Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58313 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 19, 

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. 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, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: July 26, 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 paragraph (c)(411)(i)(B) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(411) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 4682, ‘‘Polystyrene, 

Polyethylene, and Polypropylene 

Products Manufacturing,’’ amended on 

December 15, 2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–21218 Filed 9–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0550; FRL–9718–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Diego 

County, Antelope Valley and Monterey 

Bay Unified Air Pollution Agencies 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the San 

Diego County Air Pollution Control 

District (SDCAPCD), Monterey Bay 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(MBUAPCD) and Antelope Valley Air 

Quality Management District 

(AVAQMD) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

coating of metal containers, closures 

and coils, from graphic arts operations, 

from the provision of sampling and 

testing facilities required for permitting 

and from adhesives and sealant 

applications. We are approving local 

rules that regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 19, 2012 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by October 22, 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–2012–0550, 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

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: 

Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3576, borgia.adrianne@epa.gov. 

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. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

D. 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 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). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58314 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted & effective Submitted 

SDCAPCD ... 67 .4 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products ......................... 11/9/11, 11/9/11 ...................... 02/23/12 

SDCAPCD ... 67 .16 Miscellaneous Coating ............................................................. 11/9/11, 5/9/12 ........................ 02/23/12 

Local agency Rule No . Rule title Revised or amended Submitted 

MBUAPCD ... 205 Provision of Sampling and Testing Facilities ........................... Revised 03/21/01 .................... 05/31/01 

AVAQMD ..... 1168 Adhesive and Sealant Applications ......................................... Amended 09/20/11 ................. 02/23/12 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

We approved an earlier version of 

SDCAPCD Rule 67.4 into the SIP on 

November 3, 1997 (62 FR 59284) and an 

earlier version of SDCAPCD Rule 67.16 

was approved into the SIP on March 27, 

1997 (62 FR 14639). An earlier version 

of MBUAPCD Rule 205 was approved 

into the SIP on July 13, 1987 (52 FR 

26148). There are no approved earlier 

versions of AVAQMD Rule 1168. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions by limiting VOC content in 

coatings and solvents. 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? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(1) and 

193). In addition, SIP rules must 

implement Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM), including 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT), in moderate and 

above ozone nonattainment areas. 

Guidance and policy documents that we 

use to evaluate enforceability and RACT 

requirements consistently include the 

following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook), 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies’’ EPA, Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook), 

3. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Existing Stationary Sources, 

Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, 

Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles and 

Light-Duty Trucks’’ EPA, May 1977 

(EPA–450/2–76–028), 

4. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings’’, EPA, September 2008 (EPA– 

453/R–08–003), 

5. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Solvent Metal Cleaning’’, EPA, 

September 2006 (EPA 453/–06–001), 

6. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Existing Stationary Sources, 

Volume I: Control Methods for Surface 

Coating Operations’’, EPA, November 

1976 (EPA–450/2–76–028), 

7. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Offset Lithographic Printing and 

Letterpress Printing’’, EPA, September 

2006 (EPA–453/R–06–002), 

8. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Flexible Package Printing’’, EPA, 

September 2006 (EPA–453/R–06–003), 

9. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents’’, EPA, 

September 2006 (EPA 453/R–06–001), 

10. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines 

for Miscellaneous Industrial 

Adhesives’’, EPA, September 2008 

(EPA–453/R–08–005) and 

11. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

and Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BARCT) for Adhesives and 

Sealants’’, CARB, December, 1998 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP 

relaxations. The TSDs have more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rules. 

D. 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 October 22, 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 November 19, 

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.); 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58315 

• 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, this rule does 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 EPA notes that 

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 November 19, 

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 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, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 3, 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)(282)(i)(C) and 

(411)(i)(C) and (D) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(282) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) Monterey Bay Unified Air 

Pollution Control District 

(1) Rule 205, ‘‘Provision of Sampling 

and Testing Facilities,’’ revised on 

March 21, 2001. 

* * * * * 

(411) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) San Diego County Air Pollution 

Control District 

(1) Rule 67.4, ‘‘Metal Container, Metal 

Closure and Metal Coil Coating 

Operations,’’ adopted and effective on 

November 9, 2011. 

(2) Rule 67.16, ‘‘Graphic Arts 

Operations,’’ adopted on November 9, 

2011 and effective on May 9, 2012. 

(D) Antelope Valley Air Quality 

Management District 

(1) Rule 1168, ‘‘Adhesive and Sealant 

Applications,’’ amended on September 

20, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21221 Filed 9–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2010–0066; SW FRL– 

9730–5] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting a petition 

submitted by ExxonMobil Refining and 

Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Baytown Refinery to exclude from 

hazardous waste control (or delist) a 

certain solid waste. This final rule 

responds to the petition submitted by 

ExxonMobil to have the F039 underflow 

water generated at the North Landfarm 

(NLF) in Baytown, Texas excluded, or 

delisted, from the definition of a 

hazardous waste. 

After careful analysis and evaluation 

of comments submitted by the public, 

the EPA has concluded that the 

petitioned wastes are not hazardous 

waste when disposed of in Subtitle D 

landfills. This exclusion applies to 

7,427 cubic yards per year of the F039 

underflow water. Accordingly, this final 

rule excludes the petitioned waste from 

the requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills 

but imposes testing conditions to ensure 

that the future-generated wastes remain 

qualified for delisting. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 20, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this 

final rule is located at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202, and is available for 

viewing in the EPA Freedom of 

Information Act review room on the 7th 

floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. Call (214) 665–6444 

for appointments. The reference number 

for this docket is EPA–R06–RCRA– 

2012–0138. The public may copy 

material from any regulatory docket at 

no cost for the first 100 pages and at a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES