28944 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

minor NSR program for minor sources is 

not needed, submitting an approvable 

justification for why a chosen level of 

public notice is appropriate, or 

submitting local District Rule 202 (State 

New Source Review) to EPA for SIP 

approval. If EPA finalizes the limited 

approval and limited disapproval 

action, as proposed, then a sanctions 

clock, and EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate a Federal implementation 

plan, would be triggered because the 

revisions to the District rule for which 

a limited approval and limited 

disapproval is proposed is required 

under the 8-hour ozone standard. 

Because EPA has determined that 

Rule 203 fulfills all relevant 

requirements, we are proposing to fully 

approve it as described in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we 

receive convincing new information 

during the comment period, we intend 

to publish a final action that will 

incorporate these rules into the federally 

enforceable SIP. 

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.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 13, 2011. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12443 Filed 5–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0461; FRL–9309–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District and 

Feather River Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

permitting rules submitted for the Placer 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(PCAPCD) and Feather River Air Quality 

Management District (FRAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). The districts are required 

under Part D of title I of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) to adopt and implement a 

SIP-approved New Source Review 

(NSR) permit program. These rules 

update and revise the District’s NSR 

permitting program for new and 

modified sources of air pollution. If EPA 

finalizes the limited approval and 

limited disapproval action, as proposed, 

then a sanctions clock would be 

triggered. We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

June 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0461, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http:// 

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 e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under EPA–R09–OAR– 

2011–0461. 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 are listed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28945 

1While the District uses the term BACT as the 

level of control required, a review of the definition 

has shown that it is equivalent to the requirements 

for federal LAER. 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), 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: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3534, yannayon.laura@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 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal, including the date it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule 

No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

PCAPCD ....................................... 502 New Source Review ............................................................................ 10/28/10 7/20/10 

FRAQMD ....................................... 10.1 New Source Review ............................................................................ 10/5/09 7/20/10 

On August 25, 2010, EPA determined 

that the submittal for PCAPCD Rule 502 

and FRAQMD Rule 10.1, met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 502 in the SIP, but SIP approved 

Rule 508 (New Source Review), which 

this rule will replace in the SIP, was 

approved into the Mountain Counties 

and Lake Tahoe air basin portions of the 

Placer County SIP, on June 23, 1982 (47 

FR 27065) and May 18, 1981 (46 FR 

27115), respectively. The PCAPCD 

originally adopted new Rule 502 on 

May 24, 1977 and has revised the rule 

several times since that date, but there 

are no other pending SIP submittals of 

Rule 502. 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 10.1 in the SIP. The FRAQMD 

originally adopted new Rule 10.1 on 

February 8, 1993, and submitted the 

rule to EPA on March 23, 1993, however 

EPA has not taken action on this 

submittal. While we can act on only the 

most recently submitted version, we 

have reviewed materials provided with 

the previous submittal. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that include 

a pre-construction permit program for 

certain new or modified stationary 

sources of pollutants, including a permit 

program as required by Part D of Title 

I of the CAA. 

The purpose of Rule 502 (New Source 

Review) and Rule 10.1 (New Source 

Review) is to implement a federal 

preconstruction permit program for new 

and modified sources located in 

nonattainment areas. Rule 502 will 

replace the existing SIP approved NSR 

programs contained in Rule 508, as 

approved for the Mountain Counties 

and Lake Tahoe air basin potions of 

Placer County. These versions of Rule 

508 were approved into the SIP in 1981 

and 1982 respectively. Rather than try to 

update these rules, the District has 

instead adopted an entirely new rule to 

carry out the NSR program—Rule 502. 

Rule 10.1 will be a new SIP rule. In 

accordance with both District’s May 5, 

2010 (75 FR 24409) reclassification as a 

severe ozone nonattainment area, the 

rules establish BACT1 and offset 

applicability thresholds at 25 tpy or 

more, and sets the required offset ratio 

at 1.3 to 1, or greater. The rules do not 

contain any of the 2002 NSR Reform 

provisions adopted by EPA. (67 FR 

80186) 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

The relevant statutory provisions for 

our review of the submitted rules 

include Part D of Title I of the CAA, 

section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(l) and 

section 182(d). Section 110(a) requires a 

pre-construction permit programs for 

certain new or modified stationary 

sources of pollutants, including a permit 

program as required by Part D of Title 

I, while section 110(l) precludes EPA 

approval of SIP revisions that would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. 

Section 182(d) (together with section 

182(f) for NOX), requires NSR SIPs in 

‘‘severe’’ nonattainment areas to define 

‘‘major sources’’ and ‘‘major 

modifications’’ to be sources that emit 

25 tpy or more of VOC or NOX, and have 

an offset ratio of at least 1.3 to 1. In 

addition, we have reviewed the 

submitted rules for compliance with 

EPA implementing regulations for NSR, 

including 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 

CFR 51.165. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

EPA has reviewed the submitted rules 

in accordance with the Rule Evaluation 

criteria described above. The TSDs (one 

for each District) for this action contain 

a complete discussion of our evaluation. 

EPA is proposing to find that these rules 

meet the statutory requirements for SIPs 

as specified in sections 110(a), 110(l), 

182(d) and 193 of the CAA. In addition, 

except for the deficiencies noted in the 

TSDs and summarized in the Proposed 

Action section of this notice, we are 

proposing to find that the rules meet the 

regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 

51.160 through 40 CFR 51.165. EPA is 

proposing to find that it is acceptable for 

PCAPCD and FRAQMD to not 

incorporate the NSR Reform provisions 

of 40 CFR 51.165 into their SIP 

approved NSR programs, because the 

same level of control will be required 

for modified sources, with or without 

inclusion of these provisions in the SIP, 

and neither of the PCAPCD and 

FRAQMD programs will be any less 

stringent than the federal program. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

28946 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

C. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

For the reasons given above, under 

CAA section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), we 

are proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Rule 502 and 

Rule 10.1 because, although each rule 

would strengthen the SIP and they meet 

the applicable requirements for SIPs in 

general, they contain certain 

deficiencies related to NSR SIPs in 

particular that prevent our full approval. 

The primary deficiencies pertain to 

missing definitions and missing 

provisions pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(5)(ii) and 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2). 

Please refer to the TSD for this action for 

additional information. The deficiencies 

can be remedied by each District by 

revising their rule to provide the 

missing definitions, and necessary 

provisions pursuant to the 40 CFR part 

51 sections cited above. If EPA finalizes 

the limited approval and limited 

disapproval action, as proposed, then a 

sanctions clock, and EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate a Federal implementation 

plan, would be triggered because the 

revisions to the District rule for which 

a limited approval and limited 

disapproval is proposed is required 

under the 8-hour ozone standard. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final action that 

will incorporate these rules into the 

federally enforceable SIP. 

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.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 13, 2011. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12445 Filed 5–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 11–74, RM–11630; DA 11– 

746] 

Television Broadcasting Services; El 

Paso, TX 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by NPG 

of Texas, LP (‘‘NPG’’), licensee of station 

KVIA–TV, El Paso, Texas, requesting the 

substitution of channel 17 for channel 7 

at El Paso. NPG states that the proposed 

channel substitution will serve the 

public interest by significantly 

improving the public’s digital signal 

reception from KVIA–TV. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before June 20, 2011, and reply 

comments on or before July 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve counsel for petitioner as follows: 

Robert Lewis Thompson, Esq., 

Smithwick & Belendiuk, PC, 5028 

Wisconsin Ave., NW, #301, Washington, 

DC 20016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrienne Y. Denysyk, 

adrienne.denysyk@fcc.gov, Media 

Bureau, (202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

11–74, adopted April 26, 2011, and 

released April 27, 2011. The full text of 

this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 

800–478–3160 or via e-mail http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and braille), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS