[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54993-54996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22662]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0536; FRL-9459-9]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer 
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of

[[Page 54994]]

revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) 
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 
revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from 
biomass fuel-fired boilers. We are proposing action on 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 October 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0536, 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: 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: Idalia P[eacute]rez, EPA Region IX, 
(415) 972-3248, [email protected].

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

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?
II. EPA's Evaluation
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
III. Proposed Action
IV. 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 dates 
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             Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAPCD................................             233  Biomass Boilers.........        12/10/09        05/07/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 2010, the submittal for PCAPCD Rule 233 was found to 
meet 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?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 233 into the SIP on April 
30, 1996 (61 FR 18959). PCAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved 
version on October 11, 2007, CARB submitted it to us on March 7, 2008 
and it was officially withdrawn on November 5, 2008.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    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. Rule 233 regulates emissions of 
NOX from biomass boilers and steam generators. EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    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 of the Act). Section 172(c)(1) of the Act also requires 
nonattainment areas to implement all reasonably available control 
measures (RACM), including such reductions in emissions from existing 
sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a 
minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT), as 
expeditiously as practicable. Additionally, ozone nonattainment areas 
classified as moderate or above must require RACT for all major sources 
of NOX (CAA section 182(b)(2) & (f); 40 CFR section 
51.912(a)). Because PCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area that 
is classified as Severe-15 under both the 1-hr ozone and 8-hr ozone 
standards (40 CFR section 81.305), submitted Rule 233 must fulfill RACT 
requirements for NOX.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate 
enforceability and RACT requirements for Rule 233 included 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).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990''; 57 
FR

[[Page 54995]]

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    5. Preamble, ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2,'' 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 
2005).
    6. ``Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and 
Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial, 
Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process 
Heaters'', CARB, July 18, 1991.
    7. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX 
Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers'', US 
EPA, March 1994.
    8. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX 
Emissions from Utility Boilers'', US EPA, March 1994.
    9. ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess 
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup and Shutdown'', Memorandum from 
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, September 20, 1999.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    Rule 233 improves the SIP by establishing more stringent emission 
limits. We believe the rule is consistent with the applicable 
requirements and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions. 
Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are 
summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What are the rule deficiencies?

    PCAPCD has not demonstrated that the NOX emission limits 
for biomass boilers found in Section 301 implement RACT. The 
NOX emission limits should be lowered to ensure 
implementation of RACT. Alternatively, PCAPCD may submit additional 
information to demonstrate that lower emission limits are not 
reasonably achievable.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    We do not currently have additional rule revisions that we 
recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of the submitted rule under 
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act. If finalized, this action 
would incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP, including those 
provisions identified as deficient. This approval is limited because 
EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the rule under 
section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is finalized, sanctions will be 
imposed under section 179 of the Act unless EPA approves subsequent SIP 
revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the 
disapproval. These sanctions would be imposed according to 40 CFR 
52.31. A final disapproval would also trigger the 2-year clock for the 
federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). 
Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the PCAPCD, and EPA's 
final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from 
enforcing it. The limited disapproval also would not prevent any 
portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference into the 
federally enforceable SIP (see EPA memo regarding ``Processing of State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals'' (July 9, 1992), available at: 
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/pdf/memo-s.pdf).
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited 
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

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 or disapprovals under 
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create 
any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that 
the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the proposed Federal 
SIP limited approval/limited disapproval 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 section 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 proposed 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 proposes to approve and disapprove 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

[[Page 54996]]

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 proposes to approve or disapprove 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 proposed 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.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
from tribal officials.
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. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: August 19, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-22662 Filed 9-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P