Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71129 

EPA APPROVED ALBUQUERQUE/BERNALILLO COUNTY, NM REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/ 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environment Protection Chapter 11—Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality 

Control Board 

*******

Part 21 (20.11.21 

NMAC).

Open Burning .................................................... 7/11/2011 11/29/12 and FR page 

number where document begins].

* * * * * * * 

Part 46 (20.11.46 

NMAC).

Sulfur Dioxide Emission Inventory Requirements; Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide 

Trading Program.

5/16/2011 11/29/12 and FR page 

number where document begins].

* * * * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State 

submittal/ 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Interstate transport for 

the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Bernalillo County ........... 7/30/2007 11/29/12 and FR page 

number where document begins].

Revisions to prohibit interference with measures 

required to protect visibility in any other State. 

Revisions to prohibit contribution to nonattainment in any other State approved 11/8/2010 

(75 FR 68447). 

Regional Haze SIP 

under 40 CFR 51.309.

Bernalillo County ........... 7/28/2011 11/29/12 and FR page 

number where document begins].

[FR Doc. 2012–28822 Filed 11–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0252; FRL–9737–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley United Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD) and South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the SJVUAPCD and 

SCAQMD portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This action 

was proposed in the Federal Register on 

June 21, 2012 and concerns volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from chipping and grinding activities, 

and composting operations. We are 

approving local rules that regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: These rules will be effective on 

December 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0252 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: 

Robert Marinaro, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3019, marinaro.robert@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 June 21, 2012 (77 FR 37359), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rules 

into the California SIP. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71130 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through 

Recycling and Composting, U.S. EPA Region 10, 

May 2011, http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/

climate/wccmmf/Reducing_GHGs_through_

Recycling_and_Composting.pdf. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD ........................................................ 1133.1 Chipping and Grinding Activities .................... 07/08/11 11/18/11 

SCAQMD ........................................................ 1133.3 Emission Reductions from Greenwaste 

Composting Operations.

07/08/11 11/18/11 

SJVUAPCD ..................................................... 4566 Organic Material Composting Operations ...... 8/18/11 11/18/11 

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 two comments from 

the following parties. 

1. Dan Noble and Paul Ryan, 

Association of Compost Producers and 

Inland Empire Disposal Association 

(ACP/IEDA); letter dated July 23, 2012 

and received July 23, 2012. 

2. Caroll Mortensen, Department of 

Resources Recycling and Recovery 

(CalRecycle); letter dated July 14, 2012 

and received July 17, 2012. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment #1: ACP/IEDA recommend 

that prior to the development of food 

waste emission factors for composting, 

that harmonized, consistent, and 

uniform food waste definitions be 

developed and implemented in 

regulations across air quality, water 

quality, and integrated waste 

management agencies in the State of 

California. 

Response #1: This comment does not 

address the basis or conclusion of EPA’s 

proposed action. However, EPA 

supports the current efforts of 

CalRecycle and the California State 

Water Resources Control Board to define 

‘‘food waste’’ in a consistent manner to 

reduce inconsistencies between various 

state permitting and regulatory 

programs. More information can be 

found at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ 

laws/Rulemaking/Compost/default.htm. 

Comment #2: ACP/IEDA recommend 

that federal, State, and local agencies 

develop and incorporate standard food 

waste emission factors in rules and 

regulations to more accurately 

characterize both reactive and nonreactive ozone forming volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

greenwaste composting that contains 

food material. 

Response #2: No response is needed 

as the comment does not address the 

basis or conclusion of EPA’s proposed 

action. However, we believe that 

additional research that would better 

characterize VOC emissions from food 

waste would be helpful. 

Comment #3: In general, ACP/IEDA 

supports the EPA recommendations to 

further improve both SCAQMD and 

SJVUAPCD rules. 

Response #3: No response needed. 

Comment #4: CalRecycle, in general, 

supports EPA’s proposed action on the 

SCAQMD and SJVUAPCD composting 

rules. 

Response #4: No response needed. 

Comment #5: CalRecycle requests that 

EPA allow and direct air quality 

regulators to provide more flexibility 

when considering new regulations on 

low-reactivity sources of VOCs, such as 

composting, especially when those 

sources have other environmental 

benefits. CalRecycle explains this 

recommendation further and includes 

citation to a supportive UC Davis study. 

Response #5: This comment does not 

address the basis or conclusion of EPA’s 

proposed action. However, we agree that 

well-managed composting may provide 

environmental benefits, including 

diverting material from landfills that 

could produce methane.1 Using 

compost can also help regenerate poor 

soils, clean up contaminated soils, and 

prevent erosion and silting on 

embankments parallel to creeks, lakes 

and rivers. Using compost can also 

reduce the need for fertilizer and 

pesticides. 

We also note that EPA’s interim 

guidance on the controls of VOC in 

ozone state implementation plans (70 

FR 54046, September 13, 2005) already 

encourages states with persistent ozone 

nonattainment problems to consider 

recent scientific information on VOC 

reactivity and how it may be 

incorporated into the development of 

ozone control measures. EPA also 

believes that mass-based VOC 

regulations continue to provide 

significant ozone reduction benefits and 

should not be discounted unless and 

until they are replaced by programs that 

achieve the same or greater benefits. 

Comment #6: CalRecycle recommends 

that the EPA clarify and support the 

creation of offsets for the 

implementation of mitigation measures, 

such as aerated static piles and 

anaerobic digesters, that may reduce 

VOCs beyond what is required by 

existing rules. 

Response #6: This comment does not 

address the basis or conclusion of EPA’s 

proposed action. However, EPA is 

working with our state and local 

partners to ensure that Clean Air Act 

permitting requirements, including 

offset requirements, are appropriately 

applied to the composting industry. 

Comment #7: CalRecycle requests that 

EPA consider VOC reactivity when 

evaluating and updating ozone emission 

inventories. 

Response #7: The comment does not 

address the basis or conclusion of EPA’s 

proposed action. Also see the response 

to Comment #5. 

Comment #8: CalRecycle recommends 

that the EPA support research to test 

emissions from green materials directly 

applied to farmland. It considers direct 

land application to be a likely outlet for 

organic materials if composting is 

restricted or made more expensive by 

air quality rules. The commenter notes 

that CalRecycle and the UC Davis 

School of Civil and Environmental 

Engineering submitted a research 

proposal for this concept to EPA in 

2011. 

Response #8: The comment does not 

address the basis or conclusion of EPA’s 

proposed action. However, EPA believes 

that additional research would be 

helpful. We think it is important to 

better quantify the environmental 

impacts of composting, especially VOC 

emission factors related to food waste. 

We also think it is important to better 

quantify the environmental benefits of 

composting, including being able to 

better describe how VOC emissions 

from composting compare with VOC 

emissions of other management options, 

such as direct application to land or 

landfilling. EPA does not have research 

funding readily available for these 

purposes, but we can participate in 

discussions with organizations that may 

have funding to help prioritize research 

needs. 

Comment #9: CalRecycle recommends 

that the EPA support research to 

quantify water savings associated with 

compost use. 

Response #9: The comment does not 

address the basis or conclusion of EPA’s 

proposed action. However, as stated in 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71131 

our response to comment #8, we 

encourage research that would allow 

better quantification of the 

environmental benefits of composting. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rules as 

described in our proposed action. 

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). 

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 January 28, 2013. 

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, 

Volatile organic compounds, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 13, 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—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 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)(416)(i)(A)(2) and 

(i)(B) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(416) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Rule 4566, ‘‘Organic Material 

Composting Operations,’’ adopted on 

August 18, 2011. 

(B) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 1133.1, ‘‘Chipping and 

Grinding Activities,’’ amended on July 

8, 2011. 

(2) Rule 1133.3, ‘‘Emission 

Reductions from Greenwaste 

Composting Operations,’’ adopted on 

July 8, 2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–28827 Filed 11–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 64 

[CG Docket No. 12–129; FCC 12–129] 

Implementation of the Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012; Establishment of a Public Safety 

Answering Point Do-Not-Call Registry 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission adopts rules to create a DoNot-Call registry for public safety 

answering points (PSAPs) as required by 

the ‘‘Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012’’ (Tax Relief Act). 

Specifically, section 6507 of the Tax 

Relief Act requires the Commission, 

among other things, to establish a 

registry that allows PSAPs to register 

telephone numbers on a Do-Not-Call list 

and prohibit the use of automatic 

dialing equipment to contact those 

numbers. Therefore, the Commission 

adopts rules necessary for the creation 

and ongoing management of the Do-NotCall registry, including requirements for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES