[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 31, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63694-63696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18167]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-0557e; FRL-8225-7]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Yolo-
Solano Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air 
Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal 
Register on February 1, 2006 and concern volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emissions from organic liquid storage and transfer facilities. We 
are approving YSAQMD Rule 2.21 that regulates these emission sources 
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This rule is effective on November 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2005-0557e for 
this action. The index to the docket is 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 in the index, some information may be publicly available 
only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 
either (415) 947-4111, or [email protected].

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

I. Proposed Action

    On February 1, 2006 (71 FR 5172), EPA took direct final action with 
a concurrent proposal to approve the following rule into the California 
SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                    Rule                Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD..................................         2.21  Organic Liquid Storage &            09/14/05     10/20/05
                                                        Transfer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We took direct final action to approve this rule because we 
determined that it complied with the relevant CAA requirements and we 
did not expect adverse public comment. Our direct final action contains 
more information on this rule and our evaluation.
    However, we did receive adverse public comments on our direct final 
approval action. Consequently, we withdrew our direct final action on 
April 11, 2006 (see 71 FR 18219). Our February 1, 2006 concurrent 
proposed action (see 71 FR 5211) provides the basis for today's final 
action.

[[Page 63695]]

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses.

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received a comment from David Moralez, a private 
citizen, in a letter dated March 3, 2006, sent and received via 
electronic mail March 3, 2006.
    Mr. Moralez said that by approving into the SIP the September 14, 
2005 amendments to Rule 2.21, EPA will remove two provisions, Section 
502.4 concerning annual bulk plant compliance monitoring and Section 
607 specifying a test method for determining bulk plant compliance with 
Section 309.1's vapor recovery standard; thereby relaxing significantly 
existing SIP requirements.
    Regarding the SIP relaxation issue, we acknowledge that an annual 
compliance testing requirement, in Section 502.4, and its related test 
method, in Section 607, is being removed from the SIP. However, we 
disagree that removing these provisions represent a significant or 
problematic relaxation of the SIP.
    Bulk plants are required to maintain continuous compliance with the 
Section 309 requirements and these requirements are unchanged. Under 
the provisions of Section 309, either CARB or YSAQMD may require a bulk 
plant recertify or retest a vapor recovery system at any time using CP-
202 ``Certification Procedure for Vapor Recovery Systems of Bulk 
Plants'', TP-202.1 ``Determination of Emission Factor of Vapor Recovery 
Systems of Bulk Plants,'' or Executive Order G-846 ``Screening Test 
Procedures for Certification of Gasoline Bulk Vapor Recovery Systems''.
    Furthermore, at any time, YSAQMD may inspect a bulk plant using the 
test methods described in Sections 605 and 608. Section 605 includes 
test methods for determining leaks and whether or not a bulk plant 
meets the ``gas tight'' requirements of Section 309.2. Section 608 
describes several test methods for determining vapor recovery system 
efficiency, including a reference to the applicable CARB Executive 
Orders needed to determine compliance and an annual compliance check 
using a static pressure decay test.
    Should a bulk plant fail any of these tests, YSAQMD can order the 
source to do further compliance testing using either the methods in the 
rule, or TP-202.1. In turn, YSAQMD can request that CARB recertify the 
source, using either CARB E.O. G-846, or CP-201 once any corrective 
repairs have been made.
    In sum, we have reviewed Rule 2.21's bulk plant requirements, the 
test methods remaining within the rule, related CARB Executive orders, 
as well as CARB and YSAMQD legal authority and find that the rule is 
enforceable with adequate provisions to determine compliance despite 
the removal of Sections 502.4 and 607. Consequently, we find that the 
YSAQMD amendments to Rule 2.21 are consistent with the Clean Air Act, 
section 110(l) and do not significantly relax the SIP.
    Mr. Moralez also commented that EPA did not follow its guidance in 
proposing to approve Rule 2.21. First, the 2004 SIP approved rule 
included an annual source testing requirement consistent with federal 
guidance, Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document EPA-450/77-035. 
Second, deleting CARB test method TP-202.1 (formerly within Section 
607) from the SIP approved rule does not meet EPA guidance requiring 
that SIP rules specify all sampling and analysis methods needed to 
determine compliance with the rule.
    We examined the CTG entitled ``Guideline Series: Control of 
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Bulk Plants,'' EPA-450/2-77-
035, December 1977 and found that this CTG does not contain an annual 
source (compliance) test requirement consistent with the mass balance 
methodology cited in Section 502.4 using California Air Resources Board 
(CARB) test method TM-202.1. Furthermore, we found no reference within 
the CTG to any annual source test requirement of any kind. 
Consequently, removing Section 502.4 from the rule and the SIP does not 
make the rule inconsistent with the CTG and the requirements of Section 
182(c)(3) of the CAA.
    Regarding Mr. Moralez's assertion that the rule does not include 
all sampling and analysis methods needed to determine compliance, as we 
discussed earlier, we believe that existing test methods and compliance 
checks within the rule are adequate to determine compliance and enforce 
Section 309's bulk plant requirements.
    Finally, Mr. Moralez asserted several times that YSAQMD's action to 
amend Rule 2.21 and remove Section 502.4 and Section 607 is unsupported 
and, consequently, EPA cannot approve it.
    However, we found that YSAQMD's amendments are supported 
adequately, allowing EPA consideration of this SIP submittal. The 
YSAQMD's August 10, 2005 staff report and September 13, 2005 addendum 
to its staff report explain its revisions to the rule. The September 
13, 2005 addendum to the staff report addressed the amendments to the 
rule concerning bulk plants and Mr. Moralez's comments to the YSAQMD, 
in particular. These rule amendments and supporting material received 
adequate public notice and were duly adopted by the YSAQMD governing 
board.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the 
submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving 
this rule into the California SIP. On January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3012), we 
published a limited approval and limited disapproval of YSAQMD Rule 
2.21 as adopted locally on June 12, 2002 and submitted by the State on 
August 6, 2002. This disapproval action started a sanctions clock for 
imposition of offset sanctions on August 22, 2005 and highway sanctions 
6 months later, pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. In our February 1, 2006 proposal, we 
found that YSAQMD's September 14, 2005 revisions to Rule 2.21 corrected 
the deficiencies identified in our limited disapproval action. Because 
no comments were submitted that change our February 1, 2006 assessment 
of Rule 2.21, all sanctions and Federal Implementation Plan obligations 
associated with our January 22, 2004 limited disapproval of the rule 
will be terminated on the effective date of this final rule approval 
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
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 action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not

[[Page 63696]]

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 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 approves 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 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 for 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 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).
    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 rule 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 January 2, 2007. 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

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

    Dated: July 24, 2006.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
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 paragraph (c)(342)(i)(A) and 
(c)(342)(i)(A)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (342) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 2.21, adopted on March 23, 1994, and amended on September 
14, 2005.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E6-18167 Filed 10-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P