16696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

that although the determinations made 

in this Final Rule are effective May 24, 

2011, regional Reliability Standard IRO– 

006–WECC–1 approved in this Final 

Rule will not become effective until the 

first day of the first quarter after 

applicable regulatory approval. The 

Commission has determined, with the 

concurrence of the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined in section 351 of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 

By the Commission. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7040 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0794; FRL–9279–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions were proposed in the Federal 

Register on November 5, 2010 and 

concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 

carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of sulfur 

(SO2) and particulate matter emissions 

from boilers, steam generators and 

process heaters greater than 5.0 MMbtu/ 

hour. We are approving a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on April 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0794 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http:// 

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 in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3284, perez.idalia@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 November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68294), 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

rule into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ................................. 4320 Advance Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters greater than 5.0 MMbtu/hr.10/16/08 03/17/09 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule 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 comments from 

Paul Cort, Earthjustice; letter dated 

December 6, 2010 and received 

December 6, 2010. The comments and 

our responses are summarized below. 

Comment #1: Earthjustice supported 

EPA’s proposed approval of Rule 4320 

and EPA’s assertion that the fee 

provisions in the rule fail to comply 

with EPA policy on economic incentive 

programs. 

Response #1: No response needed. 

Comment #2: Earthjustice asked EPA 

to clarify that no emission reduction 

credit is appropriate for Rule 4320 until 

SJVAPCD submits additional 

documentation, subject to public review 

and comment, including documentation 

demonstrating permanent, enforceable, 

surplus and quantifiable CO and NOX

reductions associated with fees paid in 

lieu of direct control of these and 

documentation demonstrating the PM 

reductions associated with SO2 controls. 

Response #2: The discussion of SIP 

credits in our TSD and proposal was 

included for information only and does 

not affect our action on Rule 4320. Our 

proposed approval of Rule 4320 relied 

largely on a finding that the rule 

improved the SIP, and not on if or how 

many emission reductions the rule 

provides. Comments on whether 

SJVAPCD ensures adequate emission 

reductions are more appropriate to 

action on plans. When EPA approves a 

plan, we are effectively approving the 

emission reduction assumptions for 

specific rules that it is based on. 

Proposed rulemaking on a plan is 

subject to notice and comment and 

would be the appropriate forum to raise 

issues on whether reductions from 

specific rules should be credited to the 

SIP. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rule complies with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, EPA is fully approving this rule 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 16697 

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 May 24, 2011. 

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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 15, 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 paragraph (c)(363)(i)(A)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(363) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(7) Rule 4320, ‘‘Advance Emission 

Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam 

Generators and Process Heaters greater 

than 5.0 MMbtu/hr,’’ adopted on 

October 16, 2008. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–7090 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 170 

[USCG–2007–0030] 

RIN 1625–AB20 

Passenger Weight and Inspected 

Vessel Stability Requirements; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Correcting Amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is correcting 

a final rule that appeared in the Federal 

Register on December 14, 2010. That 

rule amended Coast Guard regulations 

governing the maximum weight and 

number of passengers that may safely be 

permitted on board a vessel and other 

stability regulations, including 

increasing the Assumed Average Weight 

per Person (AAWPP) to 185 lb. The rule 

also improved and updated intact 

stability and subdivision and damage 

stability regulations. 

DATES: These changes are effective April 

25, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this amendment, 

contact Mr. William Peters, U.S. Coast 

Guard, Office of Design and Engineering 

Standards, Naval Architecture Division 

(CG–5212), telephone 202–372–1371. If 

you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose 

The Coast Guard is correcting a final 

rule that appeared in the Federal 

Register on December 14, 2010 (75 FR 

78064). That rule, among other things, 

added new definitions of ‘‘Assumed 

average weight per person’’, 

‘‘Constructed’’, and ‘‘Lightweight’’ to 46 

CFR 170.055. The definition of ‘‘Length’’ 

in that section was left unchanged 

except that it was redesignated to a 

different paragraph. Due to a clerical 

error, however, the amendatory 

instructions in the rule would result in 

two redundant definitions of 

‘‘Lightweight’’ and the elimination of a 

definition of ‘‘Length’’ in § 170.055. This 

correction remedies that error by 

removing the second occurrence of a 

definition of ‘‘Lightweight’’ and restoring 

the definition of ‘‘Length’’ in that 

section. This correction also revises an 

incorrect internet address in 46 CFR 

170.090(g). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES