64036 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

intersection of the line with the R24E 

and R25E common line at the northwest 

corner of section 36, T21N/R24E; then 

(4) Proceed south along the R24E and 

R25E common line for approximately 

22.5 miles, over the Winchester and 

Winchester SW maps, onto the Royal 

City map, passing over the West Canal 

and into the Frenchman Hills, to the 

southwest corner of section 12, T17N/ 

R24E (concurrent with the intersection 

of the R24E and R25E common line and 

a single transmission line); then 

(5) Proceed west in a straight line 

along the section boundaries (marked 

for 3 sections by the single transmission 

line) for approximately 4 miles, onto the 

Beverly NE map, to the southwest 

corner of section 9, T17N/R24E; then 

(6) Proceed north in a straight line 

along the section boundary for 

approximately 1 mile to the northwest 

corner of section 9, T17N/R24E; then 

(7) Proceed west in a straight line 

along the section boundaries for 

approximately 7.9 miles, onto the 

Vantage map, crossing over Interstate 

Route 90 and Columbia River, to the 

western shoreline of the Columbia 

River, at Hole in the Wall in Kittitas 

County, section 6, T17N/R23E; and then 

(8) Proceed north along the western 

shoreline of the meandering Columbia 

River for approximately 23.3 miles, 

crossing over the Ginkgo and Cape Horn 

SE maps, and onto the West Bar map, 

returning to the beginning point. 

Signed: September 18, 2012. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: September 27, 2012. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2012–25639 Filed 10–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[USCG–2012–0909] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Long Island, New York Inland 

Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to 

Shinnecock Canal, Hempstead, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulation governing 

the operation of the Wantagh State 

Parkway Bridge across the Sloop 

Channel, mile 15.4, at Jones Beach, New 

York. The deviation is necessary to 

install bascule girders at the bridge. This 

deviation allows the bridge to remain in 

the closed position. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

October 8, 2012 through November 16, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2012– 

0909 and are available online at 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2012–0909 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ and then 

clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are also 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project 

Officer, First Coast Guard District, 

judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil, telephone 

(212) 668–7165. If you have questions 

on viewing the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Wantagh State Parkway Bridge has a 

vertical clearance in the closed position 

of 20 feet at mean high water and 23 feet 

at mean low water. The existing 

drawbridge operation regulations are 

listed at 33 CFR 117.5. 

The New York Department of 

Transportation requested a temporary 

deviation to facilitate installation and 

painting of bascule girders at the bridge. 

The waterway has seasonal 

recreational vessels and fishing vessels 

of various sizes. We contacted the New 

York Marine Trades Association and no 

objections were received. 

We did not receive 30-days advance 

notice for this temporary deviation; 

however, the Coast Guard is approving 

this temporary deviation because this 

girder installation and painting must be 

performed during mild climate 

conditions to facilitate the painting 

operations and allow the new bridge 

construction to continue on schedule. 

Additional notice to the public will be 

provided in the Local Notice to 

Mariners and via a broadcast notice to 

mariners. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

Wantagh State Parkway Bridge at mile 

15.4, across Sloop Channel, shall 

operate between October 8, 2012 and 

November 16, 2012, as follows: 

Monday through Friday the bridge 

may remain closed to vessel traffic from 

6:30 a.m. through 12 p.m. and from 

12:15 p.m. through 5 p.m. 

Saturday and Sunday the bridge shall 

open on signal between 7:30 a.m. and 

8:30 p.m. after at least a thirty minute 

advance notice is given by calling the 

number posted at the bridge. 

At all other times the bridge shall 

open on signal after at least a thirty 

minute advance notice is given by 

calling the number posted at the bridge. 

Vessels that can pass under the bridge 

during the closed periods without a 

bridge opening may do so at all times. 

