Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits, 50339-50342 [2016-17904]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
The EPA has established
docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–
0280 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:
Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region 9, (415)
947–4156, kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2016–17809 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0280; FRL–9947–70–
Region 9]
Revisions to California State
Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air
Quality Management District;
Stationary Source Permits
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2
for the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD or
District) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on
April 22, 2013. These revisions consist
of significant updates to rules governing
the issuance of permits for stationary
sources, including review and
permitting of major sources and major
modifications under parts C and D of
title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Under
the authority of the CAA, this action
simultaneously approves a local rule
that regulates permit requirements for
stationary sources and directs the
BAAQMD to correct rule deficiencies.
DATES: These rules will be effective on
August 31, 2016.
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA
Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
(i) The word or initials Act or CAA
mean or refer to the Clean Air Act,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The initials ATC mean or refer to
the authority to construct permit.
50339
(iii) The word or initials BAAQMD or
District mean or refer to the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District.
(iv) The initials CFR mean or refer to
Code of Federal Regulations.
(v) The initials or words EPA, we, us
or our mean or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(vi) The initials ERCs mean or refer to
Emission Reduction Credits.
(vii) The initials FLM mean or refer to
Federal Land Manager.
(viii) The initials FR mean or refer to
Federal Register.
(ix) The initials NSR mean or refer to
New Source Review.
(x) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers (fine particulate matter).
(xi) The initials PSD mean or refer to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration.
(xii) The initials PTE mean or refer to
potential to emit.
(xiii) The initials SIP mean or refer to
State Implementation Plan.
(xiv) The initials SO2 mean or refer to
sulfur dioxide.
(xv) The initials TSD mean or refer to
the technical support document for the
proposed action.
I. Proposed Action
On August 28, 2015, the EPA
proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the rules listed in Table
1 that were submitted for incorporation
into the California SIP. 80 FR 52236
(Aug. 28, 2015). Our detailed analysis of
these rules is provided in the TSD and
Federal Register notice for the proposed
rulemaking for this SIP revision
approval action.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED NSR RULES
Adopted/
amended
Rule title
Regulation 2, Rule 1 (2–1) ...........................................
Regulation 2, Rule 2 (2–2) ...........................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Regulation & rule No.
Permits, General Requirements ...................................
Permits, New Source Review .......................................
We proposed a limited approval
because we determined that these rules
strengthen the SIP and are largely
consistent with the relevant CAA
requirements. We simultaneously
proposed a limited disapproval because
some rule provisions conflict with CAA
section 110, including Parts C and D,
and the regulations implementing those
laws. The disapproved provisions
include the following:
1. The definitions of ‘‘agricultural
source’’ in Section 2–1–239 and ‘‘large
confined animal facility’’ used in
Section 2–1–424 rely on other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
definitions and provisions in District
rules that are not SIP approved. (See our
evaluation of Sections 2–1–239 and 2–
1–424 in section 6.1.2 of the TSD.)
2. Section 2–1–234, subparagraph 2.2,
is deficient because it does not satisfy
the PSD provisions at 40 CFR
51.166(a)(7) and 51.166(r)(6) & (7),
which require PSD programs to contain
specific applicability procedures and
recordkeeping provisions. (See our
evaluation of Section 2–1–234 in
sections 6.1.2 and 7.2.2 of the TSD.)
3. The same deficiency discussed
above for the PSD provisions applies to
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12/19/12
12/19/12
Submitted
4/22/13
4/22/13
the nonattainment NSR provisions.
Section 2–1–234, subparagraph 2.1,
does not satisfy the requirements of
51.165(a)(2) and 51.165(a)(6) & (7),
which require nonattainment NSR
programs to contain specific
applicability procedures and
recordkeeping provisions. (See our
evaluation of Section 2–1–234 in
sections 6.1.2 and 7.3.12 of the TSD.)
4. The definition of the term ‘‘PSD
pollutant’’ as defined in Section 2–2–
223, which is used in place of the
federal definition for the term
‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ is deficient
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
50340
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
because it explicitly excludes
nonattainment pollutants. (See our
evaluation of Sections 2–2–223 and 2–
2–224 in sections 6.2.2 and 7.2.3 of the
TSD.)
5. Section 2–2–305 does not require
written approval of the Administrator
prior to using any modified or
substituted air quality model as
provided in subsection 3.2.2 of 40 CFR
51, appendix W. (See our evaluation of
Section 2–2–305 in sections 6.2.3 and
7.2.15 of the TSD.)
6. Section 2–2–611 does not include
the requirement regarding ‘‘any other
stationary source category which as of
August 7, 1980, is being regulated under
section 111 or 112 of the Act’’ in the list
of source categories that must include
fugitive emissions to determine whether
a source is a major facility. (See our
evaluation of Section 2–2–611 in
sections 6.2.6 and 7.3.10 of the TSD.)
7. Section 2–2–401.4 only requires a
visibility analysis for sources that are
located within 100 km of a Class I area,
rather than for any source that ‘‘may
have an impact on visibility’’ in any
mandatory Class I Federal Area, as
required by 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2). (See
our evaluation of Section 2–2–401.4 in
sections 6.2.4 and 7.3.9 of the TSD.)
8. Section 2–2–411 pertaining to
Offset Refunds does not contain any
timeframe for obtaining an offset refund.
(See our evaluation of Section 2–2–411
in section 6.2.4 of the TSD.)
9. The Offset Program Equivalence
demonstration required by Section 2–2–
412 does not provide a remedy if the
District fails to make the required
demonstration. (See our evaluation of
Section 2–2–412 in section 6.2.4 of the
TSD.)
10. Subsection 2–2–605.2 allows
existing ‘‘fully-offset’’ sources to
generate ERCs based on the difference
between the post-modification PTE and
the pre-modification PTE. Emission
reductions intended to be used as offsets
for new major sources or major
modifications are only creditable if they
are reductions of actual emissions, not
reductions in the PTE of a source. (See
our evaluation of Section 2–2–605 in
sections 6.2.6, 7.3.3, 7.3.13, and 7.3.22
of the TSD.)
11. Subsection 2–2–606.2, as it
applies to major modifications, does not
require ‘‘fully-offset’’ sources to
calculate the emission increases from a
proposed major modification based on
the difference between the postmodification PTE and the premodification actual emissions as
required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J).
(See our evaluation of Section 2–2–606
in sections 6.2.6 and 7.3.22 of the TSD.)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
In addition, we had proposed a
limited disapproval of Section 2–2–308.
(See our evaluation of Section 2–2–308
in sections 6.2.3 and 7.4.1 of the TSD.)
We also proposed to find the rules were
deficient because they did not require a
demonstration that a new source meet
all applicable SIP requirements as
required by 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1). (See
section 7.4.1 in the TSD.) For the
reasons discussed in sections 2.2 and
2.3 of our Response to Comments
document, we are not finalizing our
proposed disapproval of Section 2–2–
308 or the proposed deficiency based on
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1).
II. Summary of Public Comments and
EPA Responses
Our August 28, 2015 proposed
rulemaking provided a 30-day public
comment period. The EPA granted a
request from BAAQMD to extend the
public comment period until November
12, 2015, which is the date the public
comment period ended. We received
comments from BAAQMD and the
California Council for Environmental
and Economic Balance (CCEEB).1 We
also received a comment letter from the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD) after
the public comment period ended. We
received an anonymous, nonsubstantive comment letter and a
comment letter submitted on behalf of
the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) that was
withdrawn during the comment period.
Our Response to Comments document
in the docket for this action contains a
summary of the comments and the
EPA’s responses. The full text of the
public comments, as well as all other
documents relevant to this action, are
available in the docket (visit https://
www.regulations.gov and search for
Docket ID: EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0280).
Below, we briefly summarize the
significant comments and our responses
to the major issues raised by
commenters.
Comment 1: BAAQMD commented
that the CAA is designed to achieve
‘‘cooperative federalism’’, and that the
EPA should defer to the District’s policy
choices on how to implement its NSR
program.
Response 1: The EPA understands its
role under the cooperative federalism
approach established under the CAA
and we have applied the appropriate
1 Each of the comments contained in CCEEB’s
comment letter mirrored issues raised in the
BAAQMD comment letter, therefore the comment
summary provided in this notice does not attribute
specific comments to CCEEB. Please see the
Response to Comments documents for more
information.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
standard in reviewing the BAAQMD’s
NSR rules.
Comment 2: BAAQMD disagrees with
the EPA’s limited disapproval of Section
2–2–308 as it relates to satisfying the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.160(b).
Response 2: We are not finalizing our
limited disapproval of Section 2–2–308
as it relates to 40 CFR 51.160(b)(2) for
the reasons discussed in our Response
to Comments document. Accordingly,
the EPA is finalizing approval of Section
2–2–308.
Comment 3: BAAQMD disagrees with
the EPA’s limited disapproval of the
District NSR rules because it did not
contain a prohibition on the issuance of
an ATC if the project does not meet all
applicable requirements of the control
strategy as required in 40 CFR
51.160(b)(1). BAAQMD commented that
Sections 2–1–304 and 2–1–321 satisfy
this requirement.
Response 3: The EPA is not finalizing
our proposed limited disapproval of this
issue because Section 2–1–304 satisfies
the control strategy requirement in 40
CFR 51.160(b)(1). The EPA is finalizing
approval of Section 2–1–304 as
satisfying requirement in 40 CFR
51.160(b)(1).
Comment 4: BAAQMD disagrees with
the EPA’s proposed limited disapproval
of Section 2–2–602.2 for determining
the amount of offsets required for major
modifications that will be constructed at
major sources that have previously
provided offsets equal to the source’s
PTE when the modification will not
increase the PTE of the source.
Response 4: The EPA is finalizing our
limited disapproval regarding this issue.
40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) directs SIPs to
include rules to ensure that the total
tonnage of increased emissions, in tons
per year, resulting from a major
modification that must be offset in
accordance with section 173 of the Act
shall be determined by summing the
difference between the allowable
emissions after the modification and the
actual emissions before the
modification. This provision requires
providing offsets for each major
modification at a major source in an
amount equal to the difference between
pre-modification actual emissions and
post-modification PTE.
Comment 5: BAAQMD disagrees with
the EPA’s proposed limited disapproval
of the PTE-to-PTE calculation method
for determining the amount of ERCs
generated from sources that have
provided offsets up to their full PTE and
that are being shut down.
Response 5: The EPA is finalizing its
limited disapproval on this issue
because offsets are required to be
generated from reductions in actual
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
emissions consistent with CAA section
173(a) and (c) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3).
Comment 6: BAAQMD comments that
the EPA cannot require nonattainment
offsets for SO2 because the San
Francisco Bay Area is not designated as
nonattainment for SO2.
Response 6: The EPA is finalizing its
limited disapproval on this issue
because 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)
specifies that sulfur dioxide is a
precursor in all PM2.5 nonattainment
areas and the BAAQMD is designated
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
Comment 7: BAAQMD comments that
the EPA’s visibility regulations at 40
CFR 51.307(b) do not specify what
projects ‘‘may have an impact’’ on
visibility at Federal Class I areas,
therefore it is acceptable to use a 100km radius to meet the requirement.
Response 7: The EPA is finalizing its
limited disapproval on this issue
because the EPA’s visibility regulations
require a new major source or major
modification that ‘‘may have an impact
on visibility’’ at a Federal mandatory
Class I area to conduct a visibility
analysis on a case-by-case basis in
consultation with the applicable FLM.
Comment 8: BAAQMD requests that
the EPA confirm that the limited
approval and limited disapproval action
will make the BAAQMD’s NSR rules as
a whole part of the California SIP and
federally enforceable under the CAA.
Response 8: Regulation 2, Rules 1 and
2 will become the federally enforceable
NSR program in the SIP for BAAQMD
subject to an obligation to correct rule
deficiencies listed in Section I of this
Federal Register document.
III. EPA Action
For the reasons provided in our
proposed rule and above in response to
comments, pursuant to section 110(k) of
the CAA, the EPA is finalizing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of the
submitted BAAQMD rules, listed in
Table 1 above, into the California SIP.
Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 will become
the federally enforceable NSR program
in the SIP for BAAQMD subject to an
obligation to correct the rule
deficiencies listed in Section I of this
Federal Register document. We are
finalizing a limited approval because
incorporating the BAAQMD permitting
rules will strengthen and update the
BAAQMD portion of the California SIP.
We are finalizing our limited
disapproval because some of the
BAAQMD permitting rules do not
comply with federal NSR requirements.
We are finalizing our action as
proposed, except for the limited
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
disapprovals regarding Sections 2–2–
308 and the requirements of 40 CFR
51.160(a) and (b). Accordingly, the EPA
will finalize approval of these
provisions.
Our limited disapproval action will
trigger an obligation for the EPA to
promulgate a Federal Implementation
Plan under CAA section 110(c) unless
California corrects the deficiencies that
are the bases for the limited
disapproval, and the EPA approves the
related rule revisions, within 24 months
of the effective date of this final action.
In addition, sanctions will be imposed
unless the EPA approves subsequent SIP
revisions that correct the rule
deficiencies within 18 months of the
effective date of this action. These
sanctions will be imposed under section
179 of the Act and 40 CFR 52.31.
The District has been implementing
the federal PSD permitting program
based on a delegation agreement with
the EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u).2
Despite limited deficiencies, this final
action approving the District’s PSD
permitting program into the SIP means
that the District will be the PSD
permitting authority on the effective
date of this final action. Concurrent
with the EPA’s approval of the District’s
rules, all PSD permits for sources
located in the BAAQMD issued directly
by the EPA or under the PSD delegation
agreement are being transferred to the
District. A list of these EPA-issued
permits is included in the docket for
this rulemaking action.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
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 BAAQMD rules described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents
available electronically through https://
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
Review
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
2 On June 21, 2004, the EPA issued a PSD
delegation agreement, which was updated on
January 20, 2006, February 4, 2008, and March 9,
2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50341
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA because this action does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities beyond those imposed by state
law.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, will result from this
action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, because the SIP is not
approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction, and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
50342
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Dated: June 3, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(182)(i)(B)(7) and
(c)(199)(i)(A)(9) and (c)(202)(i)(A)(2) and
(c)(429)(i)(E)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.220
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 September 30,
2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this rule 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)).
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(182) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(7) Previously approved on January
26, 1999 in paragraph (c)(182)(i)(B)(6) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(429)(i)(E)(1),
Regulation 2, Rule 1 adopted on
November 1, 1989.
*
*
*
*
*
(199) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(9) Previously approved on January
26, 1999 in paragraph (c)(199)(i)(A)(8) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(429)(i)(E)(2),
Regulation 2, Rule 2 adopted on June
15, 1994.
*
*
*
*
*
(202) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) Previously approved on April 3,
1995 in paragraph (c)(202)(i)(A)(1) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(429)(i)(E)(1), Rule 2–
1–249, adopted on June 15, 1994.
*
*
*
*
*
(429) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Bay Area Air Quality Management
District.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(1) Regulation 2, ‘‘Permits,’’ Rule 1,
‘‘General Requirements,’’ adopted on
December 19, 2012.
(2) Regulation 2, ‘‘Permits,’’ Rule 2,
‘‘New Source Review,’’ adopted on
December 19, 2012.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 52.270 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(16) to read as
follows:
§ 52.270
quality.
