25384 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

on how to use Regulations.gov, click on 

the site’s Help or FAQ tabs. 

All posted comments will display the 

commenter’s name, organization (if 

any), city, and State, and, in the case of 

mailed comments, all address 

information, including email addresses. 

We may omit voluminous attachments 

or material that we consider unsuitable 

for posting. 

You also may view copies of this 

notice, the related petitions, any other 

supporting materials, and any electronic 

or mailed comments we receive about 

this proposal by appointment at the TTB 

Information Resource Center, 1310 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You 

may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 

8.5- × 11-inch page. Contact our 

information specialist at the above 

address or by telephone at 202–453– 

2270 to schedule an appointment or to 

request copies of comments or other 

materials. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this proposed 

amendment, if adopted, would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed amendment only amends 

the standards of identity for rum at 

27 CFR 5.22(f) and does not impose any 

new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Therefore, 

no regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

Executive Order 12866 

It has been determined that this notice 

of proposed rulemaking is not a 

significant regulatory action as defined 

in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a 

regulatory assessment is not required. 

Drafting Information 

Christopher M. Thiemann of the 

Regulations and Rulings Division 

prepared this notice. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 5 

Advertising, Consumer protection, 

Customs duties and inspection, Imports, 

Labeling, Liquors, and Packaging and 

containers. 

The Proposed Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, TTB proposes to amend 

27 CFR part 5, as follows: 

PART 5—LABELING AND 

ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS 

1. The authority citation for part 5 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5301, 7805, 27 U.S.C. 

205. 

2. Section 5.22 is amended by revising 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 5.22 The standards of identity. 

* * * * * 

(f) Class 6; rum. ‘‘Rum’’ is an 

alcoholic distillate from the fermented 

juice of sugar cane, sugar cane syrup, 

sugar cane molasses, or other sugar cane 

by-products, produced at less than 190° 

proof in such manner that the distillate 

possesses the taste, aroma, and 

characteristics generally attributed to 

rum, and bottled at not less than 80° 

proof; and also includes mixtures solely 

of such distillates. 

(1) ‘‘Cachac ̧a’’ is a type of rum that is 

a distinctive product of Brazil, 

manufactured in Brazil in compliance 

with the laws of Brazil regulating the 

manufacture of Cachac ̧a for 

consumption in that country. The word 

‘‘Cachac ̧a’’ may be spelled with or 

without the diacritic mark (i.e., 

‘‘Cachac ̧a’’ or ‘‘Cachaca’’). 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

Signed: April 9, 2012. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: April 11, 2012. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2012–10332 Filed 4–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0267; FRL–9665–6] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from wine 

storage. We are approving a local rule 

that regulates these emission sources 

under the Clean Air Act as amended in 

1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

May 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number [DOCKET 

NUMBER], 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. 

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: Lily 

Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4114, 

wong.lily@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 25385 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the date that 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 Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ............... 4694 Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks .................................. 12/15/05 11/18/11 

On December 22, 2011, EPA 

determined that the November 18, 2011 

submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4694 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 this rule? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 4694 in the SIP. CARB originally 

submitted Rule 4694 to EPA on June 16, 

2006, and EPA will refer to that version 

of the rule as the ‘‘originally submitted 

Rule 4694.’’ While we can act on only 

the most recently submitted version, we 

have reviewed materials provided with 

previous submittals. 

On August 18, 2011, SJVUAPCD 

adopted Resolution No. 11–08–20 in 

which the Governing Board approved 

‘‘* * * an amendment to its earlier SIP 

submittal of Rule 4694 (Wine 

Fermentation and Storage Tanks), as set 

forth in the strike-out version of the 

Rule, attached hereto and incorporated 

herein by this reference.’’ The 

Resolution also stated that the strike-out 

text represents SJVUAPCD’s withdrawal 

of those provisions for consideration by 

EPA for SIP approval. This revised SIP 

submittal of Rule 4694 was submitted to 

EPA from CARB on November 18, 2011, 

and will be referred to in this notice as 

the ‘‘amended submittal of Rule 4694.’’ 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. The amended submittal of 

Rule 4694 applies to wineries that store 

fermented wine in bulk containers (i.e., 

storage tanks), and requires that the 

stored wine be maintained at or below 

75 degrees Fahrenheit and the storage 

tanks to be equipped with pressurevacuum relief valves. EPA’s technical 

support document (TSD) has more 

information about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source in 

nonattainment areas (see sections 

182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The SJVUAPCD 

regulates an ozone nonattainment area 

(see 40 CFR part 81). Because Rule 4694 

regulates major sources, Rule 4694 must 

fulfill RACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACT requirements consistently 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

3. State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 

relaxations. SJVUAPCD evaluated RACT 

for emissions from wine fermentation 

and storage. 

