates contends it was 
arbitrary and capricious to consider the past progress and current air 
quality and asserts that our evaluation of the air quality is flawed. 
We disagree with both points. EPA's General Preamble in 1992 noted that 
determinations under CAA section 189(e) are case-by-case and depend on 
a variety of information that is specific

[[Page 24823]]

to the area. See 57 FR 13498, 13538-42 (April 16, 1992). EPA's proposed 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule recently reiterated that 
application of section 189(e) should be case-specific and focused on 
location, including a weight of the evidence approach considering, 
among other factors, the severity of the nonattainment problem in the 
area. 80 FR at 15359. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider this 
factor.
    Health Advocates also asserted that EPA's discussion of the air 
quality in the South Coast Air Basin was misleading, contending that 
there were violations of both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Earthjustice Letter at p. 3-4. EPA acknowledges one monitor (Mira Loma) 
has recorded PM2.5 emissions exceeding the level of the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2011-2013 air quality data. 
However, Health Advocates failed to provide any information to support 
its claims that there are any current violations of the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The information Health Advocates cited to 
support its allegations of additional violations of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS at the Mira Loma monitor is from a combination 
of both federal and non-federal reference method monitors. In in 
addition the data is preliminary, uncertified and has not been quality 
assured.
    Based on the weight of the evidence, EPA concludes that it was 
appropriate for SCAQMD to exclude ammonia as a precursor pursuant to 
CAA section 189(e).
    2. Regulation of VOCs by SCAQMD NNSR Rule 1303 rather than Rule 
1325.
    Health Advocates also disagreed with EPA's proposal to approve Rule 
1325 without requiring VOC emissions to be included in the Rule's 
requirements. Id at p. 4. Health Advocates contends our proposal is 
inconsistent with CAA section 189(e).
    EPA did not propose to determine that VOCs do not contribute 
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 
PM2.5 standards and is making no such finding in this final 
rule. Instead, consistent with the proposed rule, EPA is determining 
that the NNSR control requirements applicable under the SCAQMD SIP for 
major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major 
stationary sources of VOCs (which are PM2.5 precursors), 
because major VOC sources are currently subject to stringent NNSR 
control requirements under Rule 1303. The requirements in Rule 1303 \3\ 
are more stringent than those that would apply under Rule 1325 and 
fully satisfy the control requirements of CAA section 189(e) with 
respect to VOCs.\4\ Moreover, it is long-standing EPA policy to allow 
NNSR regulation of PM precursors via their regulation through other 
NNSR programs. 57 FR at 13542 (``The VOC reductions may also be 
realized from new or modified major stationary sources due to the 
implementation of NSR programs in ozone nonattainment or attainment 
areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ SCAQMD Regulation XIII establishes the NNSR program 
requirements for VOC emissions from stationary sources. Rule 1303 
references other SCAQMD rules in Regulation XIII. Our citation to 
Rule 1303 also includes any other provisions in Regulation XIII as 
applicable.
    \4\ Section 189(e) of the CAA states that ``[t]he control 
requirements applicable under plans in effect under this part for 
major stationary sources of PM10 shall also apply to 
major stationary sources of PM10 precursors,'' except 
where the Administrator makes specific findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to find that the NNSR regulation of VOC emissions 
pursuant to Rule 1303 rather than Rule 1325 satisfies the requirements 
of section 189(e).
    3. Consideration of attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Finally, Health Advocates contends that EPA cannot approve Rule 
1325 because the South Coast Air Basin has not demonstrated the area is 
in attainment with the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Earthjustice Letter at p. 5.
    There is no requirement for the area to have attained the 
PM2.5 NAAQS as a predicate for EPA to approve a new NNSR 
rule for PM2.5. Approval of a new NNSR rule to control 
emissions of PM2.5, including NOX, SO2 
and VOCs \5\ emissions as precursors, in no way interferes with the 
SCAQMD's progress towards attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As noted above, major stationary sources of VOC emissions 
are regulated pursuant to a different, more stringent NNSR rule 
(Rule 1303) rather than Rule 1325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments were submitted to change our assessment of Rule 1325 as 
described in our proposed action. Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA 
and for the reasons provided in our proposed action, associated TSD and 
detailed Response to Comments document included in the docket, EPA is 
finalizing approval of SCAQMD Rule 1325.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the 
SCAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR 52.220 set forth 
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 
at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble for more information).

V. 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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation 
land or

[[Page 24824]]

in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 action 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).
    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 June 30, 2015. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action 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, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 14, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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)(458) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (458) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were 
submitted on December 29, 2014 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1325, Rule 1325, ``Federal PM2.5 New Source 
Review Program'' adopted on December 5, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2015-10239 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P