Significant deterioration of air
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(16) The PSD program for the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), as incorporated by
reference in § 52.220(c)(429)(i)(E)(2), is
approved under part C, subpart 1, of the
Clean Air Act. For PSD permits
previously issued by EPA pursuant to
§ 52.21 to sources located in the
BAAQMD, this approval includes the
authority for the BAAQMD to conduct
general administration of these existing
permits, authority to process and issue
any and all subsequent permit actions
relating to such permits, and authority
to enforce such permits.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–17904 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]
Identification of plan.
*
The EPA lacks the discretionary
authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
Jkt 238001
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
17:30 Jul 29, 2016
Air pollution control, Carbon
monoxide, Environmental protection,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
■
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that this
action is not subject to the requirements
of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0617; A–1–FRL–
9950–03–Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; VT; Prevention of
Significant Deterioration,
Nonattainment and Minor New Source
Review
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving three State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Vermont.
These revisions primarily amend several
aspects of Vermont’s new source review
permitting regulations. The permitting
revisions are part of Vermont’s major
and minor stationary source
preconstruction permitting programs,
and are intended to align Vermont’s
regulations with the federal new source
review regulations. The revisions also
contain amendments to other Clean Air
Act (CAA) requirements, including
updating the State’s ambient air quality
standards and certain emissions limits
for sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50339-50342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17904]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280; FRL-9947-70-Region 9]
Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air
Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to Regulation 2,
Rules 1 and 2 for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD
or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted on April 22, 2013. These revisions consist of significant
updates to rules governing the issuance of permits for stationary
sources, including review and permitting of major sources and major
modifications under parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Under the authority of the CAA, this action simultaneously
approves a local rule that regulates permit requirements for stationary
sources and directs the BAAQMD to correct rule deficiencies.
DATES: These rules will be effective on August 31, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280
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: Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region 9, (415)
947-4156, kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The word or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The initials ATC mean or refer to the authority to construct
permit.
(iii) The word or initials BAAQMD or District mean or refer to the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
(iv) The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal Regulations.
(v) The initials or words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(vi) The initials ERCs mean or refer to Emission Reduction Credits.
(vii) The initials FLM mean or refer to Federal Land Manager.
(viii) The initials FR mean or refer to Federal Register.
(ix) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.
(x) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine
particulate matter).
(xi) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
(xii) The initials PTE mean or refer to potential to emit.
(xiii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(xiv) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
(xv) The initials TSD mean or refer to the technical support
document for the proposed action.
I. Proposed Action
On August 28, 2015, the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the rules listed in Table 1 that were submitted for
incorporation into the California SIP. 80 FR 52236 (Aug. 28, 2015). Our
detailed analysis of these rules is provided in the TSD and Federal
Register notice for the proposed rulemaking for this SIP revision
approval action.
Table 1--Submitted NSR Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted/
Regulation & rule No. Rule title amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation 2, Rule 1 (2-1)................. Permits, General Requirements...... 12/19/12 4/22/13
Regulation 2, Rule 2 (2-2)................. Permits, New Source Review......... 12/19/12 4/22/13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these
rules strengthen the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant
CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval
because some rule provisions conflict with CAA section 110, including
Parts C and D, and the regulations implementing those laws. The
disapproved provisions include the following:
1. The definitions of ``agricultural source'' in Section 2-1-239
and ``large confined animal facility'' used in Section 2-1-424 rely on
other definitions and provisions in District rules that are not SIP
approved. (See our evaluation of Sections 2-1-239 and 2-1-424 in
section 6.1.2 of the TSD.)
2. Section 2-1-234, subparagraph 2.2, is deficient because it does
not satisfy the PSD provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7) and 51.166(r)(6)
& (7), which require PSD programs to contain specific applicability
procedures and recordkeeping provisions. (See our evaluation of Section
2-1-234 in sections 6.1.2 and 7.2.2 of the TSD.)
