76112 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

II. Description of the Proposed 

Amendment 

By letter dated August 19, 2011, 

Montana sent us a proposed amendment 

to its program (Administrative Record 

No. MT–31–01) under SMCRA (30 

U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Montana sent the 

amendment in response to Senate Bill 

292, which was passed by the 2011 

Montana Legislature. Senate Bill 292 

amended both the Montana Strip and 

Underground Mine Reclamation Act 

(MSUMRA) and the Montana Water 

Quality Act. 

Specifically, Montana proposes to 

revise the Montana Code Annotated 

(MCA) Section 82–4–203, Definitions, 

by adding a reference to the definition 

of hydrologic balance within the 

definition of (4) ‘‘Approximate original 

contour,’’ and by adding definitions of 

(27) ‘‘In situ coal gasification,’’ and (44) 

‘‘Recovery fluid.’’ Other changes are 

non-substantive recodifications. OSM 

does not have jurisdiction over 

proposed changes to Montana’s Water 

Quality Act (Title 75, Chapter 5 of 

MCA). The full text of the program 

amendment is available for you to read 

at the locations listed above under 

ADDRESSES. 

III. Public Comment Procedures 

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 

732.17(h), we are seeking your 

comments on whether the amendment 

satisfies the applicable program 

approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we 

approve the amendment, it will become 

part of the Montana program. 

Electronic or Written Comments 

If you submit written comments, they 

should be specific, confined to issues 

pertinent to the proposed regulations, 

and explain the reason for any 

recommended change(s). We appreciate 

any and all comments, but those most 

useful and likely to influence decisions 

on the final regulations will be those 

that either involve personal experience 

or include citations to and analyses of 

SMCRA, its legislative history, its 

implementing regulations, case law, 

other pertinent State or Federal laws or 

regulations, technical literature, or other 

relevant publications. 

We cannot ensure that comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period (see DATES) or sent to an address 

other than those listed above (see 

ADDRESSES) will be included in the 

docket for this rulemaking and 

considered. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available in the 

electronic docket for this rulemaking at 

http://www.regulations.gov. While you 

can ask us in your comment to withhold 

your personal identifying information 

from public review, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Public Hearing 

If you wish to speak at the public 

hearing, contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 

4 p.m., m.s.t. on December 21, 2011. If 

you are disabled and need reasonable 

accommodations to attend a public 

hearing, contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We 

will arrange the location and time of the 

hearing with those persons requesting 

the hearing. If no one requests an 

opportunity to speak, we will not hold 

the hearing. 

To assist the transcriber and ensure an 

accurate record, we request, if possible, 

that each person who speaks at a public 

hearing provide us with a written copy 

of his or her comments. The public 

hearing will continue on the specified 

date until everyone scheduled to speak 

has been given an opportunity to be 

heard. If you are in the audience and 

have not been scheduled to speak and 

wish to do so, you will be allowed to 

speak after those who have been 

scheduled. We will end the hearing after 

everyone scheduled to speak and others 

present in the audience who wish to 

speak, have been heard. 

Public Meeting 

If only one person requests an 

opportunity to speak, we may hold a 

public meeting rather than a public 

hearing. If you wish to meet with us to 

discuss the amendment, please request 

a meeting by contacting the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. All such meetings are open to 

the public; if possible, we will post 

notices of meetings at the locations 

listed under ADDRESSES. We will make 

a written summary of each meeting a 

part of the administrative record. 

IV. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review). 

Other Laws and Executive Orders 

Affecting Rulemaking 

When a State submits a program 

amendment to OSM for review, our 

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require 

us to publish a notice in the Federal 

Register indicating receipt of the 

proposed amendment, its text or a 

summary of its terms, and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

conclude our review of the proposed 

amendment after the close of the public 

comment period and determine whether 

the amendment should be approved, 

approved in part, or not approved. At 

that time, we will also make the 

determinations and certifications 

required by the various laws and 

executive orders governing the 

rulemaking process and include them in 

the final rule. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 926 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: September 26, 2011. 

Allen D. Klein, 

Director, Western Region. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31293 Filed 12–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0881; FRL–9499–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans, State of 

California, San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District, New 

Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. These revisions 

concern pre-construction review of new 

and modified stationary sources (‘‘new 

source review’’ or NSR) within the 

District. The revisions are intended to 

remedy deficiencies we identified when 

granting limited approval and limited 

disapproval to the rules in 2010, and to 

add NSR requirements for new major 

sources of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

and major modifications at existing 

major PM2.5 sources as required by the 

Clean Air Act. We are taking comments 

on this proposal and plan to follow with 

a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

January 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76113 

OAR–2011–0881, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. 

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 email. 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 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 

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 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, Permits Office (AIR– 

3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3534, 

yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Regulatory Context 

II. The State’s Submittals of Revised District 

Rules 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What are the purposes for revisions to 

these rules? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Action on the 

Revised Rules 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Public comment and final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Regulatory Context 

On May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26102), we 

finalized a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(‘‘SJVUAPCD’’ or ‘‘District’’) Rules 2020 

(Exemptions) and 2201 (New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review 

Rule), which were submitted to EPA by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) to satisfy certain applicable 

requirements under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’). These rules 

strengthened the SIP, but contained 

deficiencies in enforceability that 

prevented full approval. Both rules 

contained references to California 

Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) under 

circumstances where the State law has 

not been submitted to EPA for approval 

into the SIP and thereby unacceptably 

ambiguous. 

In our May 11, 2010 final rule, we 

explained that the District could remedy 

these deficiencies by replacing the 

references to the CH&SC with an 

unambiguous description of the 

agricultural sources covered by the 

permitting exemption in Rule 2020 and 

the applicability of the offset 

requirement to agricultural sources in 

Rule 2201, or by submitting the State 

law provisions as a SIP revision. See 75 

FR at 26106 (May 11, 2010). EPA is now 

proposing action on CARB’s submittal 

of new versions of Rules 2020 and 2201, 

which the District amended to resolve 

the deficiencies we identified in our 

May 11, 2010 final rule. 

In a separate interim final action, 

published in the Rules section in 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

deferring sanctions that would 

otherwise apply to the SJVUAPCD based 

on EPA’s May 11, 2010 limited approval 

and limited disapproval action on 

previous versions of District Rules 2020 

and 2201. 

In addition to addressing these 

deficiencies, we are also proposing to 

approve revisions to Rule 2201 that 

address the 1997 p.m.2.5 standard. These 

revisions ensure that new major sources 

of PM2.5, and major modifications at 

existing major PM2.5 sources, will 

undergo pre-construction review that 

requires permit applicants to apply 

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

(LAER) and provide emission offsets. 

II. The State’s Submittals of Revised 

District Rules 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules on which we 

are proposing action with the dates that 

they were revised by the District and 

submitted to EPA by CARB. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES 

Local agency Rule # Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ............................. 2020 Exemptions ............................................................................. 8/18/11 9/28/11 

SJVUAPCD ............................. 2201 New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule ............... 4/21/11 05/19/11 

On October 25, 2011, we found that 

the submittal of District Rule 2020 and 

Rule 2201 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 these 

rules? 

As discussed above, we approved 

versions of Rule 2020 and Rule 2201 

into the SIP on May 11, 2010 (75 FR 

26102). The amended versions of Rule 

2020, adopted by the District on August 

18, 2011 and submitted to us by CARB 

on September 28, 2011, and of Rule 

2201, adopted by the District on April 

21, 2011 and submitted to us by CARB 

on May 19, 2011, are the only revisions 

to the rule that the District has adopted 

since our 2010 limited approval. 

C. What are the purposes for revisions 

to these rules? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that control 

volatile organic compounds, nitrogen 

oxides, particulate matter, and other air 

pollutants which harm human health 

and the environment. Permitting rules 

were developed as part of the local air 

district’s programs to control these 

pollutants. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
76114 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Most engines are fired on propane, although 

some are fired on diesel. Some engines are electric, 

and have no emissions. Based on a NOX emission 

factor for uncontrolled propane and use of a 100- 

horsepower engine at 65% load from 8 p.m. to 7 

a.m.: 100 hp × 10 g NOX/bhp-hr × 0.65 × 11 hours/ 

day/454 g/lb = 15.8 pounds per day per unit. 

2See District Rule 4702 (‘‘Internal Combustion 

Engines—Phase 2’’), most recently approved by 

EPA at 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 2008). 