While EPA has not developed a CTG 

document for wine fermentation and 

storage, this category includes sources 

that emit more than 10 tons per year of 

VOCs (i.e., major sources). 

Consequently, Rule 4694 must fulfill 

RACT. 

SJVUAPCD evaluated six technologies 

for controlling emissions from wine 

fermentation and wine storage. 

SJVUAPCD concluded that while the 

control technologies were 

technologically feasible, they were not 

demonstrated to be economically 

feasible at this time. Furthermore, 

SJVUAPCD determined that there are no 

control technologies currently achieved 

in practice in this source category. 

Consequently, SJVUAPCD concluded 

that there are no reasonably available 

control technologies for wine 

fermentation and wine storage. 

EPA agrees with SJVUAPCD’s 

conclusion that emission controls have 

not been demonstrated in practice for 

wine fermentation emissions on the 

scale of the affected facilities. Therefore 

EPA agrees that RACT for wine 

fermentation emissions at this time is no 

controls. 

For wine storage emissions, 

SJVUAPCD concluded that the six 

control technologies as well as the use 

of pressure-vacuum relief valves and 

temperature control was not cost 

effective and that RACT for wine storage 

is also no controls. We note however 

that the amended submittal of Rule 4694 

requires pressure-vacuum relief valves 

and temperature control, and EPA is not 

aware of reasonably available control 

technology that might be beyond this 

control technology. EPA therefore 

concludes that the amended submittal 

of Rule 4694 meets or exceeds RACT for 

emissions from wine storage. The TSD 

has more information on our evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule 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 approval 

action that will incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

On January 10, 2012, EPA partially 

approved and partially disapproved the 

RACT SIP submitted by California on 

June 18, 2009 for the SJV extreme ozone 

nonattainment area (2009 RACT SIP), 

based in part on our conclusion that the 

State had not fully satisfied CAA section 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

182 RACT requirements for wine 

fermentation and storage tank 

operations. See 77 FR 1417, 1425 

(January 10, 2012). Final approval of 

Rule 4694 would satisfy California’s 

obligation to implement RACT under 

CAA section 182 for this source category 

for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

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 proposed action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed 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 proposed action 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 13, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10202 Filed 4–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket No. 10–23; FCC 12–34] 

Tank Level Probing Radars 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

expand the scope of this proceeding to 

propose a set of technical rules for the 

operation of unlicensed level probing 

radars (LPR) in several frequency bands. 

LPR devices are low-power radars that 

measure the level (relative height) of 

various substances in man-made or 

natural containments. In open-air 

environments, LPR devices may be used 

to measure levels of materials such as 

coal piles or water basin levels. An LPR 

device also may be installed inside an 

enclosure, e.g., a tank made of materials 

such as steel or fiberglass and 

commonly referred to as a tank level 

probing radar (TLPR) that could be 

filled with liquids or granulates. During 

the pendency of the rulemaking 

proceeding, but outside this proceeding, 

the Commission received waiver 

requests and other inquiries regarding 

outdoor use on additional frequencies 

under existing rules for unlicensed 

devices. To address the apparent need 

for a comprehensive and consistent 

approach to LPR devices, the 

Commission is proposing in this 

FNPRM rules that would apply to the 

operation of LPR devices installed in 

both open-air environments and inside 

storage tanks in the following frequency 

bands: 5.925–7.250 GHz, 24.05–29.00 

GHz, and 75–85 GHz. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before May 30, 2012, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

June 29, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anh 

Wride, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–0577, email: 

Anh.Wride@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418– 

2989. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by [docket number and/or 

rulemaking number], by any of the 

following methods: 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Mail: Anh Wride, Office of 

Engineering and Technology, Room 7– 

A363, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

D People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET 

Docket No. 10–23, FCC 12–34, adopted 

March 26, 2012, and released March 27, 

2012. The full text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The complete text of this 

document also may be purchased from 

the Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street 

SW., Room, CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554. The full text may also be 

downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. 

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS