[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26448-26450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10734]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0643; FRL-9652-4]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope 
Valley Air Quality Management District and Eastern Kern and Santa 
Barbara County; Air Pollution Control Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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: [email protected].
    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, [email protected]

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               01/18/11     06/21/11
                                                     Operations--Oxides of Sulfur
                                                     (rescinded).
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

[[Page 26449]]

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

[[Page 26450]]

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]

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)(88)(iii)(C) and 
(c)(391) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (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