Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 43183 

and its legislative history call for the 

Administrator to find the rule to be of 

‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ and for 

venue to be in the District of Columbia 

Circuit. 

Thus, any petitions for review of this 

action related to a finding of failure to 

submit SIPs related to the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA 

must be filed in the Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit within 

60 days from the date final action is 

published in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 1, 2011. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17738 Filed 7–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0460; FRL–9438–6] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing both an 

approval and a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of permitting rules 

submitted for the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD or District) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions were 

proposed in the Federal Register on 

May 19, 2011 and concern New Source 

Review (NSR) and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

programs for new and modified major 

stationary sources of air pollution. We 

are approving local rules that regulate 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on August 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0460 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 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 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. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 28942), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rule 

that was submitted for incorporation 

into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SMAQMD .......... 203 Prevention of Significant Deterioration ......................................................... 1/27/11 1/28/11 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the applicable CAA requirements. 

Our proposed rule and related 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

contain more information on the basis 

for this rulemaking and on our 

evaluation of the submittal. 

On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 28942), EPA 

also proposed a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the following 

rule that was submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SMAQMD .......... 214 Federal New Source Review ....................................................................... 10/28/10 12/07/10 

We proposed a limited approval 

because we determined that this rule 

improves the SIP and is largely 

consistent with the applicable CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously 

proposed a limited disapproval because 

some rule provisions do not satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the CAA. 

Specifically: 

• The rule is missing definitions for 

the terms ‘‘begin actual construction,’’ 

‘‘federally enforceable’’ and ‘‘necessary 

preconstruction approvals or permits.’’ 

• The rule is missing adequate public 

notice requirements for minor sources. 

• The rule is missing provisions 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 

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

• The rule contains a cross reference 

to Rule 207—Title V—Federal Operating 

Permit Program, which is not SIP 

approved. 

Our proposed rule and related TSD 

contain more information on the basis 

for this rulemaking and on our 

evaluation of the submittal. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted SMAQMD Rule 203 complies 

with the applicable CAA requirements. 

Therefore, under CAA section 110(k)(3) 

and for the reasons set forth in our May 

19, 2011 proposed rule, we are 

finalizing a full approval of Rule 203. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
43184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Additionally, no comments were 

submitted that change our basis for 

proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of submitted 

SMAQMD Rule 214. Therefore, under 

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

are finalizing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Rule 214. We are 

finalizing a limited approval of the 

submitted rule because we continue to 

believe that the rule improves the SIP 

and is largely consistent with relevant 

CAA requirements. This action 

incorporates the submitted rule into the 

District portion of the California SIP, 

including those provisions identified as 

deficient. As authorized under sections 

110(k)(3) and 301(a), EPA is 

simultaneously finalizing a limited 

disapproval of Rule 214. As a result, 

sanctions will be imposed unless EPA 

approves subsequent SIP revisions that 

correct the rule deficiencies within 18 

months of the effective date of this 

action. These sanctions will be imposed 

under section 179 of the Act according 

to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless 

we approve subsequent SIP revisions 

that correct the rule deficiencies within 

24 months. Note that the submitted rule 

has been adopted by the SMAQMD, and 

EPA’s final limited disapproval does not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. The limited disapproval also does not 

prevent any portion of the rule from 

being incorporated by reference into the 

federally enforceable SIP, as discussed 

in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/ 

pdf/memo-s.pdf. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals and 

limited approvals/limited disapprovals 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any 

new requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because this 

limited approval/limited disapproval 

action does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

promulgated does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action approves pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 43185 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 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 rule 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. section 804(2). This 

rule will be effective on August 19, 

2011. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 September 19, 

2011. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule 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 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: June 30, 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 paragraphs (c)(389) and (390) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(389) New and amended regulations 

were submitted on December 7, 2010, by 

the Governor’s Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by Reference. 

(A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District. 

(1) Rule 214, ‘‘Federal New Source 

Review,’’ as adopted on October 28, 

2010. 

(390) Amended regulations were 

submitted on January 28, 2011, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by Reference. 

(A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District. 

(1) Rule 203, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration,’’ as amended 

on January 27, 2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–18152 Filed 7–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 55 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0140; FRL- 9434–5 ] 

Outer Continental Shelf Air 

Regulations Consistency Update for 

Virginia 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve an update to a portion 

of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air 

Regulations. Requirements applying to 

OCS sources located within 25 miles of 

a State’s seaward boundary must be 

updated periodically to maintain 

continuity and ensure consistency with 

the regulations of the corresponding 

onshore area (COA), as mandated by the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

(CAA). The specific portion of the OCS 

air regulation that is being updated 

pertains to the requirements for OCS 

sources in the Commonwealth of 

Virginia (Virginia). The intended effect 

of approving the OCS requirements for 

Virginia is to regulate emissions from 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES