ACTION:
Direct final rule.
SUMMARY:
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD), and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we are approving local rules that define terms used in other air pollution regulation in these areas and approving a rule rescission that addresses Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations—Oxides of Sulfur.
DATES:
This rule is effective on July 3, 2012 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 4, 2012. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES:
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0643, 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.
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:
Cynthia Allen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120, allen.cynthia@epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule we are rescinding and the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1—Submitted Rules
Local agency
Rule No.
Rule title
Adopted
Submitted
AVAQMD
1119
Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations—Oxides of Sulfur (rescinded)
01/18/11
06/21/11
EKAPCD
102
Definitions
01/13/11
06/21/11
SBCAPCD
102
Definitions
01/20/11
06/21/11
On July 15, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for AVAQMD Rule 1119, EKAPCD Rule 102, and SBCAPCD Rule 102 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 these rules?
We approved earlier versions of these rules into the SIP on the dates listed: AVAQMD Rule 1119 on September 28, 1981 (46 FR 47451), EKAPCD Rule 102 on March 7, 2011 (76 FR 12280), and SBCAPCD Rule 102 on May 6, 2009 (74 FR 20872). The SBCAPCD amended revisions to the SIP-approved version on September 20, 2010 and CARB submitted them to us on April 5, 2011. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local agency's program to control these pollutants.
Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1119 applies to the operation of petroleum coke calcining equipment. The AVAQMD has determined that there are no petroleum coke calcining operations located within the District and none are anticipated in the future. The AVAQMD has rescinded this rule and has certified that there are no sources covered by this rule in the jurisdiction of the AVAQMD. Since this rule is currently part of the SIP for AVAQMD, a resolution certifying that no sources exist in the AVAQMD is required by section 182(b)(2).
Eastern Kern APCD Rule 102, Definitions, is being amended to define a number of terms that are used in other District rules. The amendments include updating the name of the District, adding ten new definitions, revising language in three definitions, and adding one compound to the Exempt Compounds list. Minor formatting issues are also being corrected.
Santa Barbara County Rule 102, is amended by adding a new definition for “greenhouse gas or greenhouse gases.” In addition, the definition of “attainment pollutant” has been clarified to exclude greenhouse gases.
EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
These rules describe administrative provisions and definitions that support emission controls found in other local agency requirements. In combination with the other requirements, these rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). EPA policy that we used to evaluate enforceability requirements consistently includes the Bluebook (“Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook (“Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
C. Public Comment and Final Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by June 4, 2012, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on July 3, 2012. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
III. 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 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, these rules do 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 it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 July 3, 2012. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged in later 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 8, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(88)(iii)(C) and (c)(391) to read as follows:
§ 52.220
(c) * * *
(88) * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) In Resolution 11-04 dated January 18, 2011, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District certified that no sources which would be subject to Rule 1119, “Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations,” exist in the AVAQMD. Therefore, Rule 1119 has been rescinded and is removed from the SIP.
(391) New and amended regulations were submitted on June 21, 2011 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District.
( 1 ) Rule 102, “Definitions,” amended on January 13, 2011.
(B) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
( 1 ) Rule 102, “Definitions,” revised on January 20, 2011.
[FR Doc. 2012-10734 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P