80 FR 19931 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 71 (April 14, 2015)

Page Range		19931-19932
FR Document		2015-08469

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from Large Confined Animal Facilities (LCAFs). We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19931-19932]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08469]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0841; FRL-9926-17-Region 9]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South 
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the South Coast Air Quality Management District 
(SCAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions from Large Confined Animal Facilities (LCAFs). We are 
proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on 
this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0841, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. 
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects 
or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all 
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some 
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly 
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule(s)
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD...............................             223   Emission Reduction              06/02/06        03/17/09
                                                         Permits for Large
                                                         Confined Animal
                                                         Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 20, 2009, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD 
Rule 223 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, 
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 223 in the SIP, and the 
District has not adopted earlier versions of this rule.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human 
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States 
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 223 establishes 
permitting requirements for LCAFs and establishes a menu of management 
practice options that LCAF owner/operators must select from and 
implement. The rule requirements apply to large operations above 
specified size thresholds, including dairies with at least 1,000 
milking cows and poultry facilities with at least 650,000 birds. The 
rule requires these operations to apply for and obtain an SCAQMD permit 
that includes a mitigation plan with measures as listed in an appendix 
to the rule.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about 
this rule.

[[Page 19932]]

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 
110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements 
(see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control 
requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or 
greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
    The Los Angeles-South Coast air basin is an ozone nonattainment 
area classified as extreme for the 1-hour ozone, 1997 8-hour ozone, and 
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability and revision/relaxation requirements for the applicable 
criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 
1990).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. It contains 
clear thresholds and control requirements, and it strengthens the SIP 
by adding new controls for LCAFs.
    The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule(s)

    In our TSD we identify additional control options that may be 
reasonably available for implementation in the Los Angeles-South Coast 
area (see ``Additional Recommendations'') and that we recommend for the 
next time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all 
relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this 
proposal until May 14, 2015. Unless we receive convincing new 
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final 
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally 
enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 223--
Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities, as 
listed in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue 
to make, these documents generally available electronically through 
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

IV. 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve State law 
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-08469 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

19932 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action III. Incorporation by Reference Technology Transfer and Advancement
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
include in a final EPA rule regulatory application of those requirements would
Generally, SIP rules must be be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
text that includes incorporation by
enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), and
reference. In accordance with
must not interfere with applicable
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is • does not provide EPA with the
requirements concerning attainment and discretionary authority to address
proposing to incorporate by reference
reasonable further progress or other disproportionate human health or
South Coast Air Quality Management
CAA requirements (see CAA section environmental effects with practical,
District Rule 223—Emission Reduction
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP appropriate, and legally permissible
Permits for Large Confined Animal
control requirements in nonattainment methods under Executive Order 12898
Facilities, as listed in Table 1 of this
areas without ensuring equivalent or (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
notice. The EPA has made, and will
greater emissions reductions (see CAA In addition, this proposed action does
continue to make, these documents
section 193). not have tribal implications as specified
The Los Angeles-South Coast air basin generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and/or in by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
is an ozone nonattainment area November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
classified as extreme for the 1-hour hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this not approved to apply in Indian country
ozone, 1997 8-hour ozone, and 2008 8- located in the State, and EPA notes that
hour ozone national ambient air quality preamble for more information).
it will not impose substantial direct
standards (NAAQS). IV. Statutory and Executive Order costs on tribal governments or preempt
Guidance and policy documents that Reviews tribal law.
we use to evaluate enforceability and
Under the Clean Air Act, the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
revision/relaxation requirements for the
Administrator is required to approve a
applicable criteria pollutants include Environmental protection, Air
SIP submission that complies with the
the following: pollution control, Incorporation by
1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve requirements, Volatile organic
Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). compounds.
2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, Accordingly, this proposed action Dated: March 30, 2015.
2001 (the Little Bluebook). merely proposes to approve State law as Jared Blumenfeld,
meeting Federal requirements and does Regional Administrator, Region IX.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation not impose additional requirements
[FR Doc. 2015–08469 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am]
criteria? beyond those imposed by State law. For
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
We believe this rule is consistent with that reason, this proposed action:
the relevant policy and guidance • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
regarding enforceability and SIP action’’ subject to review by the Office
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
relaxations. It contains clear thresholds of Management and Budget under
AGENCY
and control requirements, and it Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
strengthens the SIP by adding new October 4, 1993); 40 CFR Part 52
controls for LCAFs. • does not impose an information
The TSD has more information on our collection burden under the provisions [EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0082; 9926–15–
evaluation. of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Region 9]
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
C. EPA Recommendations To Further • is certified as not having a Revisions to the California SIP,
Improve the Rule(s) significant economic impact on a Ventura & Eastern Kern Air Pollution
In our TSD we identify additional substantial number of small entities Control Districts; Permit Exemptions
control options that may be reasonably under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); AGENCY: Environmental Protection
available for implementation in the Los
• does not contain any unfunded Agency (EPA).
Angeles-South Coast area (see
‘‘Additional Recommendations’’) and mandate or significantly or uniquely ACTION: Proposed rule.
that we recommend for the next time affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
the local agency modifies the rule.
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
D. Public Comment and Proposed • does not have Federalism revisions to the Ventura County Air
Action implications as specified in Executive Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control
the Act, EPA is fully approving the 1999); District (EKAPCD) portions of the
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

submitted rule because we believe it • is not an economically significant California State Implementation Plan
fulfills all relevant requirements. We regulatory action based on health or (SIP). These revisions clarify, update,
will accept comments from the public safety risks subject to Executive Order and revise exemptions from New Source
on this proposal until May 14, 2015. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Review (NSR) permitting requirements,
Unless we receive convincing new • is not a significant regulatory action for various air pollution sources.
information during the comment period, subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR DATES: Any comments must arrive by
we intend to publish a final approval 28355, May 22, 2001); May 14, 2015.
action that will incorporate this rule • is not subject to requirements of ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
into the federally enforceable SIP. Section 12(d) of the National identified by docket number EPA–R09–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM 14APP1

Document Created: 2015-12-18 11:09:47
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 11:09:47

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule.
Dates		Any comments must arrive by May 14, 2015.
Contact		Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972- 3848, [email protected]
FR Citation		80 FR 19931
CFR Associated		Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds