Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 28290-28293 [E6-7411]
Download as PDF
28290
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Al
Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposal addresses the following local
rules: ADEQ Rule R18–2–602, ADEQ
Rules R18–2–1501 through R18–2–1513,
PCDEQ Rule 17.12.480, and PCAQCD
Rules 3–8–700 and 3–8–710. In the
Rules and Regulations section of this
Federal Register, we are approving
these local rules in a direct final action
without prior proposal because we
believe these SIP revisions are not
controversial. If we receive adverse
comments, however, we will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule and address the comments in
subsequent action based on this
proposed rule. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
We do not plan to open a second
comment period, so anyone interested
in commenting should do so at this
time. If we do not receive adverse
comments, no further activity is
planned. For further information, please
see the direct final action.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated: March 22, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 06–4515 Filed 5–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA 182–4196b; FRL–8170–7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Withdrawal of Proposed
Rule; Motor Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program—Request for
Delay in the Incorporation of On-Board
Diagnostics Testing
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing a
proposed rule published on June 6,
2002, pertaining to Pennsylvania’s
timing in incorporating on-board
diagnostic (OBD) checks as an element
of its motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program. EPA’s I/M
requirements rule, or I/M rule,
established deadlines by which states
15:12 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
The proposed rule is withdrawn
as of May 16, 2006.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
were to add OBD checks to their I/M
programs (i.e., no later than January 1,
2002). However, EPA’s I/M rule
provided states the option to submit a
request to EPA to delay OBD testing for
no more than one additional year.
Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision
requesting this optional one-year
deadline extension on December 14,
2001.
On June 6, 2002, EPA published a
direct final rule (67 FR 38894) to
approve Pennsylvania’s request to delay
OBD testing as a revision to the
Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan
(SIP). EPA received adverse comments
during the comment period established
for that rule. On August 5, 2002 EPA
published a withdrawal notice (67 FR
50602) of its June 2002 direct final rule.
As stated in EPA’s direct final rule,
upon EPA’s withdrawal of the direct
final rule, a proposed rulemaking action
remained in place. EPA never took final
action upon that proposed rule.
Pennsylvania subsequently submitted
two SIP revisions (on December 1, 2003
and January 30, 2004) that revised its
I/M program in its entirety—including
the incorporation of OBD checks as an
element of its program. EPA published
a final rule fully approving the
Commonwealth’s revamped I/M
program on October 6, 2005 (70 FR
58313).
Since EPA has fully approved the
Commonwealth’s I/M program
(including the OBD check component of
the program), EPA’s proposed rule to
grant the Commonwealth’s request for
an extension of the deadline to
incorporate OBD checks is no longer
necessary. On November 17, 2005,
Pennsylvania formally requested
withdrawal of its December 14, 2001 SIP
revision from EPA. Therefore, EPA is
today withdrawing its proposed rule (67
FR 38924) to grant the Commonwealth’s
OBD deadline extension.
Brian Rehn, Air Quality Planning
Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Phone
(215) 814–2176, or e-mail
rehn.brian@epa.gov.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: May 5, 2006.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E6–7409 Filed 5–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0225; FRL–8170–9]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, South Coast Air
Quality Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s (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 subsequent year under the
SCAQMD’s Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program.
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). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
June 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2006–0225, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
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 https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
28291
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://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 in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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.
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 the SCAQMD and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule #
Rule title
SCAQMD ...........................
SCAQMD ...........................
SCAQMD ...........................
2000 .....................................
2001 .....................................
2002 .....................................
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
2005
2007
2010
2011
General .........................................................................
Applicability ...................................................................
Allocations for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and Oxides
of Sulfur (SOx).
New Source Review for RECLAIM ..............................
Trading Requirements ..................................................
Administrative Remedies and Sanctions ......................
Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) Emissions.
Appendix A: Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) Emissions.
Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions.
Appendix A—Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions.
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
SCAQMD ...........................
2011 Protocol Appendix A ...
SCAQMD ...........................
2012 .....................................
SCAQMD ...........................
2012 Protocol Appendix A ...
Prior to the submittal of the rules in
Table 1, SCAQMD also adopted and
submitted other revisions of these rules.
While we can act on only the most
recently submitted version, we have
reviewed materials provided with
previous submittals. EPA’s technical
Adopted
support document (TSD) has more
information about these interim
superseded rules.
