Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 6733 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0328; FRL–9774–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota; Flint Hills Resources Pine 

Bend 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Minnesota’s 

August 29, 2011, request to revise its 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Flint 

Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC (FHR 

Pine Bend), in Dakota County. The 

facility is shutting down an incinerator, 

rerouting process gases, planning for a 

new boiler, and making other emission 

limit reductions. This revision will 

result in a decrease in SO2 emissions. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective April 1, 2013, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 4, 

2013. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0328, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 

0328. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Mary 

Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–5954 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Portanova, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954, 

portanova.mary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. Analysis 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On August 29, 2011, Minnesota 

submitted a request to EPA to revise its 

SO2 SIP for the FHR Pine Bend oil 

refinery in Rosemount, Dakota County. 

FHR Pine Bend is making modifications 

to its facility to improve energy 

efficiency and address plant safety. The 

facility will remove its Merox process 

incinerator, reroute process gases to an 

existing furnace, take additional 

restrictions on steam-air decoking 

activities for certain boilers, revise the 

SO2 emission limits for its fluid 

catalytic cracking unit, and add a boiler. 

FHR Pine Bend is subject to an 

Administrative Order, which contains 

SO2 emission limits and requirements 

which are intended to ensure the 

protection of ambient air quality. The 

provisions of the Administrative Order 

have been approved by EPA into the 

SO2 SIP for FHR Pine Bend (72 FR 

39568, July 19, 2007). Minnesota 

amended the Administrative Order for 

FHR Pine Bend to provide for the 

facility’s planned modifications, and 

submitted it to EPA on August 29, 2011, 

as a SIP revision request. The effective 

date of the amended Administrative 

Order was also August 29, 2011. In 

addition, Minnesota has issued FHR 

Pine Bend an amended permit 

(03700011–008, August 16, 2011). This 

permit contains SO2 emission limits and 

related requirements for FHR Pine Bend. 

After a routine plant safety review, 

FHR Pine Bend determined that there 

was a potential flameout risk with its 

Merox unit incinerator. The company 

decided to shut down the incinerator 

and reroute the gas streams it had 

burned to be either recycled or burned 

in an existing process heater (31H–2), 

depending on the mercaptan content of 

the gases. The Merox incinerator had 

previously handled gases from a sulfur 

recovery unit which is no longer in 

operation. Treating the smaller gas 

stream that it currently receives had 

caused the large Merox incinerator to 

operate less efficiently. The process 

heater (31H–2) will be able to destroy 

the Merox off-gases using less additional 

fuel, resulting in lower emissions of 

SO2, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, 

and greenhouse gases. The SIP revision 

request includes revised SO2 emission 

limits for the process heater (31H–2), in 

response to the heater’s new input gas 

streams. The continuous emission 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
6734 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

monitor (CEM) currently on the Merox 

incinerator will be moved to the process 

heater (31H–2), to measure its SO2

emissions. The SIP retains the ability for 

FHR Pine Bend to use the Merox 

incinerator temporarily, if it is needed 

while the gas streams are being 

rerouted, but the emission limit 

applicable to the Merox incinerator for 

this potential operation is 

approximately 700 tons per year (tpy) 

lower than its current emission limit. 

The Merox incinerator is to be 

permanently shut down after the gas 

stream rerouting is complete. 

Other updates which are not related 

to the Merox incinerator shutdown are 

also included in the August 29, 2011 

SIP revision request. First, FHR Pine 

Bend intends to apply for a permit to 

install a new boiler. Therefore, SO2

emissions corresponding to a new boiler 

were included in the modeling analysis 

performed for this SIP revision request, 

based on the emissions and stack 

measurements of the plant’s existing 

Boiler 9. To ensure that the company’s 

SIP will continue to protect air quality 

after the addition of the new boiler, the 

Administrative Order prohibits the 

company from operating the new boiler 

with stack and emission parameters 

different from those used in the 

dispersion modeling supporting the 

August 29, 2011 SIP revision request. 

Second, the SIP revision request 

includes an emission limit reduction of 

approximately 2700 tpy at the fluid 

catalytic cracking unit. The revised 

emission limit was chosen after a review 

of recent continuous emission 

monitoring data. Third, FHR Pine Bend 

is taking additional limits on its steamair decoking activities for four heaters. 

These limits restrict the heaters from 

being decoked simultaneously. The 

decoking process uses steam, air, heat, 

and water to periodically remove coke 

buildup from process heater tubing. The 

decoking residues are directed into 

water-filled quench pits. The modeled 

emission rates from the decoking 

operations have been updated after 

engineering analyses at the plant. 

Fourth, the SIP revision request 

accounts for changes in the stack exit 

temperature of the oil separation and 

waste treatment plant’s thermal oxidizer 

stack, which are expected after a 

convection stack/heat exchanger 

replacement is completed. The 

replacement will increase energy 

efficiency at the thermal oxidizer. 

Finally, additional revisions to the SIP 

address the facility’s name change from 

Flint Hills Resources, LP, to Flint Hills 

Resources Pine Bend, LLC, and 

adjustments to numbering within the 

rule. Overall, the August 29, 2011 SIP 

revision provides for a reduction in SO2

emissions of over 3100 tpy. 

II. Analysis 

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act 

states that the Administrator shall not 

approve a SIP revision if it would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment of 

the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) and reasonable 

further progress. 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). The 

August 29, 2011 SIP revision for FHR 

Pine Bend represents an overall 

emissions decrease of over 3100 tpy of 

SO2 emissions. The revision also 

provides for reductions in nitrogen 

oxides, carbon monoxide, and 

greenhouse gases from the shutdown of 

the Merox incinerator and the 

associated decrease in fuel usage. 

The new operating scenario and new 

limits for FHR Pine Bend were 

evaluated and compared to the SO2

NAAQS and to the previous SIP 

scenario using the EPA regulatory 

dispersion model AERMOD (version 

09292), with meteorological data from 

2000–2004 collected at the MinneapolisSt. Paul Airport. The comparative 

modeling results showed large 

reductions, up to approximately sixty 

percent, in predicted ambient SO2

concentrations under the new operating 

scenario. The modeling analysis 

demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS 

for SO2 (3-hour, 24-hour, and annual). 

The maximum predicted SO2

concentrations including neighboring 

emission sources and a monitored 

background concentration were 517 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) for 

the 3-hour average (compared to the SO2

NAAQS of 1300 mg/m3); 172 mg/m3 for 

the 24-hour average (compared to the 

SO2 NAAQS of 365 mg/m3); and 35 mg/ 

m3 for the annual average (compared to 

the SO2 NAAQS of 80 mg/m3). 

The dispersion modeling for this SIP 

revision request did not specifically 

address the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. There 

were difficulties in providing a full 

modeled 1-hour attainment 

demonstration for the FHR Pine Bend 

SIP revision request which were beyond 

FHR Pine Bend’s control. Because the 

shutdown of the Merox incinerator 

addresses a safety issue, Minnesota 

submitted the SIP revision without 

waiting to complete a full 1-hour SO2

modeling demonstration. 

Nonattainment area designations have 

not yet been promulgated nationally, so 

the 1-hour SO2 SIP requirements for 

Dakota County have not yet been 

determined. The air quality monitors in 

Dakota County clearly show that the 

area is currently attaining the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. There are four SO2

monitors located within three miles of 

the FHR Pine Bend facility. The SO2

concentrations at all four monitors are 

well below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The 

highest of the four monitors’ 2008–2010 

design value concentrations was 20 

parts per billion (ppb)(compared to the 

SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb). For the period 

2009–2011, the highest of the four 

Dakota County monitors’ design values 

was 19 ppb (both design values cited 

here are from the same monitor). This 

monitor is located less than one mile 

east of FHR Pine Bend. Minnesota has 

recommended that EPA designate 

Dakota County ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Minnesota must 

meet the applicable requirements for 

Dakota County’s final SO2 designation, 

which may include a modeled 

demonstration that the entire county 

will continue to maintain the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. In the meantime, given the 

significant SO2 emission reductions in 

the FHR Pine Bend SIP revision 

submittal, and the fact that the new 

facility operating scenario has also 

resulted in reductions in modeled 

concentrations for the other short-term 

SO2 standards, EPA believes that the 

August 29, 2011 SIP revision submittal 

does not endanger Dakota County’s 

continued attainment of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS, and the SIP revision will 

provide progress toward any future 

requirements for a modeled 

demonstration of attainment of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in Dakota County. It 

is important to note that future SIP 

revision requests or modifications at 

this or other SO2-emitting facilities may 

be required to include full modeled 

attainment demonstrations for the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS, in accordance with 

section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act. 

EPA believes that Minnesota’s August 

29, 2011, request to revise its SIP for 

FHR Pine Bend satisfies the 

requirements of section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act. The SIP revision 

addresses a plant safety issue and 

includes significant SO2 reductions 

which will help the area continue to 

maintain the current SO2 standards. 

Dispersion modeling shows that 

ambient SO2 impacts will decrease 

under the new operating scenario. The 

SIP limits and modeling continue to 

account for limited use of the Merox 

incinerator in case it is temporarily 

needed during the transition to the new 

operating scenario. Actual operations 

following the shutdown of the Merox 

incinerator will therefore produce less 

SO2 than the modeled amount. For these 

reasons, EPA believes that approval of 

the August 29, 2011 SIP revision request 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 6735 

will not jeopardize Dakota County’s 

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving Minnesota’s August 

29, 2011, SO2 SIP revision request for 

FHR Pine Bend, in Dakota County. This 

SIP revision addresses an operating 

change based on a safety issue, and also 

results in a large decrease in SO2

emissions at the facility. This SIP 

revision is not expected to jeopardize 

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in Dakota 

County. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective April 1, 2013 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by March 4, 

2013. If we receive such comments, we 

will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

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. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

April 1, 2013. 

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 Clean Air 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, 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 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 April 1, 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. 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, 

Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: January 17, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

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. 

■ 2. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Flint Hills Resources, L.P. (formerly 

Koch Petroleum)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
6736 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS

Name of source Permit No. State effective 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, 

LLC.

........................ 08/29/11 01/31/13, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE DOCUMENT 

BEGINS].

Amendment Nine to Findings and 

Order. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–02019 Filed 1–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0849; FRL–9760–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

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 Placer 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(PCAPCD) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern Volatile Organic 

Compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from open burning. We are 

approving local rules that regulate this 

emission source under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 1, 

2013 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 4, 

2013. 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–2012–0849, 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: 

Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4118, Kay.Rynda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

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 agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule 

No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

PCAPCD ......................................... 102 Definitions ............................................................................................... 02/09/12 04/25/12 

PCAPCD ......................................... 301 Nonagricultural Burning Smoke Management ....................................... 02/09/12 09/21/12 

PCAPCD ......................................... 302 Agricultural Waste Burning Smoke Management .................................. 02/09/12 09/21/12 

PCAPCD ......................................... 303 Prescribed Burning Smoke Management .............................................. 02/09/12 09/21/12 

PCAPCD ......................................... 304 Land Development Burning Smoke Management ................................. 02/09/12 09/21/12 

PCAPCD ......................................... 305 Residential Allowable Burning ................................................................ 02/09/12 09/21/12 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with