### 39180 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 31, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: May 29, 2012. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

40 CFR part 52 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 KK—Ohio**

■ 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(155) to read as follows:

**§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.**
* * * * *

(c) * * * (155) On March 11, 2011, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency submitted Ohio’s regional haze plan addressing the first implementation period of the regional haze rulerequirements. This plan includes a longterm strategy with emission limits for mandating emission reductions equivalent to the reductions from implement best available retrofit technology and with emission reductions to provide Ohio’s contribution toward achievement of reasonable progress goals at Class I areas affected by Ohio. The plan specificallysatisfies BART requirements for nonEGUs, most notably by providing new, tighter emission limits for the P.H. Glatfelter facility in Ross County, Ohio. The plan establishes a combined daily sulfur dioxide emission limit of 24,930 pounds per day for boiler #7 and #8. The plan also includes permit number P0103673 that will impose these emission limitations on P.H. Glatfelter Company.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Permit-to-Install Number P0103673, issued to P.H. Glatfelter Company—Chillicothe Facility by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, signed by Scott J. Nally and effective on March 7, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2012–16033 Filed 6–29–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0236; FRL–9690–9]**

**Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule Revising the California State**  **Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Withdrawal of direct final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  On June 1, 2012 (77 FR 32398), EPA published a direct final approval of a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerned South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1156, Further Reductions of Particulate Emissions from Cement Manufacturing Facilities. The direct final action was published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comment. The direct final rule stated that if adverse comments were received by July 2, 2012, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register . EPA received a timely adverse comment. Consequently, with this revision we are withdrawing the direct final approval of SCAQMD Rule 1156. EPA will either address the comment in a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal also published on June 1, 2012 (77 FR 32398), or repropose an alternative action. As stated in the parallel proposal, EPA will not institute a second comment period on a subsequent final action.

**DATES :**  The addition of 40 CFR 52.220 (c)(362)(i)(B)(2) published at 77 FR 32398 on June 1, 2012 is withdrawn as of July 2, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0236 for this action. 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


### 39181 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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 :**  Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4125, vineyard.christine@epa.
gov. 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: June 11, 2012. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.220 published in the Federal Register on June 1, 2012 (77 FR 32398) which was to become effective on July 31, 2012 is withdrawn.

[FR Doc. 2012–15724 Filed 6–29–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0027; FRL–9686–6]**

**Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Mojave Desert**  **Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) and Yolo-Solano Air**  **Quality Management District (YSAQMD)** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the MDAQMD and the YSAQMD portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules were proposed in the Federal Register on February 28, 2012 and concern glass furnaces and biomass boilers. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

**DATES :**  These rules will be effective on August 1, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0027 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 :**  Andy Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

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 February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11990), EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP.

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

MDAQMD ................................... 1165 Glass Melting Furnaces ........................................................... ....... 08/12/08 12/23/08 YSAQMD .................................... 2.43 Biomass Boilers ................................................................. ............. 11/10/10 04/05/11

We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules 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 no comments.

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving these rules 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 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).