Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits, 24821-24824 [2015-10239]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose
D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of
Veterans Affairs, approved this
document on April 24, 2015, for
publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 63
Administrative practice and
procedure, Day care, Disability benefits,
Government contracts, Health care,
Homeless, Housing, Individuals with
disabilities, Low and moderate income
housing, Public assistance programs,
Public housing, Relocation assistance,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Veterans.
Dated: April 27, 2015.
William F. Russo,
Acting Director, Office of Regulation Policy
& Management, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 63 as
follows:
PART 63—HEALTH CARE FOR
HOMELESS VETERANS (HCHV)
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2031, and as
noted in specific sections.
■
§ 63.1
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2031(a)(2))
3. Amend § 63.2 by:
a. Adding the definition ‘‘Case
management’’ in alphabetical order.
■ b. Revising the definitions of
‘‘Homeless’’ and ‘‘Non-VA communitybased provider’’.
■ c. Removing the definitions of
‘‘Serious mental illness’’ and
‘‘Substance use disorder’’.
■ d. Revising the authority citation at
the end of the section.
The addition and revisions read as
follows:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
■
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Case management means arranging,
coordinating, or providing direct
clinical services and support; referring
and providing linkage to VA and non-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Apr 30, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 63.3
[FR Doc. 2015–10150 Filed 4–30–15; 8:45 am]
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2002, 2031)
■
Eligible Veterans.
(a) Eligibility. In order to serve as the
basis for a per diem payment through
the HCHV program, a veteran served by
the non-VA community-based provider
must be:
(1) Enrolled in the VA health care
system, or eligible for VA health care
under 38 CFR 17.36 or 17.37; and
(2) Homeless.
*
*
*
*
*
[Amended]
5. Amend § 63.10 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a) Who can apply. VA may award per
diem contracts to non-VA communitybased providers who provide temporary
residential assistance homeless persons,
including but not limited to persons
with serious mental illness, and who
can provide the specific services and
meet the standards identified in § 63.15
and elsewhere in this part.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 63.15 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
Purpose and scope.
This part implements the Health Care
for Homeless Veterans (HCHV) program.
This program provides per diem
payments to non-VA community-based
facilities that provide housing, outreach
services, case management services, and
rehabilitative services, and may provide
care and/or treatment to all eligible
homeless veterans.
§ 63.2
4. Amend § 63.3 by revising paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
community-based provider’s program
with added treatment or other services,
such as participation in VA outpatient
programs or counseling. In addition to
case management services, for example,
to coordinate or address relevant issues
related to a veteran’s homelessness and
health as identified in the individual
treatment plan, services provided by the
non-VA community-based provider
should generally include, as
appropriate:
(1) Structured group activities such as
group therapy, social skills training,
self-help group meetings, or peer
counseling.
(2) Professional counseling, including
counseling on self-care skills, adaptive
coping skills, and, as appropriate,
vocational rehabilitation counseling, in
collaboration with VA programs and
community resources.
*
*
*
*
*
VA resources, providing crisis
management services and monitoring;
and intervening and advocating on
behalf of veterans to support
transportation, credit, legal, and other
needs.
*
*
*
*
*
Homeless has the meaning given that
term in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the
definition of homeless in 24 CFR 576.2.
Non-VA community-based provider
means a facility in a community that
provides temporary, short-term housing
(generally up to 6 months) for the
homeless, as well as community
outreach, case management, and
rehabilitative services, and, as needed,
basic mental health services.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 63.10
2. Revise § 63.1 to read as follows:
24821
§ 63.15 Duties of, and standards
applicable to, non-VA community-based
providers.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Treatment plans, therapeutic/
rehabilitative services, and case
management. Individualized treatment
plans are to be developed through a
joint effort of the veteran, non-VA
community-based provider staff, and
VA clinical staff. Therapeutic and
rehabilitative services, as well as case
management and outreach services,
must be provided by the non-VA
community-based provider as described
in the treatment plan. In some cases, VA
may complement the non-VA
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
24822
DATES:
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
This rule is effective on June 1,
2015.
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 https://
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 https://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
yannayon.laura@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
ADDRESSES:
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Public Comment
EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day 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.
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
1 Health Advocates consists of Communities for a
Better Environment, Physicians for Social
Responsibility-Los Angeles, and Sierra Club My
Generation Campaign.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Apr 30, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 (mg/m3) increase in annual
PM2.5 concentrations. This estimated
increase in annual PM2.5 concentration
would be 1.5% of the 15 mg/m3 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 mg/m3 at that
monitor.2 This estimated increase in 24hr PM2.5 concentration would be 0.46%
of the 35 mg/m3 1997 PM2.5 24-hr
standard. Based on these data, one can
reasonably conclude that the current
ambient contribution (in mg/m3) 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.
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
2 Draft Supplement to the 24-Hour PM
2.5 State
Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin
dated January 2015 at E–1.
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Apr 30, 2015
Jkt 235001
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’’).
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.
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
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
24823
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
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
24824
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:47 Apr 30, 2015
Jkt 235001
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(458) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
*
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
*
*
*
*
(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.
I. General Information
[FR Doc. 2015–10239 Filed 4–30–15; 8:45 am]
A. Does this action apply to me?
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0248; FRL–9926–24]
Azoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of azoxystrobin
in or on coffee, green bean; pear, Asian;
and tea, dried. Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to
cover residues of azoxystrobin in coffee,
Asian pear, and tea imported into the
United States; there are currently no
U.S. registrations for pesticides
containing azoxystrobin that are used on
coffee, Asian pear, or tea.
DATES: This regulation is effective May
1, 2015. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
June 30, 2015, and must be filed in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0248, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Publishing Office’s eCFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/
text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/
Title40/40tab_02.tpl
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2014–0248 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
Agencies
[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 https://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 https://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 yannayon.laura@epa.gov.
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