Skip to Content

Proposed Rule

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

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


Proposed rule.


EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns particulate matter (PM) emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units at oil refineries. We are proposing to approve SCAQMD Rule 1105.1 to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.


Any comments must arrive by July 14, 2005.


Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 or e-mail to, or submit comments at

You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA's technical support documents (TSDs), and public comments at our Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; and

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182.

A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at​drdb/​drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is not an EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA.

Start Further Info


Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either (415) 947-4111, or

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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

D. Public comment and final action

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Start Printed Page 34436

Table 1.—Submitted Rules

Local agencyRule No.Rule titleAdoptedSubmitted
SCAQMD1105.1Reduction of PM10 and Ammonia Emissions From Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU)11/07/0306/03/04

On June 30, 2004, EPA found this rule submittal met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. These criteria must be met before formal EPA review can begin.

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

There are no previous versions of Rule 1105.1 in the SIP.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?

SCAQMD Rule 1105.1 is designed to limit particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and ammonia emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units at oil refineries. The rule sets emission limits for filterable PM10 and ammonia slip. PM10 and ammonia emissions result from the combination of FCCU emissions and ammonia injection used with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) to control FCCU emissions. Once in the atomosphere, ammonia emissions react with other compounds to produce secondary aerosol PM10. Oil refineries are expected to implement several control technologies to meet the emissions limits, including but not limited to, dry and wet ESPs, sulfur oxide reducing agents, selective catalytic reduction, selective non-catalytic reduction, and wet gas scrubbers.

The TSD has more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

Generally, PM10 SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must meet Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) requirements for nonattainment areas (see section 189), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SCAQMD regulates a serious PM nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 1105.1 must fulfill RACM and Best Available Control Measure (BACM) requirements.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate enforceability and RACM requirements consistently include the following documents.

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.

2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24,1987 Federal Register Notice,” (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

We believe the rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, and SIP relaxations. Section 189 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) required that serious PM nonattainment areas, such as SCAQMD, implement in a stepwise manner all RACM and BACM rules for all major sources and significant PM-10 source categories. The SCAQMD's plan for attaining the PM-10 NAAQS is the regulatory vehicle for determining RACM and BACM rules. For Rule 1105.1, the SCAQMD PM-10 plan defines the FCCU source category as “de minimis” or producing emissions less than or equal to 5% of the PM standard. Consequently, Rule 1105.1 is not designated as either a RACM, or BACM rule in the SCAQMD PM-10 plan. Consequently, our review is limited to enforceability and SIP relaxation criteria. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

We have no additional recommendations regarding Rule 1105.1

D. Public Comment and Final Action

Because EPA believes Rule 1105.1 fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate Rule 1105.1 into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement Start Printed Page 34437for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

  • Environmental protection
  • Air pollution control
  • Intergovernmental relations
  • Particulate matter
  • Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
End List of Subjects Start Authority

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

End Authority Start Signature

Dated: April, 20, 2005.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 05-11718 Filed 6-13-05; 8:45 am]