Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: California,

[Federal Register: October 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 198)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 60008-60010]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr14oc05-11]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R09-OAR-2005-CA-0009; FRL-7975-1]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Monterey Bay United Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Monterey Bay United Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and sulfur compounds emitted by various sources. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 13, 2005 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 14, 2005. 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 R09-OAR-2005- CA-0009, by one of the following methods:

1. Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers

   receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

   the on-line instructions.

3. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

4. 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 http://docket.epa.gov/ rmepub/, 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 the agency website, eRulemaking portal or e-mail. The agency website and eRulemaking portal are ``anonymous access'' systems, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 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: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub 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: Francisco D[oacute][ntilde]ez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3956, Donez.Francisco@epa.gov.

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

   Table of Contents

   1. The State's Submittal

      1. What Rule Did the State Submit?

      2. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

      3. What is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

      1. How is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

      2. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

      3. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

      4. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

   1. The State's Submittal

      1. What Rule Did the State Submit?

         Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the respective dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

         Table 1.--Submitted Rules

         Rule Local agency

         Rule title

         Adopted

         Submitted

         MBUAPCD............................... 404 Sulfur Compounds and Nitrogen

         12/15/04

         01/13/05 Oxides.

         On February 16, 2005, this rule submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

      2. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

         We approved a version of Rule 404 into the SIP on June 12, 2001 (66 FR 31554). The MBUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on December 15, 2004, and CARB submitted them to us on January 13, 2005.

      3. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

         Revised Rule 404 exempts maintenance operations on crude oil production casing gas collection, treatment and destruction systems from Rule 404's sulfur limits. In addition, the exemption for agricultural operations is eliminated in the revised rule. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

         [[Page 60009]]

   2. EPA's Evaluation and Action

      1. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

      Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The MBUAPCD is listed as being in attainment for the national ambient air quality standards (see 40 CFR part 81). Therefore, for purposes of controlling sulfur compounds and nitrogen oxides, Rule 404 needs only comply with the general provisions of Section 110 of the Act.

      Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate enforceability requirements consistently include the following:

1. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOXSupplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.

2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).

3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

   2. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

      We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The exemption for oil well casing gas will allow some emissions of methane (CH4) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Because these gases are not regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the exemption of these emissions does not constitute a reason for rule disapproval. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

   3. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

      EPA has no recommendations for further improvements to this rule.

   4. Public Comment and Final Action

      As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills 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 rule. If we receive adverse comments by November 14, 2005, 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 December 13, 2005. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

      3. 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 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 December 13, 2005. 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).)

      [[Page 60010]]

      List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

      Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

      Dated: September 13, 2005. Laura Yoshii, 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)(335)(i)(A)(3) to read as follows:

      Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

      * * * * *

      (c) * * *

      (335) * * *

      (i) * * *

      (A) * * *

      (3) Rule 404, adopted on December 15, 2004. * * * * *

      [FR Doc. 05-20603 Filed 10-13-05; 8:45 am]

      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P