3While we believe that the District is 

appropriately accounting for condensable 

particulate matter in regulating PM2.5 from 

stationary sources, we recommend that District 

rules be amended to be explicit regarding the 

inclusion of the condensable portion of particulate 

matter in the definition of PM2.5. See 40 CFR 

165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D). For example, the District 

should amend the definition of ‘‘PM2.5’’ in Rule 

2201, as has been done for the definition of ‘‘PM10’’ 

in Rule 2201 to refer to Rule 1020 (‘‘Definitions’’), 

and then add a definition of ‘‘PM2.5’’ in Rule 1020, 

as has been done for ‘‘PM10,’’ that refers to 

applicable state and federal test methods. Lastly, 

corresponding changes should also then be made to 

section 5.0 (‘‘Test Methods’’) in District Rule 1081 

(‘‘Source Sampling’’) for PM2.5 in a similar manner 

as the District has already done for PM10. 

The purpose of District Rule 2020 

(‘‘Exemptions’’) is to specify emission 

units that are not required to obtain an 

Authority to Construct or Permit to 

Operate. Rule 2020 also specifies the 

recordkeeping requirements to verify 

such exemptions and outlines the 

compliance schedule for emission units 

that lose the exemption. 

The purpose of District Rule 2201 

(‘‘New and Modified Stationary Source 

Review Rule’’) is to provide for the 

review of new and modified stationary 

sources of air pollution and to provide 

mechanisms including control 

technology requirements and emission 

trade-offs by which Authorities to 

Construct such sources may be granted, 

without interfering with the attainment 

or maintenance of ambient air quality 

standards. District Rule 2201 is also 

intended to provide for no net increase 

in emissions above specified thresholds 

from new and modified stationary 

sources of all nonattainment pollutants 

and their precursors. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Action on the 

Revised Rules 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

The rules that are the subject of this 

proposed action amend rules on which 

EPA has previously taken limited 

approval and limited disapproval 

action. EPA previously took limited 

approval/limited disapproval action on 

the rules because, while they met most 

of the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for SIPs regarding minor 

NSR, major nonattainment NSR, and 

enforceability of permit conditions, they 

also contained certain unacceptably 

ambiguous provisions which prevented 

full approval. Therefore, we have 

focused our review on the changes in 

the rules that the District adopted to 

remedy the deficiencies that we 

identified as well as those that the 

District has newly introduced into the 

rules. 

The relevant statutory provisions for 

our review of the submitted rules 

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

172(c)(5) and 40 CFR 51.160–165. 

Section 110(a) requires that SIP rules be 

enforceable, while section 110(l) 

precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. 

Section 172(c)(5) requires SIPs with 

nonattainment areas to require permits 

for the construction and operation of 

new or modified major stationary 

sources in accordance with section 173, 

which establishes, among other 

requirements, a control technology 

requirement of ‘‘lowest achievable 

emission rate’’ (LAER) and an emissions 

offset requirement for such new or 

modified stationary sources. 

Title 40, part 51, section 165 of title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(40 CFR 51.165) establishes more 

specific requirements for NSR SIPs to 

satisfy the requirements of sections 

172(c)(5) and 173. With respect to PM2.5

and its precursors, those requirements, 

among others, include a new ‘‘major 

source’’ threshold of 100 tons per year, 

‘‘major modification’’ thresholds of 10 

tons per year (direct PM2.5) or 40 tons 

per year for precursors NOX and SO2, 

and an offset ratio of at least 1:1. See 73 

FR 28321 (May 16, 2008). 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

EPA found Rule 2020 deficient 

because the permitting exemption for 

agricultural sources relied on a crossreference to CH&SC Section 42301.16, 

which is not approved in the SIP and 

allows permitting authorities to expand 

the universe of exempted sources if 

certain findings are made in a public 

hearing, which would change the permit 

exemption threshold without requiring 

SIP approval. To address this 

deficiency, the District revised Rule 

2020 by replacing the statutory 

reference to CH&SC section 42301.16 

with a clear description of the sources 

covered by the exemption. 

