Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 65133 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0089; FRL–9737–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Mojave Desert 

Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the Mojave Desert Air 

Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on February 28, 2012 and 

concerns oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

emissions from stationary gas turbines. 

Under authority of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act), this action 

simultaneously approves a local rule 

that regulates these emission sources 

and directs California to correct rule 

deficiencies. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0089 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: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

2348, 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 February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11992), 

EPA proposed a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the following 

rule that was submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

MDAQMD ................ 1159 ........................ Stationary Gas Turbines ....................................................................... 09/28/09 05/17/10 

We proposed a limited approval 

because we determined that this rule 

improves the SIP and is largely 

consistent with the relevant CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously 

proposed a limited disapproval because 

the following provision conflicts with 

section 110 and part D of the Act and 

prevents full approval of the SIP 

revision. Section D.3 exempts the 

Southern California Gas Company 

General Electric Model Frame 3 turbine 

located in Kelso, California from testing 

requirements. This undermines 

enforceability of the rule which 

contradicts CAA requirements for 

enforceability. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the basis for this 

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the 

submittal. 

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 rule 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 rule. This action incorporates 

the submitted rule 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. Neither 

sanctions nor a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) will be imposed following 

this final limited disapproval as 

explained in our proposed action. 

Note that the submitted rule has been 

adopted by the MDAQMD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval does not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. The limited disapproval also does not 

prevent any portion of the rule from 

being incorporated by reference into the 

federally enforceable SIP as discussed in 

a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/ 

pdf/memo-s.pdf. 

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). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
65134 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 section 

205, 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 

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 Population 

Executive Order (EO) 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. section 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 207 / Thursday, October 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 65135 

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. section 804(2). This 

rule will be effective on November 26, 

2012. 

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 December 24, 

2012. 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. 

Dated: September 5, 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—[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 paragraph (c)(379)(i)(E) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(379) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) Mojave Desert Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 1159, ‘‘Stationary Gas 

Turbines,’’ amended on September 28, 

2009. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–26212 Filed 10–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0334; FRL–9746–4] 

RIN 2060–AQ89 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 

Manufacturing Area Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; stay. 

SUMMARY: On January 30, 2012, the EPA 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule reconsidering certain 

provisions in the final National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing 

Area Sources (CMAS) that was 

promulgated on October 29, 2009. The 

compliance date for the final CMAS rule 

is October 29, 2012. However, the EPA 

is still in the process of finalizing the 

reconsideration action. For this reason, 

a short stay of the final CMAS rule 

pending completion of the 

reconsideration action is warranted. 

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the EPA 

is staying until December 24, 2012 the 

final CMAS rule. 

DATES: Effective October 25, 2012, 40 

CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV, is stayed 

until December 24, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Nick Parsons, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

5372; fax number: (919) 541–0246; 

email address: parsons.nick@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 29, 2009 (74 FR 56008), 

the EPA issued the final CMAS rule. On 

February 12, 2010, the American 

Chemistry Council and the Society of 

Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘Petitioners’’) 

sought reconsideration of certain 

provisions in the final rule. On June 15, 

2010, the EPA notified Petitioners that 

the EPA intended to initiate the 

reconsideration process. 

On January 30, 2012 (77 FR 4522), the 

EPA published a proposed rule 

reconsidering certain aspects of the final 

CMAS rule, including provisions that, if 

finalized, would revise the applicability 

of the final rule. The compliance date 

for the final CMAS rule is October 29, 

2012, and it was EPA’s expectation that 

the reconsideration would be finalized 

in advance of that date. However, the 

EPA is still in the process of finalizing 

the reconsideration action. For this 

reason, a short stay of the final rule is 

appropriate to allow the EPA the time 

necessary to complete the 

reconsideration action. 

Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 

307(d)(7)(B), the EPA is staying for 60 

days the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart VVVVVV. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). In addition, this action does 

not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), or 

require prior consultation with state 

officials as specified by Executive Order 

12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), 

or involve special consideration of 

environmental justice related issues as 

required by Executive Order 12898 (59 

FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Because 

this action is not subject to notice-andcomment requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute, it is not subject to the 

regulatory flexibility provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq.). This action also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, 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, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 

The requirements of section 12(d) of the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with