3. The same deficiency discussed above for the PSD provisions
applies to the nonattainment NSR provisions. Section 2-1-234,
subparagraph 2.1, does not satisfy the requirements of 51.165(a)(2) and
51.165(a)(6) & (7), which require nonattainment NSR programs to contain
specific applicability procedures and recordkeeping provisions. (See
our evaluation of Section 2-1-234 in sections 6.1.2 and 7.3.12 of the
TSD.)
4. The definition of the term ``PSD pollutant'' as defined in
Section 2-2-223, which is used in place of the federal definition for
the term ``regulated NSR pollutant,'' is deficient
[[Page 50340]]
because it explicitly excludes nonattainment pollutants. (See our
evaluation of Sections 2-2-223 and 2-2-224 in sections 6.2.2 and 7.2.3
of the TSD.)
5. Section 2-2-305 does not require written approval of the
Administrator prior to using any modified or substituted air quality
model as provided in subsection 3.2.2 of 40 CFR 51, appendix W. (See
our evaluation of Section 2-2-305 in sections 6.2.3 and 7.2.15 of the
TSD.)
6. Section 2-2-611 does not include the requirement regarding ``any
other stationary source category which as of August 7, 1980, is being
regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act'' in the list of source
categories that must include fugitive emissions to determine whether a
source is a major facility. (See our evaluation of Section 2-2-611 in
sections 6.2.6 and 7.3.10 of the TSD.)
7. Section 2-2-401.4 only requires a visibility analysis for
sources that are located within 100 km of a Class I area, rather than
for any source that ``may have an impact on visibility'' in any
mandatory Class I Federal Area, as required by 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2).
(See our evaluation of Section 2-2-401.4 in sections 6.2.4 and 7.3.9 of
the TSD.)
8. Section 2-2-411 pertaining to Offset Refunds does not contain
any timeframe for obtaining an offset refund. (See our evaluation of
Section 2-2-411 in section 6.2.4 of the TSD.)
9. The Offset Program Equivalence demonstration required by Section
2-2-412 does not provide a remedy if the District fails to make the
required demonstration. (See our evaluation of Section 2-2-412 in
section 6.2.4 of the TSD.)
10. Subsection 2-2-605.2 allows existing ``fully-offset'' sources
to generate ERCs based on the difference between the post-modification
PTE and the pre-modification PTE. Emission reductions intended to be
used as offsets for new major sources or major modifications are only
creditable if they are reductions of actual emissions, not reductions
in the PTE of a source. (See our evaluation of Section 2-2-605 in
sections 6.2.6, 7.3.3, 7.3.13, and 7.3.22 of the TSD.)
11. Subsection 2-2-606.2, as it applies to major modifications,
does not require ``fully-offset'' sources to calculate the emission
increases from a proposed major modification based on the difference
between the post-modification PTE and the pre-modification actual
emissions as required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J). (See our
evaluation of Section 2-2-606 in sections 6.2.6 and 7.3.22 of the TSD.)
In addition, we had proposed a limited disapproval of Section 2-2-
308. (See our evaluation of Section 2-2-308 in sections 6.2.3 and 7.4.1
of the TSD.) We also proposed to find the rules were deficient because
they did not require a demonstration that a new source meet all
applicable SIP requirements as required by 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1). (See
section 7.4.1 in the TSD.) For the reasons discussed in sections 2.2
and 2.3 of our Response to Comments document, we are not finalizing our
proposed disapproval of Section 2-2-308 or the proposed deficiency
based on the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1).
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
Our August 28, 2015 proposed rulemaking provided a 30-day public
comment period. The EPA granted a request from BAAQMD to extend the
public comment period until November 12, 2015, which is the date the
public comment period ended. We received comments from BAAQMD and the
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB).\1\
We also received a comment letter from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District (SMAQMD) after the public comment period
ended. We received an anonymous, non-substantive comment letter and a
comment letter submitted on behalf of the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) that was withdrawn during the
comment period. Our Response to Comments document in the docket for
this action contains a summary of the comments and the EPA's responses.
