30896 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

additions as specified in Regulation 3, 

Part A, Section VI.D.1. 

Minor grammatical revisions made 

throughout the revisions, as identified 

above, are also being proposed for 

approval. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. 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 (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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by Reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 19, 2011. 

Carol Rushin, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13272 Filed 5–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0416; FRL–9312–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and oxides of 

sulfur (SOX) emissions from facilities 

emitting 4 tons or more per year of NOX

or SOX in the year 1990 or any 

subsequent year under the SCAQMD’s 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 

(RECLAIM) program. 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 

June 27, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0416, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: 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 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are 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 at 

http://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. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 30897 

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 revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

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 

SCAQMD ...................................... 2002 Allocations for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and Oxides of 

Sulfur (SOX).

11/05/10 04/05/11 

On May 6, 2011, EPA determined that 

the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 2002 

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? 

Table 2 lists the previous version of 

this rule approved into the SIP. 

TABLE 2—CURRENT SIP APPROVED VERSION OF RULE

Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted Approved FR citation 

2002 ..................................... Allocations for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and 

Oxides of Sulfur (SOX).

01/07/2005 12/21/2005 08/29/2006, 71 FR 51120 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. 

PM contributes to effects that are 

harmful to human health and the 

environment, including premature 

mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, decreased lung 

function, visibility impairment, and 

damage to vegetation and ecosystems. 

PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the 

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle 

(primary or direct PM2.5) or can be 

formed in the atmosphere as a result of 

various chemical reactions from 

precursor emissions of NOX, sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia (secondary 

PM2.5). PM2.5 in the South Coast Air 

Basin is overwhelmingly formed as a 

secondary pollutant. (South Coast 2007 

Air Quality Management Plan, page ES– 

9). Therefore, the South Coast 2007 

AQMP relies on reducing precursors to 

PM2.5 and some directly-emitted PM2.5

rather than fugitive dust (PM10). 

The RECLAIM program was initially 

adopted by SCAQMD in October 1993. 

The program established for many of the 

largest NOX and SOX facilities in the 

South Coast Air Basin a regional NOX

and a regional SOX emissions cap and 

trade program, with the regional 

emissions caps declining over time until 

2003. The program was designed to 

provide incentives for sources to reduce 

emissions and advance pollution 

control technologies by giving sources 

added flexibility in meeting emission 

reduction requirements. A NOX or SOX

RECLAIM Trading Credit (RTC) is a 

limited authorization to emit one pound 

of NOX or SOX during a specified one 

year period. A RECLAIM source’s 

emissions may not exceed its RTC 

holding in any compliance year. A 

RECLAIM source may comply with this 

requirement by installing control 

equipment, modifying their activities, or 

purchasing RTCs from other facilities. 

The primary purpose of the 

amendments to Rule 2002 was to 

achieve SOX emission reductions by 

lowering the SOX emissions cap in the 

SOX RECLAIM program. This is 

accomplished by the calculation 

procedures in the rule for lowering a 

source’s SOX RTC holdings. EPA’s 

technical support document (TSD) has 

more information about this rule. 

Rule 2002 submitted to EPA also 

includes certain amendments to the rule 

that occurred in 2005 that were not 

previously approved by EPA. These 

amendments lower a source’s NOX RTC 

holdings and result in NOX emission 

reductions. EPA’s TSD has more 

information about these provisions. 

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 182(f)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The SCAQMD regulates 

an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 

CFR part 81), so Rule 2002 must fulfill 

RACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACT requirements consistently 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

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. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30898 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 (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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: May 19, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13239 Filed 5–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Part 23 

[Docket No. OST–2011–0101] 

RIN 2105–AE10 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise: 

Program Improvements for Airport 

Concessions 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) proposes 

conforming amendments to the 

Department of Transportation’s Airport 

Concessions Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprise (ACDBE) regulation, 

consistent with recently issued 

amendments in the Department’s 

regulation for the disadvantaged 

business enterprise (DBE) program in 

highway, transit, and airport financial 

assistance programs. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by July 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

(identified by the agency name and DOT 

Docket ID Number OST–2011–0101) by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name (Office of the Secretary, 

DOT) and Docket number (OST–2011– 

0101) for this notice at the beginning of 

your comments. You should submit two 

copies of your comments if you submit 

them by mail or courier. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov including any 

personal information provided and will 

be available to Internet users. You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477) or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For Internet access to the 

docket to read background documents 

and comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Background 

documents and comments received may 

also be viewed at the U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave, 

S.E., Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant 

General Counsel for Regulation and 

Enforcement, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

Room W94–302, 202–366–9310, 

bob.ashby@dot.gov or Wilbur Barham, 

Director National Airport Civil Rights 

Policy and Compliance, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, Room 1030, 

202–385–6210, wilbur.barham@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 28, 2011, the Department 

published a final rule establishing 

several program improvements to the 

Department’s DBE program rule (49 CFR 

part 26) for financial assistance 

programs (76 FR 5083). This NPRM 

proposes conforming amendments to 

the Department’s companion rule for the 

ACDBE program (49 CFR part 23) for 

several of the Part 26 amendments. The 

rationales for the proposed conforming 

changes to Part 23 are very similar to 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1