Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 39777 

• 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 the 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, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable 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 rules 

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 

these actions 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 

these final rules 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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 23, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 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 T—Louisiana 

■ 2. Section 52.977 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.977 Control strategy and regulations: 

Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(c) Determination to Terminate the 

Clean Air Act Section 185 Penalty Fee 

Requirement. Effective September 6, 

2011 EPA has determined that the State 

of Louisiana is no longer required to 

submit a section 185 fee program State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for 

the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment 

area to satisfy anti-backsliding 

requirements for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. This determination is based 

on EPA’s determination that the area 

has attained the 1-hour ozone standard 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16881 Filed 7–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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, multivolume 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, wells.joanne@epa.gov. 

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. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
39778 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
39780 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1Sumps 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. 

2Based on preliminary data collected for the 

‘‘CARB 2007 Oil and Gas Industry Survey Results’’, 

Draft Report, March 2011. 

3 2009 RACT SIP, SJVUAPCD (April 16, 2009), 

Rule 4402, page 4–79. 4See Section I.A.1.d above or 76 FR 298 Section 

II.C.1.d for description of this deficiency. 5SJVUAPCD: 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 × 0.0412 lb/sfday × 365 day/yr × 2000 

lb/ton × 90% = 33.8 ton/yr @$129,644 = $3836/ton 

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

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. 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 costeffective 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
39782 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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] 

■ 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)(351)(i)(C)(5) and 

(6) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8187] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities, where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP), that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you want to determine whether a 

particular community was suspended 

on the suspension date or for further 

information, contact David Stearrett, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–2953. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

flood insurance which is generally not 

otherwise available. In return, 

communities agree to adopt and 

administer local floodplain management 

aimed at protecting lives and new 

construction from future flooding. 

Section 1315 of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance 

coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an 

appropriate public body adopts 

adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed in 

this document no longer meet that 

statutory requirement for compliance 

with program regulations, 44 CFR part 

59. Accordingly, the communities will 

be suspended on the effective date in 

the third column. As of that date, flood 

insurance will no longer be available in 

the community. However, some of these 

communities may adopt and submit the 

required documentation of legally 

enforceable floodplain management 

measures after this rule is published but 

prior to the actual suspension date. 

These communities will not be 

suspended and will continue their 

eligibility for the sale of insurance. A 

notice withdrawing the suspension of 

the communities will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

In addition, FEMA has identified the 

Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in 

these communities by publishing a 

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The 

date of the FIRM, if one has been 

published, is indicated in the fourth 

column of the table. No direct Federal 

financial assistance (except assistance 

pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act not in connection with a 

flood) may legally be provided for 

construction or acquisition of buildings 

in identified SFHAs for communities 

not participating in the NFIP and 

identified for more than a year, on 

FEMA’s initial flood insurance map of 

the community as having flood-prone 

areas (section 202(a) of the Flood 

Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 

U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This 

prohibition against certain types of 

Federal assistance becomes effective for 

the communities listed on the date 

shown in the last column. The 

Administrator finds that notice and 

public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 

are impracticable and unnecessary 

because communities listed in this final 

rule have been adequately notified. 

Each community receives 6-month, 

90-day, and 30-day notification letters 

addressed to the Chief Executive Officer 

stating that the community will be 

suspended unless the required 

floodplain management measures are 

met prior to the effective suspension 

date. Since these notifications were 

made, this final rule may take effect 

within less than 30 days. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This rule is categorically excluded from 

the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, 

Environmental Considerations. No 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1