There are no alternate routes for vessel 

traffic. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the bridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: October 5, 2012. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25542 Filed 10–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0372; FRL–9741–8] 

Determination of Attainment of the 

1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards in the Sacramento 

Metro Nonattainment Area in California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the 

Sacramento Metro 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (Sacramento Metro 

Area) has attained the revoked National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (1-hour 

ozone NAAQS or standard), and to 

exclude certain 2008 data caused by 

wildfire exceptional events. These air 

quality determinations were proposed 

in conjunction with a proposed 

determination to terminate the State of 

California’s obligations regarding 1-hour 

ozone section 185 fee program SIP 

provisions for the Sacramento Metro 

Area. In this notice, EPA is finalizing 

only that portion of its notice of 

proposed rulemaking that determines 

that the Sacramento Metro Area has 

attained the 1-hour ozone standard, and 

that excludes certain exceedances as 

caused by ozone exceptional events. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64037 

1EPA proposed that the area continued in 

attainment based on complete, quality-assured data 

for 2010. 2On the same day that EPA’s proposal was 

published in the Federal Register, EPA published 

a separate interim final determination ‘‘to defer 

CAA section 179 sanctions associated with the 

Sacramento Metro Area’s 1-hour Ozone CAA 

section 185 obligation based on our concurrent 

proposal to approve a CAA section 185 termination 

determination which would remove the obligation 

of the state to submit a section 185 SIP when 

finalized.’’ May 18, 2011, 76 FR 28661. 

3Preliminary data on the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) Web site show a single exceedance 

(0.128 ppm) of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on August 

13, 2012 at the Sloughhouse Road monitoring site. 

Since there were no exceedances at this site in 2010 

or 2011, this one exceedances in 2012 would not 

by itself constitute a violation of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the period 2010–2012. 

These air quality determinations were 

addressed separately in the proposed 

rulemaking and are severable from the 

other issues that relate to termination of 

section 185 1-hour ozone requirements. 

EPA is not at this time taking final 

action on other aspects of our notice of 

proposed rulemaking that address 

termination of 1-hour ozone section 185 

fee requirements. EPA intends to 

address any other issues relating to 

Sacramento Metro Area 1-hour ozone 

section 185 requirements, and their 

termination, in a separate future 

rulemaking. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

November 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0372 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 in the docket 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, multivolume reports), and some may not be 

available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(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: John 

J. Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4151, 

kelly.johnj@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. EPA’s Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. EPA’s Proposed Action 

On May 18, 2011 (76 FR 28696), EPA 

proposed to determine that the 

Sacramento Metro Area attained the 1- 

hour ozone standard in 2009 based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the 2007–2009 monitoring period, 

excluding exceedances of the 1-hour 

ozone standard that occurred due to 

wildfire exceptional events in 2008.1 In 

making its proposed determination, EPA 

proposed to exclude from use certain air 

quality monitoring data for 2008, 

because they meet the criteria for ozone 

exceptional events that are caused by 

wildfires. These air quality 

determinations were addressed 

separately in the proposal and are 

severable from the other issues and 

criteria in the May 18, 2011 notice of 

proposed rulemaking that relate to 

termination of section 185 1-hour ozone 

requirements. 

EPA further proposed to determine 

that the State of California is no longer 

required to submit or implement section 

185 fee program State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) provisions for the Sacramento 

Metro Area to satisfy anti-backsliding 

requirements for the revoked 1-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (1-hour ozone NAAQS or 

standard).2 EPA’s proposal to terminate 

the section 185 fee requirements for the 

area identified certain criteria—(1) 

whether the area attained and (2) that 

any such attainment was due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions—on which to base 

termination, and addressed each of 

these separately. With respect to the 

criterion of attainment of the 1-hour 

standard, in a section titled, ‘‘1-Hour 

Ozone Attainment’’ EPA stated: 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

Sacramento Metro Area has attained the 1- 

hour ozone standard; that is, the number of 

expected exceedances at any site in the 

nonattainment area is not greater than one 

per year. [internal citation deleted] This 

proposed determination is based on three 

years of complete, quality-assured and 

certified ambient air quality monitoring data 

in AQS showing attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard for the 2007–2009 monitoring 

period, and complete, quality-assured data in 

AQS for 2008–2010 that show continued 

attainment. As explained below, in 

determining the area’s attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard, EPA is also proposing 

to exclude from consideration exceedances 

that occurred on three days in 2008, because 

they are due to wildfire exceptional events. 