The full text of the public comments, as well as all other documents
relevant to this action, are available in the docket (visit https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280).
Below, we briefly summarize the significant comments and our responses
to the major issues raised by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Each of the comments contained in CCEEB's comment letter
mirrored issues raised in the BAAQMD comment letter, therefore the
comment summary provided in this notice does not attribute specific
comments to CCEEB. Please see the Response to Comments documents for
more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1: BAAQMD commented that the CAA is designed to achieve
``cooperative federalism'', and that the EPA should defer to the
District's policy choices on how to implement its NSR program.
Response 1: The EPA understands its role under the cooperative
federalism approach established under the CAA and we have applied the
appropriate standard in reviewing the BAAQMD's NSR rules.
Comment 2: BAAQMD disagrees with the EPA's limited disapproval of
Section 2-2-308 as it relates to satisfying the requirements in 40 CFR
51.160(b).
Response 2: We are not finalizing our limited disapproval of
Section 2-2-308 as it relates to 40 CFR 51.160(b)(2) for the reasons
discussed in our Response to Comments document. Accordingly, the EPA is
finalizing approval of Section 2-2-308.
Comment 3: BAAQMD disagrees with the EPA's limited disapproval of
the District NSR rules because it did not contain a prohibition on the
issuance of an ATC if the project does not meet all applicable
requirements of the control strategy as required in 40 CFR
51.160(b)(1). BAAQMD commented that Sections 2-1-304 and 2-1-321
satisfy this requirement.
Response 3: The EPA is not finalizing our proposed limited
disapproval of this issue because Section 2-1-304 satisfies the control
strategy requirement in 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1). The EPA is finalizing
approval of Section 2-1-304 as satisfying requirement in 40 CFR
51.160(b)(1).
Comment 4: BAAQMD disagrees with the EPA's proposed limited
disapproval of Section 2-2-602.2 for determining the amount of offsets
required for major modifications that will be constructed at major
sources that have previously provided offsets equal to the source's PTE
when the modification will not increase the PTE of the source.
Response 4: The EPA is finalizing our limited disapproval regarding
this issue. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) directs SIPs to include rules to
ensure that the total tonnage of increased emissions, in tons per year,
resulting from a major modification that must be offset in accordance
with section 173 of the Act shall be determined by summing the
difference between the allowable emissions after the modification and
the actual emissions before the modification. This provision requires
providing offsets for each major modification at a major source in an
amount equal to the difference between pre-modification actual
emissions and post-modification PTE.
Comment 5: BAAQMD disagrees with the EPA's proposed limited
disapproval of the PTE-to-PTE calculation method for determining the
amount of ERCs generated from sources that have provided offsets up to
their full PTE and that are being shut down.
Response 5: The EPA is finalizing its limited disapproval on this
issue because offsets are required to be generated from reductions in
actual
[[Page 50341]]
emissions consistent with CAA section 173(a) and (c) and 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3).
Comment 6: BAAQMD comments that the EPA cannot require
nonattainment offsets for SO2 because the San Francisco Bay
Area is not designated as nonattainment for SO2.
Response 6: The EPA is finalizing its limited disapproval on this
issue because 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii) specifies that sulfur dioxide
is a precursor in all PM2.5 nonattainment areas and the
BAAQMD is designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Comment 7: BAAQMD comments that the EPA's visibility regulations at
40 CFR 51.307(b) do not specify what projects ``may have an impact'' on
visibility at Federal Class I areas, therefore it is acceptable to use
a 100-km radius to meet the requirement.
Response 7: The EPA is finalizing its limited disapproval on this
issue because the EPA's visibility regulations require a new major
source or major modification that ``may have an impact on visibility''
at a Federal mandatory Class I area to conduct a visibility analysis on
a case-by-case basis in consultation with the applicable FLM.
Comment 8: BAAQMD requests that the EPA confirm that the limited
approval and limited disapproval action will make the BAAQMD's NSR
rules as a whole part of the California SIP and federally enforceable
under the CAA.
Response 8: Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 will become the federally
enforceable NSR program in the SIP for BAAQMD subject to an obligation
to correct rule deficiencies listed in Section I of this Federal
Register document.
III. EPA Action
For the reasons provided in our proposed rule and above in response
to comments, pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA, the EPA is
finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the submitted
BAAQMD rules, listed in Table 1 above, into the California SIP.
Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 will become the federally enforceable NSR
program in the SIP for BAAQMD subject to an obligation to correct the
rule deficiencies listed in Section I of this Federal Register
document. We are finalizing a limited approval because incorporating
the BAAQMD permitting rules will strengthen and update the BAAQMD
portion of the California SIP. We are finalizing our limited
disapproval because some of the BAAQMD permitting rules do not comply
with federal NSR requirements.
We are finalizing our action as proposed, except for the limited
disapprovals regarding Sections 2-2-308 and the requirements of 40 CFR
51.160(a) and (b). Accordingly, the EPA will finalize approval of these
provisions.
Our limited disapproval action will trigger an obligation for the
EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan under CAA section
110(c) unless California corrects the deficiencies that are the bases
for the limited disapproval, and the EPA approves the related rule
revisions, within 24 months of the effective date of this final action.
In addition, sanctions will be imposed unless the EPA approves
subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18
months of the effective date of this action. These sanctions will be
imposed under section 179 of the Act and 40 CFR 52.31.
The District has been implementing the federal PSD permitting
program based on a delegation agreement with the EPA pursuant to 40 CFR
52.21(u).\2\ Despite limited deficiencies, this final action approving
the District's PSD permitting program into the SIP means that the
District will be the PSD permitting authority on the effective date of
this final action. Concurrent with the EPA's approval of the District's
rules, all PSD permits for sources located in the BAAQMD issued
directly by the EPA or under the PSD delegation agreement are being
transferred to the District. A list of these EPA-issued permits is
included in the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On June 21, 2004, the EPA issued a PSD delegation agreement,
which was updated on January 20, 2006, February 4, 2008, and March
9, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Incorporation by Reference
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 BAAQMD rules described
in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these documents available electronically
through https://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 Review
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
[[Page 50342]]
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
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 September 30, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 3, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
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 paragraphs (c)(182)(i)(B)(7) and
(c)(199)(i)(A)(9) and (c)(202)(i)(A)(2) and (c)(429)(i)(E)(1) and (2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(182) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(7) Previously approved on January 26, 1999 in paragraph
(c)(182)(i)(B)(6) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(429)(i)(E)(1), Regulation 2, Rule 1 adopted on November 1, 1989.
* * * * *
(199) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(9) Previously approved on January 26, 1999 in paragraph
(c)(199)(i)(A)(8) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(429)(i)(E)(2), Regulation 2, Rule 2 adopted on June 15, 1994.
* * * * *
(202) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) Previously approved on April 3, 1995 in paragraph
(c)(202)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(429)(i)(E)(1), Rule 2-1-249, adopted on June 15, 1994.
* * * * *
(429) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
(1) Regulation 2, ``Permits,'' Rule 1, ``General Requirements,''
adopted on December 19, 2012.
(2) Regulation 2, ``Permits,'' Rule 2, ``New Source Review,''
adopted on December 19, 2012.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.270 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(16) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.270 Significant deterioration of air quality.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(16) The PSD program for the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD), as incorporated by reference in Sec.
52.220(c)(429)(i)(E)(2), is approved under part C, subpart 1, of the
Clean Air Act. For PSD permits previously issued by EPA pursuant to
Sec. 52.21 to sources located in the BAAQMD, this approval includes
the authority for the BAAQMD to conduct general administration of these
existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent
permit actions relating to such permits, and authority to enforce such
permits.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-17904 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P