Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32493 

parties, but data is lacking about thirdparty participation rates. For the sake of 

our evaluation, we assumed that third 

parties are involved with these 

consultations and that each party is a 

small entity, providing an annual 

estimate of 50 small entities that may be 

involved over the 20-year time horizon 

of the study. This is likely an over 

estimate of the number of third parties 

involved with timber management 

consultations and therefore an over 

estimate of the number of small entities 

involved as well. The DEA further 

explored the projection of small 

businesses in timber-related sectors in 

the geographic areas overlapping the 

critical habitat designation which 

differed depending on the specific data 

sets used, either 7,140 entities or 2,616 

entities. Using our conservative estimate 

of 50 small entities involved annually, 

the proportion of entities potentially 

impacted by the designation would be 

0.70 percent and 1.9 percent, 

respectively, over the 20-year time 

horizon of the study. Based on these 

calculations, we have concluded that 

these proportions do not represent a 

substantial number of small business 

entities potentially affected in the 

timber management sector. Please refer 

to Appendix A of the DEA for further 

details of our evaluation. 

Next we explored the potential impact 

to third parties that may be involved 

with consultations related to linear 

projects. On the basis of similar 

conservative assumptions explained in 

the DEA, we concluded that there may 

be a total of 11 projects in a given year 

that may involve third parties. If we 

similarly assume that each of these 

parties represent small entities, then we 

estimate that 11 small entities in a given 

year could be impacted by the 

designation. However, based on an 

evaluation of the relative proportion 

these 11 entities may represent of the 

specific sector, we believe that they are 

unlikely to represent a substantial 

number. Further, the projected impacts 

to third parties resulting from the 

consultations on linear projects are 

anticipated to be administrative in 

nature. Thus, based on our conservative 

estimates in identifying third parties in 

this sector that potentially may be 

impacted and the projected proportion 

of the number of entities and types of 

impacts, we conclude that the 

designation would not result in a 

significant impact to a substantial 

number of small business entities in this 

sector. Please refer to Appendix A of the 

DEA for further details of our 

evaluation. 

In conclusion, we believe that, based 

on our interpretation of directly 

regulated entities under RFA and 

relevant case law, this designation of 

critical habitat will only directly 

regulate Federal agencies which are not 

by definition small business entities. 

However, though not necessarily 

required by the RFA, we chose to 

consider and evaluate the potential 

effects to third parties that may be 

involved with consultations with 

Federal action agencies related to the 

designation of critical habitat. As 

discussed above, we determined that 

there may be entities that would most 

likely be involved with consultations in 

two sectors—timber management and 

linear projects. However, based on our 

conservative evaluation of the number 

of entities in these sectors potentially 

impacted, the proportion of the affected 

entities to those representing the sector 

in the study area, and the types of 

impacts, we certify that, if promulgated, 

the proposed revised critical habitat 

designation would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. As 

such, an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office, Pacific Region, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: May 1, 2012. 

Rachel Jacobson, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13305 Filed 5–29–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0408; FRL–9680–1] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a permitting rule submitted for the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (District) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The State is required under Part 

C of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) to adopt and implement a SIPapproved Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit program. 

This SIP revision proposes to 

incorporate District Rule 2410— 

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration—into the SIP to establish 

a PSD permit program for preconstruction review of certain new and 

modified major stationary sources in 

attainment or unclassifiable areas. The 

District is currently attainment or 

unclassifiable for the PM10, NO2, CO, 

and lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). We are soliciting 

public comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action after 

consideration of comments received. 

DATES: Any comments must be 

submitted no later than July 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0408, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), 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: The index to the docket for 

this action is 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 in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32494 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Beckham, Permits Office (AIR–3), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3811, 

beckham.lisa@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? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating this rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Transfer of existing EPA-issued PSD 

permits. 

D. Public comment and proposed action. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule on which we are 

proposing action with the date it was 

adopted by the local agency and 

submitted to EPA by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ......... 2410 Prevention of Significant Deterioration ...................................................... 6/16/2011 8/23/2011 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires 

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any SIP submittal that we have not 

affirmatively determined to be complete 

or incomplete will become complete by 

operation of law six months after the 

day of submittal. The August 23, 2011 

submittal of the District’s PSD 

regulation became complete by 

operation of law on February 23, 2012. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 2410 in the California SIP. The 

District originally adopted Rule 2410 on 

June 16, 2011 and it has not been 

revised since that date. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to adopt and submit regulations 

for the implementation, maintenance 

and enforcement of the primary and 

secondary NAAQS. Specifically, section 

110(a)(2)(J) requires the state’s plan to 

meet the applicable requirements of 

section 165 relating to a preconstruction permit program for the 

prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality and visibility protection. The 

purpose of District Rule 2410— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

is to implement a pre-construction PSD 

permit program as required by section 

165 of the CAA for certain new and 

modified major stationary sources 

located in attainment areas. Because the 

State does not currently have a SIPapproved PSD program within the 

District, EPA is currently the PSD 

permitting authority in the District. 

Inclusion of this rule into the SIP will 

transfer PSD permitting authority from 

EPA to the District. EPA would then 

assume the role of overseeing the 

District’s PSD permitting program, as 

intended by the CAA. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating this rule? 

The relevant statutory provisions for 

our review of the submitted rules 

include CAA sections 110(a), 110(l), and 

165 and Part 51, section 166 of title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 

CFR 51.166). Section 110(a) requires, 

among other things, that SIP rules be 

enforceable, while section 110(l) 

precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress. Section 165 

of the CAA requires states to adopt a 

pre-construction permitting program for 

certain new and modified major 

stationary sources located in attainment 

or unclassifiable areas. 40 CFR 51.166 

establishes the specific requirements for 

SIP-approved PSD permit programs that 

must be met to satisfy the requirements 

of section 165 of the CAA. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

With some exclusions and revisions, 

Rule 2410 incorporates by reference 

EPA’s PSD permit program at 40 CFR 

52.21, as of June 16, 2011. We generally 

consider the EPA’s PSD permit program 

to be consistent with the criteria in 40 

CFR 51.166. However, we conducted a 

review of Rule 2410 to ensure that all 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 are met. 

Our evaluation is available as an 

attachment to the technical support 

document (TSD) for this rulemaking. We 

also reviewed the revisions the District 

made to the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 

that were incorporated by reference into 

Rule 2410, such as revising certain 

terms and definitions to reflect that the 

District, rather than the EPA, will be the 

PSD permitting authority. Rule 2410 

also relies on the existing SIP-approved 

public notice requirements contained in 

Rule 2201—New Source Review. In 

addition, we reviewed revisions made to 

40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 after the 

District adopted Rule 2410. Please see 

the TSD for additional information. 

Based on our review of Rule 2410 and 

confirmation from the District, in a 

letter dated May 18, 2012, regarding its 

implementation procedures and 

commitment to revise Rule 2410 in the 

future for clarity, we are proposing to 

find the SIP revision acceptable under 

CAA sections 110(a), 110(l) and 165 and 

40 CFR 51.166. 

EPA’s TSD for this rulemaking has 

more information about this rule, 

including our evaluation and 

recommendation to approve it into the 

SIP. 

C. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD 

Permits 

The District has also requested 

approval to exercise its authority to 

administer the PSD program with 

respect to those sources located in the 

District that have existing PSD permits 

issued by EPA. This would include 

authority to conduct general 

administration of these existing permits, 

authority to process and issue any and 

all subsequent PSD permit actions 

relating to such permits (e.g., 

modifications, amendments, or 

revisions of any nature), and authority 

to enforce such permits. Pursuant to the 

criteria under section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of 

the CAA, we have determined that the 

District has the authority, personnel, 

and funding to implement the PSD 

program within the District for existing 

EPA-issued permits. Concurrent with 

EPA’s approval of the District’s PSD 

program into the SIP, the EPA-issued 

permits would be transferred to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32495 

District. A list of these EPA-issued 

permits is provided as an attachment to 

the TSD. EPA intends to provide a copy 

of each permit to the District prior to the 

effective date of the final SIP approval. 

In order to promote an orderly 

transition of the PSD program from the 

EPA to the District, the efficient use of 

the District’s and EPA’s resources, and 

certainty for the regulated community 

and the public, EPA proposes to retain 

PSD permit implementation authority 

for those specific sources within the 

District that have submitted PSD permit 

applications to EPA and for which EPA 

has issued a proposed permit decision, 

but for which final agency action and/ 

or the exhaustion of all administrative 

and judicial appeals processes 

(including any associated remand 

actions) have been not yet been 

concluded or completed upon the 

effective date of EPA’s final action on 

Rule 2410. The District would assume 

full PSD responsibility for the 

administration and implementation of 

such PSD permits immediately upon 

notification from EPA that all 

administrative and judicial appeals 

processes and any associated remand 

actions have been completed or 

concluded for any such permit 

application. 

D. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it as 

a revision to the SIP pursuant to section 

110(k)(3) of the Act. Specifically, we are 

proposing to approve District Rule 

2410—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration, as adopted by the District 

on June 16, 2011 and submitted by 

CARB on August 23, 2011. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal until July 2, 

2012. 

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 approves 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 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: May 22, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13338 Filed 5–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS