[Federal Register: May 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 99)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29250-29252]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21my04-30]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA302-0454; FRL-7665-8]
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 and/or
SOX in the year 1990 or any subsequent year. We are
proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). These
rules are part of the SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
(RECLAIM) program. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by June 21, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
http://www.regulations.gov.
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA's
technical support documents (TSDs), and public comments at our Region
IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may see
copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following
locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail
Code 6102T), Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Dr.,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182.
A copy of the rules may also be available via the Internet at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is
not an EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the rules
that were submitted to EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas C. Canaday, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4121, canaday.tom@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. Public comment and final 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 local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule < greek-
Local agency i> Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD............................... 2007 Trading Requirements........ 12/05/03 02/20/04
SCAQMD............................... 2011 Requirements for Monitoring, 12/05/03 02/20/04
Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for Oxides of
Sulfur (SOX) Emissions.
SCAQMD............................... 2012 Requirements for Monitoring, 12/05/03 02/20/04
Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29251]]
On March 19, 2004, these rule submittals were 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 These Rules?
We approved previous versions of Rules 2007, 2011 and 2012 into the
SIP on September 4, 2003.
C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?
The RECLAIM program is intended to allow facilities subject to the
program to meet their emission reduction requirements in the most cost-
effective manner. The program was designed to provide incentives for
industry to reduce emissions and develop innovative pollution control
technologies, as well as give facilities added flexibility in meeting
emission reduction requirements. Each facility under the program was
given an allocation of RECLAIM Trading Credits (RTCs) based on a
declining balance equivalent to the emissions levels that would have
occurred if the facility continued to operate under the then current
command-and-control regulations. Facilities within the RECLAIM program
must reconcile their emissions with their RTC holdings and have the
option of doing so by either installing control equipment, modifying
their activity, or purchasing RTCs from other facilities.
Beginning in June 2000, RECLAIM program participants experienced a
sharp and sudden increase in NOX RTC prices for both the
1999 and 2000 compliance years. In response to this SCAQMD adopted and
EPA subsequently approved into the California SIP rule amendments
designed to lower and stabilize RTC prices by increasing supply,
reducing demand, and increasing the exchange of RTC trading
information. Those rule revisions separated power producing facilities
from the rest of the RECLAIM market and RTC trading by power producers
was limited to isolate the rest of the market from the power producers'
RTC demands. For further information on this previous modification to
the RECLAIM program see EPA's proposed approval of the RECLAIM program
rule amendments dated May 13, 2002 (67 FR 31998).
The submitted rule revisions that are the subject of today's notice
of proposed rulemaking allow power producing facilities to re-enter the
general trading market of the RECLAIM program. Further rule revisions
adopted by SCAQMD clarify the Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems
(CEMS) requirements for modified equipment operated at RECLAIM
facilities. With regard to the power producing facilities, Rule 2007--
Trading Requirements has been revised to lift the trading restrictions
that were placed on power producers under the previous amendments to
the RECLAIM program. The currently submitted changes to Rule 2007 allow
power producers to use RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) to reconcile
emissions, and to sell or transfer RTCs below their original allocation
after compliance year 2003. Rule 2011--Requirements for Monitoring,
Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (SOX)
Emissions; and Rule 2012--Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions have
been amended to clarify that the 90-day recertification period for CEMS
applies to new CEMS or when a component of an existing CEMS is added to
an existing or modified major RECLAIM source.
The TSD has 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), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A) and
182(f) of the Act), and must not relax existing requirements (see
sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act). The SCAQMD regulates an ozone
nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 2007, 2011, and 2012
must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to help 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).
4. ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,''
January 2001, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA-452/R-01-001 (EIP
Guidance). This guidance applies to discretionary economic incentive
programs (EIPs) and represents the agency's interpretation of what EIPs
should contain in order to meet the requirements of the CAA.
B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD
has more information on our evaluation.
C. Public Comment and Final 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.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, 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, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
[[Page 29252]]
action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely proposes to approve state rules implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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 11, 2004.
Laura Yoshii,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 04-11559 Filed 5-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P