May 18, 2011, 76 FR 28700. 

The May 18, 2011 proposal presented 

monitoring data for the Sacramento 

Metro Area for 2007–2009, along with 

EPA’s explication that showed the area 

attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and 

continued to attain through 2010. Table 

1 shows that the Sacramento Metro Area 

has continued to attain the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS since that time, based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

data for 2008–2010, 2009–2011 and 

preliminary data available for 2010– 

2012.3

TABLE 1—1-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SACRAMENTO METRO 1-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA a

Site (monitor ID) 

Expected exceedances 

by year 

Expected exceedances 

3-yr average 

2008 b 2009 2010 2011 2008–2010 2009–2011 

Placerville (06–017–0010) ............................................................................... 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0

Echo Summit (06–017–0012) .......................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Cool (06–017–0020) ........................................................................................ 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 

Auburn (06–061–0002) .................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Colfax (06–061–0004) ..................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Roseville (06–061–0006) ................................................................................. 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0

North Highlands (06–067–0002) ...................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06–067–0006) ................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sacramento-T Street (06–067–0010) .............................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Elk Grove (06–067–0011) ................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Folsom (06–067–0012) .................................................................................... b 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 

Sacramento-Airport Road c (06–067–0013) ..................................................... 0.0 NA NA NA NA NA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

64038 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4This includes EPA’s determination with respect 

to the 2008 exceedances caused by wildfire 

exceptional events. 

TABLE 1—1-HOUR OZONE DATA FOR THE SACRAMENTO METRO 1-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA a—Continued 

Site (monitor ID) 

Expected exceedances 

by year 

Expected exceedances 

3-yr average 

2008 b 2009 2010 2011 2008–2010 2009–2011 

Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06–067–0014) ............................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sloughhouse Rd. (06–067–5003) .................................................................... 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 

Vacaville (06–095–3003) ................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Davis (06–113–0004) ....................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Woodland (06–113–1003) ............................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Source: Quicklook Report, August 20, 2012 (in the docket to this action). 

a 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H—Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.

b Data shown exclude exceedances on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008 due to exceptional events. 

cThe Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland Court site in August 2008. 

NA—Data are not available. 

Two other issues in the May 18, 2011 

notice were addressed separately: (1) 

Whether, separate from determining 

whether the area attained the standard 

based on monitored air quality data, 

EPA could determine that such 

attainment was due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions; and 

(2) whether EPA’s proposed 

determinations regarding attainment 

and permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions could support 

termination of the area’s 1-hour ozone 

section 185 anti-backsliding 

requirements. 

II. Public Comments 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, the following parties submitted 

comments: 

1. Paul Cort, Earthjustice, submitted 

on behalf of Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC); letter dated June 16, 

2011. 

2. Tim Shesteck, American Chemistry 

Council (ACC); letter dated June 17, 

2011. 

3. Zachary L. Craft, Baker Botts, LLP; 

letter dated June 17, 2011. 

4. Catherine H. Reheis-Boyd, Western 

States Petroleum Association (WSPA); 

letter dated June 17, 2011. 

5. Leslie Sue Ritts, The National 

Environmental Development 

Association’s Clean Air Project (NEDA– 

CAP); letter dated June 18, 2011. 

No adverse comments were directed 

at EPA’s proposal to determine, based 

on complete, quality-assured air quality 

data, that the Sacramento Metro Area 

has attained the 1-hour ozone standard. 

Similarly, no adverse comments were 

directed at EPA’s proposal to exclude 

certain monitored exceedances in 2008 

as due to exceptional events. 

NRDC submitted adverse comments 

relating to EPA’s proposal to terminate 

1-hour ozone section 185 requirements 

for the area, and set forth NRDC’s 

contentions regarding additional criteria 

and legal bases for termination. No 

comments disputed EPA’s proposed 

determination that the area has attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard. No adverse 

comments address the component of 

EPA’s notice of proposed rulemaking 

that is the sole subject of today’s final 

action—EPA’s determination that the 

area has attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard based on monitored air quality 

since 2009, including the determination 

to exclude certain monitored 

exceedances in 2008 as due to 

exceptional wildfire events. 

As noted above, EPA intends to 

address in separate rulemaking the 

subject of NRDC’s comments—EPA’s 

proposed termination of the Sacramento 

Metro 1-hour ozone section 185 

requirements, and criteria for 

termination other than monitored 

attainment. 

EPA is acting today to finalize only 

that portion of the proposal that 

determines, based on air quality 

monitoring data, that the area has 

attained the 1-hour ozone standard, 

including determining that three 

exceedances in 2008 are excluded from 

consideration because they were caused 

by exceptional wildfire events. This 

notice is not intended to address, and 

does not finalize, any other portion of 

EPA’s proposal related to termination of 

1-hour ozone section 185 antibacksliding requirements in the 

Sacramento Metro Area. As set forth 

above, EPA intends to address these 

issues in separate, future rulemaking. 

III. EPA Action 

EPA is determining that the 

Sacramento Metro 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area has attained the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS based on complete, 

quality-assured, and certified ambient 

air quality monitoring data. Since 2009, 

and continuing through 2010 and 2011, 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

air quality data show continuous 

attainment. Preliminary data available 

for 2012 are consistent with continued 

attainment. EPA is also finalizing its 

determination to exclude from use, in 

determining the area has attained the 1- 

hour ozone standard, certain air quality 

monitoring data for 2008, because they 

meet the criteria for ozone exceptional 

events that are caused by wildfires. 

These air quality determinations were 

addressed separately and are severable 

from the other issues and criteria in the 

May 18, 2011 notice of proposed 

rulemaking that relate to termination of 

section 185 1-hour ozone requirements. 

Apart from EPA’s determination of 

attainment based on air quality,4 EPA is 

not in this notice taking final action on 

any other aspects of its proposed 

determination to terminate the 1-hour 

ozone section 185 fee program 

requirements for the Sacramento Metro 

Area. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action makes a determination 

based on air quality data 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); 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64039 

• 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 December 17, 

2012. 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, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 3, 2012. 

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 52.282 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 52.282 Control strategy and regulations: 

Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(f) Determination of attainment. EPA 

has determined that, as of November 19, 

2012, the Sacramento Metro 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area has attained 

the 1-hour ozone standard, based upon 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

2007–2009. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25547 Filed 10–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0566; FRL–9740–3] 

Limited Approval and Disapproval of 

Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

Nevada; Clark County; Stationary 

Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the Clark County portion of 

the applicable state implementation 

plan (SIP) for the State of Nevada. The 

submitted revisions include new and 

amended rules governing the issuance 

of permits for stationary sources, 

including review and permitting of 

major sources and major modifications 

under parts C and D of title I of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). The effect of this 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval action is to update the 

applicable SIP with current Clark 

County permitting rules and to set the 

stage for remedying certain deficiencies 

in these rules. This limited disapproval 

action triggers an obligation on EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan unless the State of Nevada corrects 

the deficiencies, and EPA approves the 

related plan revisions, within two years 

of the final action, and for certain 

deficiencies the limited disapproval also 

triggers sanctions under section 179 of 

the CAA unless the State of Nevada 

submits (on behalf of Clark County) and 

we approve SIP revisions that correct 

the deficiencies within 18 months of 

final action. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on November 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0566 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action 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), and some 

may not be publicly available at 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, 75 

Hawthorne Street (AIR–3), San 

Francisco, CA 94105, phone number 

(415) 972–3534, fax number (415) 947– 

3579, or by email at yannayon.laura@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

II. Public Comment on Proposed Action 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

On July 24, 2012 (77 FR 43206), EPA 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of revisions to the Clark 

County portion of the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

submittals included new and amended 

regulations governing the issuance of 

permits for stationary sources under the 

jurisdiction of the Clark County 

Department of Air Quality (Clark or 

DAQ), including review and permitting 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES