[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 [email protected].
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