### 31242 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

implementation of the amended PSD program and was ending its June 30, 1982, agreement with EPA to assume responsibility for implementing the Federal PSD regulations. The letter from the MassDEP explained that the MassDEP would no longer implement the Federal PSD program as of March 3, 2003. Consequently, as of March 3, 2003, sources of air pollution located in Massachusetts and subject to the Federal PSD program were required to apply for and receive a PSD permit from EPA New England before beginning actual construction.

On June 17, 2003, EPA published a Federal Register announcing the MassDEP’s decision to end its delegation agreement with the EPA and explaining the consequences of this decision for owners and operators of sources that have PSD permits or that will need such permits in the future (68 FR 35881).

On April 4, 2011, the Commissioner of the MassDEP signed a delegation agreement under which EPA would again delegate responsibility for conducting source review under the Federal PSD regulations to the MassDEP.

II. Final Action: On April 11, 2011, the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 1 signed the delegation agreement, which is entitled ‘‘Agreement for Delegation of the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,’’ and which sets forth the terms and conditions according to which the MassDEP agrees to implement and enforce the Federal PSD program. The Regional Administrator’s signature on the delegation agreement grants full delegation of the Federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 to the MassDEP pursuant to the terms and conditions of the delegation agreement, 40 CFR 52.21(u), and the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Effective on April 11, 2011, all permit applications for new or modified major sources and all other information pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 for sources in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and all inquiries regarding the implementation of 40 CFR 52.21 in the Commonwealth, should be sent directly to the MassDEP at the following address: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, Boston, MA, 02108. In addition, the MassDEP will assume responsibility to administer and enforce all PSD permits issued in Massachusetts, including those PSD permits already issued by EPA. EPA retains authority to issue and administer permits in certain limited areas of federal jurisdiction defined in the delegation agreement, and also retains authority to issue a PSD permit to Pioneer Valley Energy Center (PVEC) in Westfield, Massachusetts. Finally, EPA retains certain oversight roles regarding federal requirements, which are set forth in detail in the delegation agreement. 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 13, 2011. Ira W. Leighton, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

[FR Doc. 2011–12950 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0418; FRL–9249–3]**

**Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Santa Barbara**  **County Air Pollution Control District**

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

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on August 2, 2010 and concerns oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from boilers, steam generators and process heaters with a rated heat input rate greater than 2 million BTU/ hr and less than 5 million BTU/hr and internal combustion engines with a rated brake horse power of 50 or greater. Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves local rules that regulates these emission sources and directs California to correct rule deficiencies.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 30, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0418 for this action. The index to the docket is 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 in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location ( e.g., copyrighted material), 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 :**  Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 942– 3248, perez.idalia@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 August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45082), EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

SBCAPCD ................................................ 361 Small Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters. 01/17/08 07/18/08

SBCAPCD ................................................ 333 Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. 06/19/08 10/20/08

We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because


### 31243 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. These provisions include the following:

The following provisions in Rule 361 conflict with section 110(a) the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.

1. Section F.3 defines the length of the startup and shutdown intervals as ‘‘not last[ing] longer than is necessary to reach stable temperatures and conditions.’’ This leads to enforceability concerns due to the lack of specificity of the duration of these periods. The duration of these periods should be further specified.

2. Section G.4 states that documentation of fuel sulfur content must be kept as a record. The type of documentation required should be specified in the rule.

The following provisions in Rule 333 conflict with section 110(a) the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.

1. Rule 333 includes various provisions allowing for APCO discretion without having explicit and replicable procedures that define how the discretion will be exercised to assure emission reductions.

2. Section F.3 indicates that portable analyzer reading in excess of the emission limits triggers another reading in 15 days and monthly readings for 3 months. These high portable analyzers readings should instead trigger a source test within 60 days of the excess emission reading.

3. Section I.1 indicates that source tests shall be performed at the engine’s maximum load or under the engines’ typical duty cycle as demonstrated by historical operation data. This should be constrained to the engine’s maximum load or conditions specified in the Permit to Operate. The option for testing at the engine’s typical duty cycle should be further defined and justified.

EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules but that are not the basis for disapproval at this time.

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 that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rules. This action incorporates the submitted rules into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of the rule. If this disapproval is finalized, no sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act because SBCAPCD is not required to have these rules in the applicable SIP. A final disapproval would also not trigger the 2-year clock for the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the SBCAPCD, and EPA’s final limited disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing it. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals and limited approvals/limited disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because this limited approval/limited disapproval action does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial


### 31244 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today’s action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking. K. Congressional Review Act

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 rule 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). This rule will be effective on June 30, 2011. L. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 August 1, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 14, 2010. 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 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(359)(i)(E) and (361)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:

**§ 52.220 Identification of plan.**

* * * * *

(c) * * * (359) * * * (i) * * * (E) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.

( 1 ) Rule 361, ‘‘Small Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters,’’ adopted on January 17, 2008.

* * * * *

(c) * * * (361) * * * (i) * * * (A) * * *


### 31245 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Rule 333, ‘‘Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,’’ adopted on June 19, 2008.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2011–13273 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 81**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0504–201052; FRL– 9312–9]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Extension of** **Attainment Date for the Charlotte Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina**  **South Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area** 

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

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is taking final action to approve requests from the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), and the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), to grant a one-year extension of the attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air qualitystandards (NAAQS) for the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North CarolinaSouth Carolina Area (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte Area’’ or ‘‘Metrolina Area’’). These requests were sent to EPA via letter from NC DENR on April 28, 2010, and from SC DHEC on May 6, 2010. The bi-state Charlotte Area consists of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of Iredell County (Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships), North Carolina; and a portion of York County, South Carolina. EPA is finalizing a determination that North Carolina and South Carolina have met the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements to obtain a one-year extension to their attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state Charlotte Area. As a result, EPA is approving a one-year extension of the 1997 8-hour ozone moderate attainment date for the bi-state Charlotte Area. Specifically, EPA (through this final action) is extending the bi-state Charlotte Area’s attainment date from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011. EPA is also addressing adverse comments received on EPA’s proposal to grant the one-year extension for the bi-state Charlotte 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. **DATES :**  Effective Date: This rule will be effective June 30, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2010–0504. All documents in the docket are listed on the http:// www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For information regarding the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, contact Ms. Jane Spann, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number for Ms. Spann is (404) 562–9029. Ms. Spann can also be reached via electronic mail at spann.jane@epa.gov. For information regarding the North Carolina or South Carolina SIPs, contact Mr. Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory Development Section, at the same address above. The telephone number for Mr. Farngalo is (404) 562–9152. Mr. Farngalo can also be reached via electronic mail at farngalo.zuri@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Table of Contents

I. Background II. This Action III. Comments and Responses IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

Detailed background information and rationale for this final action can be found in EPA’s proposed rule entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Extension ofAttainment Date for the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area,’’ 75 FR 46881 (August 4, 2010). The comment period for EPA’s proposed action closed on September 3, 2010. EPA received three sets of comments on the August 4, 2010, proposed rulemaking which are discussed later in this rulemaking. This section includes a brief summary of the information and rationale for EPA’s proposed approval of the bi-state Charlotte Area’s one-year extension.

Section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the Administrator, within six months of the attainment date, to determine whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the NAAQS. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) states that, for areas classified as marginal, moderate, or serious, if the Administrator determines that the area did not attain the standard by its attainment date, the area must be reclassified to the next classification. However, CAA section 181(a)(5) provides an exemption from these reclassification requirements. Under this provision, EPA may grant up to two one-year extensions of the attainment date under specified conditions. Specifically, in relevant part, section 181(a)(5) states:

Upon application by any State, the Administrator may extend for 1 additional year (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Extension Year’’) the date specified in table 1 of paragraph (1) of this subsection if—

(A) The State has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan, and

(B) no more than 1 exceedance of the national ambient air quality standard level for ozone has occurred in the area in the year preceding the Extension Year. With regard to the first element, ‘‘applicable implementation plan’’ is defined in section 302(q) of the CAA as, the portion (or portions) of the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof, which has been approved under section 110, or promulgated under section 110(c), or promulgated or approved pursuant to regulations promulgated under section 301(d) and which implements the relevant requirements of the CAA.

The language in section 181(a)(5)(B) reflects the form of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which is exceedance based and does not reflect the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is concentration based. Because section 181(a)(5)(B) does not reflect the form of the 8-hour NAAQS,