In addition to resolving the 

deficiency, the District also added an 

exemption for wind machines, and a 

definition of ‘‘wind machine,’’ to Rule 

2020. A wind machine consists of a 

large fan mounted on a tower and 

powered by an internal combustion 

engine and used only on the coldest 

winter nights to provide frost protection 

for certain type of crops (like citrus) 

when temperatures are forecast to drop 

below 28° F. Annual usage varies 

naturally with the frequency and 

duration of cold spells in the San 

Joaquin Valley during any given winter; 

however, the District estimates average 

annual use of any given wind machine 

at 35 hours per year. Emissions per unit 

vary depending upon the size of the 

engine used to power the fans and the 

fuel used to power the engine, among 

other factors, but can reasonably be 

estimated at approximately 15 pounds 

per day of NOX.1

We recognize that, when the 

applicable frost warnings occur, the 

number of wind machines that operate 

all night long in certain parts of the 

valley can number in the thousands, 

and that NOX emissions during those 

particular nights are not necessarily 

insignificant from the standpoint of 

PM10 and PM2.5 formation, particularly 

in the San Joaquin Valley. Nonetheless, 

we conclude that the permitting 

exemption for the wind machines is 

acceptable because wind machines are 

not subject to any prohibitory District 

rule,2 because no controls would 

approach any reasonable threshold of 

cost-effectiveness given the very limited 

use of the machines and the low 

emissions per unit, and because neither 

the EPA-approved San Joaquin Valley 

PM10 maintenance plan nor the EPAapproved PM2.5 attainment plan relies 

on emissions reductions from this 

particular episodic source of emissions. 

EPA found Rule 2201 deficient 

because the offset exemption for minor 

agricultural sources was ambiguous 

because it relied on a cross-reference to 

the CH&SC, rather than explicitly 

delineating the exemption within the 

rule itself. The District remedied this 

deficiency by replacing the CH&SC 

references with a clear description of 

the applicability of the offset 

requirement to agricultural sources. 

The District also added requirements 

to Rule 2201 to address the 1997 p.m.2.5

standard. We have reviewed the PM2.5

provisions of the rule, including 

permitting thresholds, Best Available 

Control Technology (which in California 

is the same as Federal LAER), and 

emission offset requirements (including 

ratios based on distance from the new 

or modified emission unit), and found 

that they satisfy the CAA requirements 

for NSR for new and modified major 

stationary sources of PM2.5.3

CAA section 110(l) precludes EPA 

from approving SIP revisions that would 

interfere with any applicable 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76115 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act. 

EPA has evaluated amended Rules 2020 

and 2201 and concluded that they 

would not interfere with attainment and 

RFP for any of the NAAQS, and would 

not interfere with any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. First, amended 

Rule 2201 does not relax the SIP in any 

aspect; rather, the amended rule 

strengthens the SIP by applying NSR 

requirements to new or modified major 

sources of PM2.5. Second, while 

amended Rule 2020 contains a new 

exemption for wind machines, this 

exemption would not lead to an 

increase in emissions because, as 

explained above, wind machines would 

not be subject to any particular controls 

under the NSR rule even if no such 

exemption were in effect because no 

control device would be considered 

cost-effective. Lastly, as noted above, 

neither the EPA-approved San Joaquin 

Valley PM10 maintenance plan nor the 

EPA-approved PM2.5 attainment plan 

relies on emissions reductions from this 

particular episodic source of emissions. 

Thus, we find the SIP revisions 

acceptable under CAA section 110(l). 

EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) for this rulemaking has more 

information about these rules, including 

our evaluation and recommendation to 

approve them into the SIP. 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rules fulfill all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve them 

as revisions to the SIP pursuant to 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 

Specifically, we are proposing to 

approve SJVUAPCD Rule 2020 

(‘‘Exemptions’’), as amended by the 

District on August 18, 2011 and 

submitted by CARB on September 28, 

2011; and SJVUAPCD Rule 2201 (‘‘New 

and Modified Stationary Source Review 

Rule’’), as amended by the District on 

April 21, 2011 and submitted by CARB 

on May 19, 2011, as revisions to the 

California SIP. In so doing, we conclude 

that the District has remedied 

deficiencies that EPA had identified in 

previous versions of the rules and that 

other changes made by the District to 

the rules meet the applicable NSR 

requirements of the Act and our 

regulations. 

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 these rule(s) 

into the federally enforceable 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 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 22, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31183 Filed 12–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0900; FRL–9499–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Feather River Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the Feather River Air 

Quality Management District 

(FRAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) emissions from internal 

combustion engines. We are proposing 

action on 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 

January 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0900, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions. 

2. Email: 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1