On August 18, 2005, November 22,
2005, and March 20, 2006, these rule
submittals were found to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
Submitted
05/06/05
05/06/05
01/07/05
10/20/05
10/20/05
12/21/05
05/06/05
05/06/05
01/07/05
01/07/05
10/20/05
10/20/05
07/15/05
07/15/05
05/06/05
10/20/05
01/07/05
07/15/05
05/06/05
10/20/05
appendix V, which must be met before
formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of these
rules?
Table 2 lists the previous versions of
these rules approved into the SIP.
TABLE 2.—CURRENT SIP APPROVED VERSION OF RULES
Rule #
Rule title
2000 .....................................
2001 .....................................
2002 .....................................
General .............................................................................
Applicability .......................................................................
Allocations for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and Oxides of
Sulfur (SOX).
New Source Review for RECLAIM ...................................
Trading Requirements ......................................................
Administrative Remedies and Sanctions ..........................
Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) Emissions.
Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
for Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) Emissions.
Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions.
Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions.
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
2011
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
2005
2007
2010
2011
Protocol Appendix A
2012 .....................................
2012
Protocol Appendix A
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:12 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Adopted
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
Approved FR citation
05/11/01
05/11/01
05/11/01
05/31/01
05/31/01
05/31/01
09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
04/20/01
12/05/03
05/11/01
12/05/03
10/30/01
02/20/04
05/31/01
02/20/04
09/04/03,
07/26/04,
09/04/03,
07/26/04,
03/16/01
05/31/01
09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
12/05/03
02/20/04
07/26/04, 69 FR 44461.
03/16/01
05/31/01
09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
68
69
68
69
FR
FR
FR
FR
52512.
44461.
52512.
44461.
28292
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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. 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 regional NOX and SOX emissions
caps which decline over time. 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 RECLAIM
source’s emissions may not exceed its
holding of RECLAIM Trading Credits
(RTCs) 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 purposes of the 2005
amendments to the RECLAIM rules
were to:
(1) Lower the regional NOX emissions
cap. Beginning with the 2007
compliance year, the regional NOX
emissions cap would be lowered by 4
tons per day from the 2003 emissions
levels to achieve additional NOX
emission reductions for attainment. This
program modification would also
address California Health and Safety
Code requirements on Best Available
Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT).
(2) Remove the remaining trading
restrictions placed on the power
producers.
(3) Modify the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements and protocols, including:
adding a new NOX emission factor for
micro-turbines, requiring large sources
and process units equipped with stack
flow monitors to measure exhaust flow
rate, clarifying the required operating
parameters for large sources and process
units, clarifying the corresponding
emission rates that are to be measured
and reported, establishing missing data
provisions on an hourly basis versus the
previous daily requirement, allowing an
alternative test to demonstrate
compliance with RECLAIM NOX
concentration limits, allowing a delay in
the due date for Relative Accuracy Test
Audits (RATA) for equipment that is
operated intermittently, adding
alternative methods of compliance
testing for natural gas combustion
sources with high oxygen content in the
exhaust stream, allowing the reporting
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:12 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
of emissions through the SCAQMD’s
Internet Web site, specifying that
emission reports are due every quarter
from sources that are not listed on the
Facility Permit (such as contractor
equipment, various location equipment,
and equipment covered under
applications), correcting typographical
errors, and adding rule language
clarifications.
(4) Modify the NSR requirements for
RECLAIM sources to allow sources to
sell unused RTCs at the end of a quarter
instead of the end of the compliance
year, provided the source accepts an
enforceable permit condition which
establishes a quarterly emissions
limitation.
(5) Implement other administrative
and clarifying changes. While ship
emissions are not counted toward the
applicability thresholds to determine if
the source is subject to RECLAIM, the
rule amendments clarify that ship
emissions at a new or relocated
RECLAIM facility subject to New Source
Review is to be counted as part of the
total emissions which must be offset.
Because of recent changes in the state
that requires the permitting and
regulation of agricultural sources, the
rule was amended to clarify that
agricultural sources are exempt from the
RECLAIM program.
EPA’s 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)), and
must not relax existing requirements
(see sections 110(l) and 193). The
SCAQMD regulates a 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area (see 40 CFR 81), so
Regulation XX (Rules 2000 to 2020)
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs,’’ EPA–
452/R01–001, (the EIP guidance)
January 2001.
