[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39777-39782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16882]



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



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY



40 CFR Part 52



[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0907; FRL-9428-7]




Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollutions Control District (SJVUAPCD)



AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).



ACTION: Final rule.



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



SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval 

of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on January 4, 

2011 and concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from crude 

oil production operations and refineries. Under authority of the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously 

approves local rules that regulate these emission sources and directs 

California to correct rule deficiencies.



DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on August 8, 2011.



ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0907 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 

available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed at http://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: Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947-4118, [email protected].



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 

``our,'' refer to EPA.



Table of Contents



I. Proposed Action

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

III. EPA Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews



I. Proposed Action



    On January 4, 2011 (76 FR 298), EPA proposed a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP.



[[Page 39778]]







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

            Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title              Amended        Submitted

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

SJVUAPCD...........................            4402  Crude Oil Production Sumps.        12/17/92        08/24/07

SJVUAPCD...........................            4625  Wastewater Separators......        12/17/92        08/24/07

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



    We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these 

rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because 

some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. 

These provisions include the following:



A. Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production Sumps



    1. SJVUAPCD should strengthen these requirements to help implement 

RACT or demonstrate why such improvements are not appropriate in light 

of analogous requirements in neighboring districts.

    a. Section 5.1.2 allows a 1 inch gap and does not require seals for 

rigid floating covers. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(e)(2)(B)(vi) and 

SLOCAPCD Rule 419 D.2.e. require rigid floating covers to have seals, 

the gap cannot exceed \1/8\'' for a cumulative length of 95% of the 

perimeter, and no single gap may exceed \1/2\ inch.

    b. Section 5.2.5 requires fixed covers to be equipped with a 

pressure/vacuum valve set to within ten percent of maximum safe working 

pressure. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(2)(A)(ii) and (6)(A) and 

SBCAPCD Rule 344 D.2.b.2 require that fixed covers be equipped with a 

95% efficient Air Pollution Control (APC) device.

    c. Rule 4402 does not require periodic inspection of covers and APC 

equipment to ensure proper operation. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 

1176(f)(1)(C) requires periodic leak inspection and APC testing.

    d. Rule 4402 has exemptions that are more broad than those found in 

other districts rules. SJVUAPCD should analyze whether these exemptions 

continue to be appropriate. This analysis should consider more current 

cost data than used in the 2009 RACT Analysis, and should consider 

alternative disposal methods (e.g., underground injection, tanks, or 

additional pretreatment) in addition to sump and pond covers. The 

following exemptions are of particular concern:

     Uncontrolled VOC emissions from exempted 2nd and 3rd stage 

sumps. Section 4.1.1 exempts operations less than 6000 barrels per day 

with sumps less than 1000 sf and section 4.1.3 exempts operations less 

than 300 barrels per day with sumps less than 5000 sf from substantive 

requirements. No other neighboring districts allow exemptions for small 

producers except for SBCAPCD Rule 344, and the exemption in Santa 

Barbara's rule is more restrictive than the exemptions found in Rule 

4402.

     Section 4.1.7 exempts ponds of ``clean produced water'' 

with less than 35 mg/l VOC from Rule 4402 requirements. In contrast, 

SCAQMD Rule 1176(i)(5)(J), VCAPCD Rule 71.4 C.1.c and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 

C.4 exempt wastewater sumps only where the VOC/ROC content does not 

exceed 5 mg/l at the inlet. Of particular concern are VOC emissions 

from the ponds that initially receive the oily wastewater from oil 

production facilities. Alternatives including additional pretreatment 

to lower the VOC content and other disposal methods such as underground 

injection should be evaluated.

    e. Rule 4402 does not limit the time that oil or oily water can be 

kept in an emergency pit. In contrast, SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C.2 requires 

clean-up to begin within 24 hours and finish within 15 days.

    f. Rule 4402 allows 1st stage sumps. In contrast, SBCAPCD Rule 344 

and VCAPCD Rule 71.4 do not allow the operation of 1st stage sumps.

    g. Provisions should be added in Rule 4402 or Rule 4623 (Storage of 

Organic Liquids) that ensure that tanks used to replace the 1st stage 

crude oil sumps have adequate VOC controls.

    2. The following revisions are needed to improve rule clarity and 

enforceability consistent with CAA section 110(a).

    a. Please remove the language at the end of Section 5.3 that states 

``If replacement tank exclusively serves identical function of sump 

replaced, permitting of such tank shall not be considered an emission 

change for the purposes of Rule 2201 (New and Modified Source Review 

Rule)''. Any exemptions to NSR requirements should be evaluated in 

context of SJVUAPCD's NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and incorporated 

within the NSR program only if appropriate. Such exemptions should not 

be in source-specific prohibitory rules like Rule 4402.

    b. Revise section 6.2 Test Methods to remove and/or replace 

inappropriate or outdated test methods such as 6.2.1 ARB Method 432, 

which is designed for paints and coatings and not oily wastewater. We 

also recommend adding EPA Test Method 21 in section 6.2 for determining 

leaks.

    c. Update the definition of clean product water (Section 3.1) 

replacing outdated EPA Test Methods 4.13.2, 418.2 and 8240 that used 

CFC-113 as the extraction solvent. The new test methods using non-CFC 

extraction solvents are EPA Method 1664A and EPA Method 8260.

    d. Please revise section 6.1 (Recordkeeping) to:

     Add requirement for facilities to keep records of all 

inspections for leaks and testing of APC devices (for example, see 

SCAQMD Rule 1176(g)(1)).

     Add requirement to document use of emergency pits, 

including when use started, clean-up started and clean-up finished.

     Require documentation justifying any exemptions claimed 

under section 4, including 4.1.7, which exempts pits and ponds.

     Add requirements to verify the sump surface area and the 

annual production rates for both the small producers and very small 

producers in section 6.1.1.

     Add requirement to keep all records for at least two, and 

preferably five years.



B. Rule 4625, Wastewater Separators



    The following revisions are needed to improve rule clarity, 

enforceability, and to strengthen requirements to help implement RACT.

    1. The December 1992 amendment added exemption 4.3, which reads 

``For existing facilities, if an incineration device is added or 

modified for the sole purpose of complying with the requirements of 

this rule, such a device shall be exempt from the Best Available 

Control Technology and the Offset requirements of Rule 2201 (New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review Rule)''. This exemption should be 

removed from Rule 4625. Any exemptions to NSR requirements should be 

evaluated in context of SJVUAPCD's NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and 

incorporated within the NSR program only if appropriate. Such 

exemptions should not be in source-specific prohibitory rules like Rule 

4625.

    2. SJVUAPCD has not adequately demonstrated that Rule 4625 

currently implements RACT because RACT can change over time as control 

technology improves and/or becomes more available. More stringent 

requirements



[[Page 39779]]



exist in the NSPS (1988), NESHAP (1995), BAAQMD Rule 8-8 (1993) and 

SCAQMD 1176 (1996). These regulations have requirements for stricter 

VOC controls (see, e.g., 95% requirement in SCAQMD Rule 1176, section 

(e)(2)(A)(ii) and (e)(6)), additional design requirements for 

controlling fugitive emissions or breathing losses (see, e.g., BAAQMD 

Regulation 8 Rule 8, section 302.4), and additional requirements for 

inspections and maintenance (see, e.g., BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 8, 

section 302.4 and 302.6).

    3. The exemption for air flotation units precludes regulation of 

potentially significant VOC sources (section 4.2). Even though these 

sources are currently regulated via District permit conditions, 

SJVUAPCD should subject them to SIP requirements as part of Rule 4625 

or demonstrate why that is not necessary. There is no specific 

allowance in the CTG or other guidance documents for exempting air 

flotation units from regulation and no other California air district 

rules include such an exemption.

    4. To improve enforceability, SJVUAPCD should revise section 6.0 

Test Methods to remove inappropriate or outdated test methods such as 

6.1.2 ARB Method 432 for paints and coatings, and 6.1.3 which refers to 

an obsolete document superseded by EPA Method 204 for determining 

capture efficiency (40 CFR 51). We recommend including EPA Test Method 

21 (measurements of leaks) as referenced in SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, Section 

6.4 Test Methods, or SCAQMD Rule 1176, Section (h).

    5. The SJVUAPCD 2009 RACT SIP Demonstration mentions that the 

requirements in SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, ``Components at Petroleum 

Refineries, Gas Liquids Processing Facilities and Chemical Plants'', 

apply to oil-water separators. SJVUAPCD should include those 

requirements directly in Rule 4625 or by reference to improve 

enforceability, or demonstrate that this is not appropriate.

    6. To ensure ongoing compliance and strengthen enforceability, 

SJVUACPD should add to the rule requirements for inspections of covers, 

access hatches and other openings and emissions control equipment, 

along with recordkeeping requirements for inspections and testing or 

demonstrate that this is not appropriate. For example, please see 

SCAQMD Rule 1176, section (f) and (g).

    7. SJVUAPCD should delete or justify exemption 4.1 for wastewater 

separators exceeding a set value for a sump surface area to the rate of 

oil vapor loss ratio. The only other rule where we found such exemption 

is SCAQMD Rule 464 for Wastewater Separators; last amended December 7, 

1990. This exemption is not found in the newer SCAQMD Rule 1176, ``VOC 

Emissions from Wastewater Systems'', amended September 13, 1996, which 

also addresses wastewater separators and which largely supersedes Rule 

464.



Additional detailed information on the deficiencies listed above can be 

found in the TSDs and proposed notice for this rulemaking (76 FR 298).



II. Public Comments and EPA Responses



    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 

During this period, we received comments from the following parties.

    1. Sarah E. Jackson, Earthjustice; letter and email dated and 

received February 2, 2011.

    2. Samir Sheikh, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVAPCD); letter and email dated and received February 3, 2011.

    The comments and our responses are summarized below.

    Comment #1: Earthjustice generally supported EPA's analysis of 

these rules and the deficiencies identified.

    Response #1: No response required.

    Comment #2: Earthjustice raised concerns regarding the inventory 

associated with these rules and asserted that EPA should thoroughly 

analyze the inventory. Earthjustice asserted that SJVUAPCD fails to 

require related reporting as required by San Luis Obispo Rule 419, and 

instead bases inventory estimates on an industry survey. Earthjustice 

provided two inventory reports and asserted that SJVUAPCD uses an older 

lower emission factor but does not justify the use of this lower 

emission factor.

    Response #2: Recordkeeping and reporting requirements must be 

sufficient to ensure rule enforceability. Rule 4402 requirements are 

sufficient for this purpose except for the deficiencies described in 

paragraph A.2.d above. Nothing in San Luis Obispo Rule 419 or elsewhere 

in the comment provides evidence of additional requirements necessary 

for this purpose. Additional emissions inventory information, such as 

for the clean produced water ponds, might clarify the importance of 

additional controls from affected sources for overall SIP planning 

purposes. However, such information is not needed to evaluate the 

submitted rules with respect to rule enforceability, SIP relaxation and 

RACT, the primary criteria at issue in this action.

    Comment #3: Earthjustice stated that the District's inventory 

excludes sumps containing ``clean produced water'' and that the 

District allows a much higher VOC content in its clean water than other 

districts allow, therefore the district could be failing to capture a 

large source of emissions in its inventory.

    Response #3: Additional emissions inventory information, such as 

for the clean produced water ponds, might clarify whether additional 

controls are needed for overall SIP planning purposes. However, such 

information is not needed to evaluate the submitted rules with respect 

to rule requirements, enforceability, SIP relaxation and RACT, the 

primary criteria at issue in this action. We believe that the issue of 

the higher VOC content allowed in Rule 4402 for ``clean produced 

water'' is adequately addressed by the deficiency described in 

paragraph I.A.1.d above.

    Comment 4: Earthjustice supported EPA's request that SJVUAPCD 

should ensure that the tanks that replace the primary sumps have 

adequate VOC controls and requested that EPA keep this recommendation 

in mind as it evaluates its options on the District's RACT SIP.

    Response #4: No response required.

    Comment #5: Earthjustice asserted that the rules identified by EPA 

for comparison to the SJVUAPCD rules are quite old themselves and their 

requirements may no longer represent the lowest emissions these sources 

are capable of achieving with reasonable control technology. As a 

result, Earthjustice asserted that an analysis of the cost 

effectiveness of eliminating more open sumps should be prepared in 

order to demonstrate compliance with RACT.

    Response #5: The rules used for comparison are older rules, however 

we are not aware of newer RACT controls likely to significantly reduce 

emissions from these sources, and no other new technologies were 

identified in the comment. In addition, paragraph I.A.1.d above directs 

SJVUAPCD to examine potential additional RACT controls for open sumps.

    Comment #6: SJVUACPD agreed that Rule 4402 imposes some 

requirements that are similar to those found in other Districts, and 

that Rule 4625 imposes requirements similar to the relevant CTG, NSPS 

and MACT. SJVUAPCD further noted that rule language and test method 

requirements could be updated because these rules were last amended in 

1992.

    Response #6: No response required.

    Comment #7: SJVUAPCD commented that their rule requirements do not 

need



[[Page 39780]]



to be changed simply because rules in other parts of California appear 

more stringent. The District asserted that analogous requirements in 

other agencies are not comparable to SJVUAPCD rules because the 

affected sources are different. SJVUAPCD provided the example of crude 

oil sumps, and stated that other California agencies have far fewer, if 

any, sumps subject to the rules used for comparison with SJVUAPCD Rule 

4402.

    Response #7: SJVUAPCD must demonstrate that these rules fulfill CAA 

RACT requirements. This demonstration should include comparison and 

consideration of rules and guidance adopted elsewhere for analogous 

sources. Our proposed action identified examples where SJVUAPCD did not 

explain why more stringent requirements adopted in South Coast, Santa 

Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo were not also reasonably available 

in San Joaquin. While differences among affected sources may justify 

different rule requirements, the comment did not provide support for 

any specific differences among rule provisions. The comment stated that 

other districts have far fewer, if any, sumps subject to the rules used 

for comparison with SJVUAPCD Rule 4402. However, the comment did not 

provide evidence for this statement and we do not believe it is 

correct. For example, data provided by VCAPCD from their permits 

database shows about 50 sumps in their relatively small district.\1\ 

Similarly, in informal discussions with CARB staff, they confirmed that 

South Coast and Santa Barbara also have significant numbers of 

sumps.\2\

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



    \1\ Sumps Data from the VCAPCD Permit Database, received by EPA 

from Stan Cowen via e-mail dated May 10, 2011, Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District.

    \2\ Based on preliminary data collected for the ``CARB 2007 Oil 

and Gas Industry Survey Results'', Draft Report, March 2011.

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



    Comment 8: SJVUAPCD commented that the 2009 RACT SIP demonstration 

showed that the cost effectiveness of additional emission controls far 

exceeds RACT. The district acknowledged that EPA believes this analysis 

is based on old cost estimates, but notes that even if true costs are 

half as large, the resulting cost effectiveness would still be $32,000 

per ton of VOC emissions reduced, which exceeds RACT.

    Response #8: The 2009 RACT SIP demonstration for Rule 4402 provided 

a cost analysis for a 5000 square foot (sf) second stage sump cover 

based on a 1986 cost estimate from a Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District staff report.\3\ Our proposed action questioned 

SJVUAPCD's reliance on this cost estimate because it is over 20 years 

old, because it is the only cost estimate provided by SJVUAPCD, and 

because other agencies have adopted more stringent regulations.\4\ Upon 

further review of this cost effectiveness analysis in response to the 

comment, we also note that it significantly underestimated potential 

emission reductions, thus overestimating cost effectiveness. 

Specifically, the analysis assumed 2 tons/year VOC emissions reduced 

from controlling a 5000 sf second stage heavy crude oil sump. However, 

SJVUAPCD currently estimates uncontrolled emissions from such sumps at 

0.0412 lbs VOC/sf-day.\5\ Assuming 90% emission reductions from a 

ridged floating cover (as required by Rule 4402 if not exempted in 

section 4.1.3), we recalculate the emission reduction at 34 tons/year 

at less than $4000/ton.\6\ This is well within the range of control 

cost effectiveness that SJVUAPCD and other agencies routinely require 

in prohibitory rules.

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



    \3\ 2009 RACT SIP, SJVUAPCD (April 16, 2009), Rule 4402, page 4-

79.

    \4\ See Section I.A.1.d above or 76 FR 298 Section II.C.1.d for 

description of this deficiency.

    \5\ SJVUAPCD: 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology, 

310-Oil Production Fugitive Losses-Sumps and Pits, dated February 6, 

2009, Table 7--Uncontrolled emission factors for oil sumps.

    \6\ 5000 sf x 0.0412 lb/sfday x 365 day/yr x 2000 lb/ton x 90% = 

33.8 ton/yr @$129,644 = $3836/ton

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



    Comment #9: SJVUAPCD commented that, in light of their large 

workload, they are hesitant to divert resources to conduct work that is 

not demonstrated to have significant potential for additional, cost-

effective emissions reductions.

    Response #9: We appreciate this comment and acknowledge that the 

District has limited resources and a substantial workload. We are 

trying to be sensitive to this issue in our various interactions with 

the District, including our actions on SIP rules such as these. We hope 

that the analysis and rule revisions called for by this action will not 

be unduly burdensome, though we believe they are needed to comply with 

the CAA.



III. EPA Action



    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule 

as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in 

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of the submitted rule. This action incorporates the submitted 

rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as 

deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously 

finalizing a limited disapproval of the rule. As a result, sanctions 

will be imposed unless 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 according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we 

approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies 

within 24 months. Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the 

SJVUAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the 

local agency from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also does not 

prevent any portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference 

into the federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA 

memo found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.



IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews



A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review



    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 

Planning and Review.''



B. Paperwork Reduction Act



    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).



C. Regulatory Flexibility Act



    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions.

    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because SIP approvals and limited approvals/

limited disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because 

this limited approval/limited disapproval action does not create any 

new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic



[[Page 39781]]



impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 

the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).



D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act



    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 

the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 

for informing and advising any small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

    EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval 

action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result 

in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local 

law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs 

to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action.



E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism



    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 

Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 

Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 

that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 

implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 

that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 

the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 

consults with State and local officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 

that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 

Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation.

    This rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 

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. Thus, the 

requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule.



F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments



    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 

and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 

policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule.



G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks



    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 

the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 

rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a 

State rule implementing a Federal standard.



H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 

Supply, Distribution, or Use



    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.



I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act



    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 

technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 

NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 

(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical.

    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 

action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 

the use of VCS.



J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population



    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 

Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 

directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 

by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations in the United States.

    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking.



K. Congressional Review Act



    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



[[Page 39782]]



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). This rule will be effective on August 8, 2011.



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 6, 2011. 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: June 9, 2011.

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]



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)(351)(i)(C)(5) and 

(6) to read as follows:





Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.



* * * * *

    (c) * * *

    (351) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (C) * * *

    (5) Rule 4402, ``Crude Oil Production Sumps'', adopted on April 11, 

1991 and amended December 17, 1992.

    (6) Rule 4625, ``Wastewater Separators'', adopted on April 11, 1991 

and amended December 17, 1992.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2011-16882 Filed 7-6-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P