Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0416-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: State Implementation Plans: California South Coast Air Quality Management District; Revisions
Posted Date: 2011-05-27T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30896-30898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13239]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0416; FRL-9312-4]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South 
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) and oxides of sulfur (SOX) emissions from 
facilities emitting 4 tons or more per year of NOX or 
SOX in the year 1990 or any subsequent year under the 
SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program. We are 
approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the 
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (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 June 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0416, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail: 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 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.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
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 at http://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: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114, wong.lily@epa.gov.

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

[[Page 30897]]

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                 Rule No.            Rule title            Adopted         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD...............................            2002  Allocations for Oxides         11/05/10         04/05/11
                                                        of Nitrogen (NOX) and
                                                        Oxides of Sulfur (SOX).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 6, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 
2002 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 this rule?

    Table 2 lists the previous version of this rule approved into the 
SIP.

                                  Table 2--Current SIP Approved Version of Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Rule No.                 Rule title         Adopted         Submitted         Approved FR citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002..........................  Allocations for        01/07/2005       12/21/2005       08/29/2006, 71 FR 51120
                                 Oxides of
                                 Nitrogen (NOX)
                                 and Oxides of
                                 Sulfur (SOX).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and 
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. 
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that 
control NOX emissions.
    PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the 
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory 
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility 
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. PM2.5 
can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid or liquid 
particle (primary or direct PM2.5) or can be formed in the 
atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions from precursor 
emissions of NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile 
organic compounds and ammonia (secondary PM2.5). 
PM2.5 in the South Coast Air Basin is overwhelmingly formed 
as a secondary pollutant. (South Coast 2007 Air Quality Management 
Plan, page ES-9). Therefore, the South Coast 2007 AQMP relies on 
reducing precursors to PM2.5 and some directly-emitted 
PM2.5 rather than fugitive dust (PM10).
    The RECLAIM program was initially adopted by SCAQMD in October 
1993. The program established for many of the largest NOX 
and SOX facilities in the South Coast Air Basin a regional 
NOX and a regional SOX emissions cap and trade 
program, with the regional emissions caps declining over time until 
2003. The program was designed to provide incentives for sources to 
reduce emissions and advance pollution control technologies by giving 
sources added flexibility in meeting emission reduction requirements. A 
NOX or SOX RECLAIM Trading Credit (RTC) is a 
limited authorization to emit one pound of NOX or 
SOX during a specified one year period. A RECLAIM source's 
emissions may not exceed its RTC holding in any compliance year. A 
RECLAIM source may comply with this requirement by installing control 
equipment, modifying their activities, or purchasing RTCs from other 
facilities.
    The primary purpose of the amendments to Rule 2002 was to achieve 
SOX emission reductions by lowering the SOX 
emissions cap in the SOX RECLAIM program. This is 
accomplished by the calculation procedures in the rule for lowering a 
source's SOX RTC holdings. EPA's technical support document 
(TSD) has more information about this rule.
    Rule 2002 submitted to EPA also includes certain amendments to the 
rule that occurred in 2005 that were not previously approved by EPA. 
These amendments lower a source's NOX RTC holdings and 
result in NOX emission reductions. EPA's TSD has more 
information about these provisions.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines 
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see 
sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing 
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SCAQMD regulates an 
ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 2002 must 
fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the 
following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, 
November 25, 1992.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD 
has more information on our evaluation.

[[Page 30898]]

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule 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 
approval action that will incorporate this rule 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 (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 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: May 19, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-13239 Filed 5-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P