```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71129-71131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28827]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0252; FRL-9737-1]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San 
Joaquin Valley United Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) and 
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the SJVUAPCD and 
SCAQMD portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 
action was proposed in the Federal Register on June 21, 2012 and 
concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from chipping and 
grinding activities, and composting operations. We are approving local 
rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 
or the Act).

DATES: These rules will be effective on December 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0252 for 
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume 
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., 
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Marinaro, EPA Region IX, (415) 
972-3019, marinaro.robert@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 June 21, 2012 (77 FR 37359), EPA proposed to approve the 
following rules into the California SIP.

[[Page 71130]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD................................          1133.1  Chipping and Grinding           07/08/11        11/18/11
                                                         Activities.
SCAQMD................................          1133.3  Emission Reductions from        07/08/11        11/18/11
                                                         Greenwaste Composting
                                                         Operations.
SJVUAPCD..............................            4566  Organic Material                 8/18/11        11/18/11
                                                         Composting Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they 
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action 
contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received two comments from the following 
parties.
    1. Dan Noble and Paul Ryan, Association of Compost Producers and 
Inland Empire Disposal Association (ACP/IEDA); letter dated July 23, 
2012 and received July 23, 2012.
    2. Caroll Mortensen, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 
(CalRecycle); letter dated July 14, 2012 and received July 17, 2012.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment #1: ACP/IEDA recommend that prior to the development of 
food waste emission factors for composting, that harmonized, 
consistent, and uniform food waste definitions be developed and 
implemented in regulations across air quality, water quality, and 
integrated waste management agencies in the State of California.
    Response #1: This comment does not address the basis or conclusion 
of EPA's proposed action. However, EPA supports the current efforts of 
CalRecycle and the California State Water Resources Control Board to 
define ``food waste'' in a consistent manner to reduce inconsistencies 
between various state permitting and regulatory programs. More 
information can be found at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/Rulemaking/Compost/default.htm.
    Comment #2: ACP/IEDA recommend that federal, State, and local 
agencies develop and incorporate standard food waste emission factors 
in rules and regulations to more accurately characterize both reactive 
and non-reactive ozone forming volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions from greenwaste composting that contains food material.
    Response #2: No response is needed as the comment does not address 
the basis or conclusion of EPA's proposed action. However, we believe 
that additional research that would better characterize VOC emissions 
from food waste would be helpful.
    Comment #3: In general, ACP/IEDA supports the EPA recommendations 
to further improve both SCAQMD and SJVUAPCD rules.
    Response #3: No response needed.
    Comment #4: CalRecycle, in general, supports EPA's proposed action 
on the SCAQMD and SJVUAPCD composting rules.
    Response #4: No response needed.
    Comment #5: CalRecycle requests that EPA allow and direct air 
quality regulators to provide more flexibility when considering new 
regulations on low-reactivity sources of VOCs, such as composting, 
especially when those sources have other environmental benefits. 
CalRecycle explains this recommendation further and includes citation 
to a supportive UC Davis study.
    Response #5: This comment does not address the basis or conclusion 
of EPA's proposed action. However, we agree that well-managed 
composting may provide environmental benefits, including diverting 
material from landfills that could produce methane.\1\ Using compost 
can also help regenerate poor soils, clean up contaminated soils, and 
prevent erosion and silting on embankments parallel to creeks, lakes 
and rivers. Using compost can also reduce the need for fertilizer and 
pesticides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Recycling and 
Composting, U.S. EPA Region 10, May 2011, http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/climate/wccmmf/Reducing_GHGs_through_Recycling_and_Composting.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that EPA's interim guidance on the controls of VOC in 
ozone state implementation plans (70 FR 54046, September 13, 2005) 
already encourages states with persistent ozone nonattainment problems 
to consider recent scientific information on VOC reactivity and how it 
may be incorporated into the development of ozone control measures. EPA 
also believes that mass-based VOC regulations continue to provide 
significant ozone reduction benefits and should not be discounted 
unless and until they are replaced by programs that achieve the same or 
greater benefits.
    Comment #6: CalRecycle recommends that the EPA clarify and support 
the creation of offsets for the implementation of mitigation measures, 
such as aerated static piles and anaerobic digesters, that may reduce 
VOCs beyond what is required by existing rules.
    Response #6: This comment does not address the basis or conclusion 
of EPA's proposed action. However, EPA is working with our state and 
local partners to ensure that Clean Air Act permitting requirements, 
including offset requirements, are appropriately applied to the 
composting industry.
    Comment #7: CalRecycle requests that EPA consider VOC reactivity 
when evaluating and updating ozone emission inventories.
    Response #7: The comment does not address the basis or conclusion 
of EPA's proposed action. Also see the response to Comment 5.
    Comment #8: CalRecycle recommends that the EPA support research to 
test emissions from green materials directly applied to farmland. It 
considers direct land application to be a likely outlet for organic 
materials if composting is restricted or made more expensive by air 
quality rules. The commenter notes that CalRecycle and the UC Davis 
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering submitted a research 
proposal for this concept to EPA in 2011.
    Response #8: The comment does not address the basis or conclusion 
of EPA's proposed action. However, EPA believes that additional 
research would be helpful. We think it is important to better quantify 
the environmental impacts of composting, especially VOC emission 
factors related to food waste. We also think it is important to better 
quantify the environmental benefits of composting, including being able 
to better describe how VOC emissions from composting compare with VOC 
emissions of other management options, such as direct application to 
land or landfilling. EPA does not have research funding readily 
available for these purposes, but we can participate in discussions 
with organizations that may have funding to help prioritize research 
needs.
    Comment #9: CalRecycle recommends that the EPA support research to 
quantify water savings associated with compost use.
    Response #9: The comment does not address the basis or conclusion 
of EPA's proposed action. However, as stated in

[[Page 71131]]

our response to comment 8, we encourage research that would 
allow better quantification of the environmental benefits of 
composting.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules 
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in 
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving these rules into 
the California SIP.

IV. 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, 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 January 28, 2013. 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, Volatile organic compounds, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 13, 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--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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)(416)(i)(A)(2) and 
(i)(B) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (416) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Rule 4566, ``Organic Material Composting Operations,'' adopted 
on August 18, 2011.
    (B) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1133.1, ``Chipping and Grinding Activities,'' amended on 
July 8, 2011.
    (2) Rule 1133.3, ``Emission Reductions from Greenwaste Composting 
Operations,'' adopted on July 8, 2011.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-28827 Filed 11-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```