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. While some of rule
amendments could arguably be viewed
as a rule relaxation (e.g. allowing
sources to sell unused RTCs at the end
of a quarter instead of at the end of the
year), other rule amendments are
strengthening (e.g. requiring such
sources to be subject to a quarterly
emissions limit in their permit, and
clarifying that ship emissions, at a new
or relocated RECLAIM facility subject to
New Source Review, are part of total
emissions which must be offset). Also,
the amendments result in significant
additional emission reductions through
the lowering of the emissions cap in the
year 2007. Consequently, EPA believes
that the amendments on balance are
strengthening. 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
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
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 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. 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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:12 May 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 27, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E6–7411 Filed 5–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AF21
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle
in the Lower 48 States From the List
of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife; Extension of Public Comment
Period
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (the Service) are
extending the comment for the proposed
rule re-opening the public comment
period on the proposal to remove the
bald eagle from the List of Threatened
and Endangered Wildlife under the
Endangered Species Act. We are also
extending the comment period on the
proposed rule to establish a regulatory
definition of ‘‘disturb’’ under the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and on
the draft National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines via two
additional notices published separately
in today’s issue of the Federal Register.
Comments previously submitted need
not be resubmitted as they have been
incorporated into the public record and
will be fully considered in the final
decision and rule.
DATES: The public comment period is
extended to June 19, 2006. Any
comments received after the closing
date may not be considered in the final
decision on the proposal.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
and other information, identified by RIN
1018-AF21, by any of the following
methods:
• Mail: Michelle Morgan, Chief,
Branch of Recovery and Delisting,
Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Headquarters
Office, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420,
Arlington, Virginia 22203. Attn: RIN
1018–AF21.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same
address as above.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28293
• E-mail: baldeagledelisting@fws.gov.
Include ‘‘RIN 1018–AF21’’ in the subject
line of the message.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments and materials received for
this rule will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the above
address after the close of the comment
period. Call (703) 358–2061 to make
arrangements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Klee, Biologist, at the
Headquarters Office (see ADDRESSES
section), or via e-mail at
Mary_Klee@fws.gov; telephone (703)
358–2061.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 16, 2006, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) published
a re-opening of the comment period on
our proposal to remove the bald eagle in
the 48 contiguous States from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (71 FR
8238). In anticipation of possible
removal (delisting) of the bald eagle
from the list of threatened and
endangered species under the ESA, the
Service concurrently proposed two
other related actions: (1) A notice of
availability of draft National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines (71 FR 8309,
February 16, 2006); and (2) a proposed
regulatory definition of ‘‘disturb’’ under
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act (BGEPA) to guide post-delisting
bald eagle management (71 FR 8265,
February 16, 2006). Due to the
complexity of these related actions, we
are extending the comment period for
each action for an additional 30 days.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16
U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–625, 100
Stat. 3500).
Dated: May 10, 2006.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 06–4606 Filed 5–12–06; 1:17 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28290-28293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7411]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0225; FRL-8170-9]
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's (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 subsequent year under the SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program. 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). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by June 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0225, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know
[[Page 28291]]
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: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at https://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 in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), 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.
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 the SCAQMD and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD...................... 2000.............................. General............. 05/06/05 10/20/05
SCAQMD...................... 2001.............................. Applicability....... 05/06/05 10/20/05
SCAQMD...................... 2002.............................. Allocations for 01/07/05 12/21/05
Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) and Oxides of
Sulfur (SOx).
SCAQMD...................... 2005.............................. New Source Review 05/06/05 10/20/05
for RECLAIM.
SCAQMD...................... 2007.............................. Trading Requirements 05/06/05 10/20/05
SCAQMD...................... 2010.............................. Administrative 01/07/05 07/15/05
Remedies and
Sanctions.
SCAQMD...................... 2011.............................. Requirements for 01/07/05 07/15/05
Monitoring,
Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for
Oxides of Sulfur
(SOx) Emissions.
SCAQMD...................... 2011 Protocol Appendix A.......... Appendix A: Protocol 05/06/05 10/20/05
for Monitoring,
Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for
Oxides of Sulfur
(SOx) Emissions.
SCAQMD...................... 2012.............................. Requirements for 01/07/05 07/15/05
Monitoring,
Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for
Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) Emissions.
SCAQMD...................... 2012 Protocol Appendix A.......... Appendix A--Protocol 05/06/05 10/20/05
for Monitoring,
Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for
Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) Emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the submittal of the rules in Table 1, SCAQMD also adopted
and submitted other revisions of these rules. While we can act on only
the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials
provided with previous submittals. EPA's technical support document
(TSD) has more information about these interim superseded rules.
On August 18, 2005, November 22, 2005, and March 20, 2006, 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?
Table 2 lists the previous versions of these rules approved into
the SIP.
Table 2.--Current SIP Approved Version of Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted Approved FR citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.......................... General.............. 05/11/01 05/31/01 09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
2001.......................... Applicability........ 05/11/01 05/31/01 09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
2002.......................... Allocations for 05/11/01 05/31/01 09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) and Oxides of
Sulfur (SOX).
2005.......................... New Source Review for 04/20/01 10/30/01 09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
RECLAIM.
2007.......................... Trading Requirements. 12/05/03 02/20/04 07/26/04, 69 FR 44461.
2010.......................... Administrative 05/11/01 05/31/01 09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
Remedies and
Sanctions.
2011.......................... Requirements for 12/05/03 02/20/04 07/26/04, 69 FR 44461.
Monitoring,
Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for
Oxides of Sulfur
(SOX) Emissions.
2011 Protocol Appendix A...... Protocol for 03/16/01 05/31/01 09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
Monitoring,
Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for
Oxides of Sulfur
(SOX) Emissions.
2012.......................... Requirements for 12/05/03 02/20/04 07/26/04, 69 FR 44461.
Monitoring,
Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for
Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) Emissions.
2012 Protocol Appendix A...... Protocol for 03/16/01 05/31/01 09/04/03, 68 FR 52512.
Monitoring,
Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for
Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) Emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28292]]
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. 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 regional NOX and SOX emissions
caps which decline over time. 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 RECLAIM source's emissions may not
exceed its holding of RECLAIM Trading Credits (RTCs) 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 purposes of the 2005 amendments to the RECLAIM rules
were to:
(1) Lower the regional NOX emissions cap. Beginning with
the 2007 compliance year, the regional NOX emissions cap
would be lowered by 4 tons per day from the 2003 emissions levels to
achieve additional NOX emission reductions for attainment.
This program modification would also address California Health and
Safety Code requirements on Best Available Retrofit Control Technology
(BARCT).
(2) Remove the remaining trading restrictions placed on the power
producers.
(3) Modify the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements and protocols, including: adding a new NOX
emission factor for micro-turbines, requiring large sources and process
units equipped with stack flow monitors to measure exhaust flow rate,
clarifying the required operating parameters for large sources and
process units, clarifying the corresponding emission rates that are to
be measured and reported, establishing missing data provisions on an
hourly basis versus the previous daily requirement, allowing an
alternative test to demonstrate compliance with RECLAIM NOX
concentration limits, allowing a delay in the due date for Relative
Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) for equipment that is operated
intermittently, adding alternative methods of compliance testing for
natural gas combustion sources with high oxygen content in the exhaust
stream, allowing the reporting of emissions through the SCAQMD's
Internet Web site, specifying that emission reports are due every
quarter from sources that are not listed on the Facility Permit (such
as contractor equipment, various location equipment, and equipment
covered under applications), correcting typographical errors, and
adding rule language clarifications.
(4) Modify the NSR requirements for RECLAIM sources to allow
sources to sell unused RTCs at the end of a quarter instead of the end
of the compliance year, provided the source accepts an enforceable
permit condition which establishes a quarterly emissions limitation.
(5) Implement other administrative and clarifying changes. While
ship emissions are not counted toward the applicability thresholds to
determine if the source is subject to RECLAIM, the rule amendments
clarify that ship emissions at a new or relocated RECLAIM facility
subject to New Source Review is to be counted as part of the total
emissions which must be offset. Because of recent changes in the state
that requires the permitting and regulation of agricultural sources,
the rule was amended to clarify that agricultural sources are exempt
from the RECLAIM program.
EPA's 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)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l)
and 193). The SCAQMD regulates a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (see
40 CFR 81), so Regulation XX (Rules 2000 to 2020) 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,'' EPA-
452/R01-001, (the EIP guidance) January 2001.
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. While
some of rule amendments could arguably be viewed as a rule relaxation
(e.g. allowing sources to sell unused RTCs at the end of a quarter
instead of at the end of the year), other rule amendments are
strengthening (e.g. requiring such sources to be subject to a quarterly
emissions limit in their permit, and clarifying that ship emissions, at
a new or relocated RECLAIM facility subject to New Source Review, are
part of total emissions which must be offset). Also, the amendments
result in significant additional emission reductions through the
lowering of the emissions cap in the year 2007. Consequently, EPA
believes that the amendments on balance are strengthening. 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
[[Page 28293]]
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 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 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. 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: April 27, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E6-7411 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P