Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71109 

2013–2017 

(D) For the display of an art reproduction copyrighted separately from the work of fine 

art from which the work was 

reproduced irrespective of 

whether the reproduced work 

of fine art is copyrighted so 

as to be subject also to payment of a display fee under 

the terms of the schedule ..... 45.82 

(ii) For such uses in other than PBSdistributed programs: 

2013–2017 

(A) For featured display of a 

work ....................................... $45.82 

(B) For background and montage display ........................... 23.48 

(C) For use of a work for program identification or for thematic use ............................... 93.65 

(D) For the display of an art reproduction copyrighted separately from the work of fine 

art from which the work was 

reproduced irrespective of 

whether the reproduced work 

of fine art is copyrighted so 

as to be subject also to payment of a display fee under 

the terms of the schedule ..... 23.49 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 381.10 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), by removing 

‘‘2007’’ and adding ‘‘2013’’ in its place 

in each place it appears and by 

removing ‘‘2006’’ and adding ‘‘2012’’ in 

its place, and by removing ‘‘On each 

December 1’’ and adding ‘‘On or before 

each December 1’’ in its place; 

■ b. By revising paragraph (b); 

■ c. In paragraph (c), by adding ‘‘the’’ 

before ‘‘rates’’, by removing ‘‘381.5’’ and 

adding ‘‘381.5(c)(3)’’ in its place, and by 

adding ‘‘(30)’’ after ‘‘thirty’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 381.10 Cost of living adjustment. 

* * * * * 

(b) On the same date of the notices 

published pursuant to paragraph (a) of 

this section, the Copyright Royalty 

Judges shall publish in the Federal 

Register a revised schedule of the rates 

for § 381.5(c)(3), the rate to be charged 

for compositions in the repertory of 

SESAC, which shall adjust the royalty 

amounts established in a dollar amount 

according to the greater of 

(1) The change in the cost of living 

determined as provided in paragraph (a) 

of this section, or 

(2) Two percent (2%). 

(3) Such royalty rates shall be fixed at 

the nearest dollar. 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 21, 2012. 

Suzanne M. Barnett, 

Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28785 Filed 11–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0267; FRL–9730–3] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the SJVUAPCD portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This rule was proposed in 

the Federal Register on April 30, 2012 

and concerns volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from wine 

storage tanks. We are approving a local 

rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0267 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: Lily 

Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4114, 

wong.lily@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 April 30, 2012 (77 FR 25384), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rule 

into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ..................................... 4694 Wine Fermentation and Storage 

Tanks.

12/15/05 11/18/11 (amended submittal as 

adopted 08/18/11). 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. We 

received comments from the following 

parties. 

1. Dan Belliveau, NohBell 

Corporation; letter dated and received 

May 30, 2012. 

2. Steven Colome, EcoPAS; email 

dated and received May 31, 2012. While 

these comments were received after the 

public comment period, EPA elected to 

add these comments to the docket and 

respond to the issues raised. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

a. Comment: The commenters 

generally described their respective 

technologies and results to date to 

capture and control VOC emissions 

from the wine fermentation process. 

Both commenters stated that they 

believe their technologies represent 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) and believed this information 

should be considered in EPA’s 

determination on RACT. 

Response: EPA defines RACT as the 

‘‘lowest emissions limitation that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of control technology 

that is reasonably available considering 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71110 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1While the commenters also believe that their 

cost effectiveness estimates would be significantly 

lowered (e.g., if the control system was scaled up 

and optimized, or if the potential commercial value 

of the captured ethanol was realized), we did not 

take these estimates into account at this time 

because these scenarios have not yet been 

demonstrated. 

technological and economic feasibility.’’ 

44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). EPA 

generally considers controls that are 

commonly used by a significant number 

of sources to be reasonably available 

and technologically and economically 

feasible. RACT differs from 

requirements for the more stringent 

lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) 

controls required for new and modified 

major sources in nonattainment areas. 

LAER is defined in CAA Section 171(3) 

and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xiii) as ‘‘the 

most stringent emissions limitation 

which is contained in the 

implementation plan of any State for 

such class or category of source, unless 

the owner or operator of the proposed 

source demonstrate that such 

limitations are not achievable; or * * * 

the most stringent emissions limit 

which is achieved in practice by such 

class or category of stationary sources.’’ 

Information provided by the 

commenters would help demonstrate 

that these two new and emerging 

technologies are technically feasible on 

wine tanks of a certain size. However, 

in order to meet EPA’s criteria for 

RACT, the use of these technologies 

must be demonstrated in practice by a 

larger number of sources and at a 

broader range of tank capacities. In 

addition, we note that the commenters’ 

current 1 cost effectiveness estimates are 

higher than what is generally accepted 

for VOC RACT level controls. Therefore, 

while these new and emerging 

technologies have not been 

demonstrated to represent RACT at this 

time, they should be considered for 

sources where LAER is required by new 

source review regulations. 

In addition, what constitutes RACT 

can change over time as technologies 

once considered beyond RACT become 

more economically feasible and 

demonstrated in practice more widely. 

As a result, SJVUAPCD should 

reevaluate these technologies when 

subsequent RACT demonstrations are 

required, such as in 2014, when 

SJVUAPCD may need to submit a RACT 

SIP analysis for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

We also note that new and modified 

major sources in SJVUAPCD must 

demonstrate LAER in the permitting 

context, which California calls best 

available control technology (BACT). 

The initial steps in a BACT analysis are 

to identify all available technologies and 

eliminate those that are not technically 

feasible. Therefore, SJVUAPCD must 

consider these new technologies in all 

future required California BACT 

determinations for permitting wine 

fermentation tanks. EPA forwarded 

these comment letters to SJVUAPCD for 

consideration in their future BACT 

analyses. 

b. Comment: EcoPAS stated that 

EPA’s final approval of this version of 

Rule 4694 would remove the 

fermentation emission provisions of 

Rule 4694 from the SIP. 

Response: Currently, there is no 

version of Rule 4694 approved in the 

SIP. Therefore, EPA approval of the 

amended submittal of Rule 4694 would 

not remove any provisions from the SIP. 

We believe the commenter is 

specifically concerned with 

SJVUAPCD’s deletion of the 

fermentation provisions (e.g., sections 

5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 7.0, and other 

supporting sections) in its amended 

submittal of Rule 4694. In EPA’s 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

which accompanied our proposed 

approval of Rule 4694, we described our 

concerns with the alternative 

compliance provisions, which only 

affected the fermentation provisions. 

Because of EPA’s concerns, the District 

elected to withdraw from consideration 

for SIP approval the wine fermentation 

provisions, although the fermentation 

provisions remain in effect at the local 

level. The appropriate forum to raise the 

commenter’s concerns would have been 

the District’s process for amending the 

submittal of Rule 4694. EPA is only 

acting on SJVUAPCD’s current SIP 

submittal. As discussed in our TSD, 

EPA’s approval of Rule 4694 without 

the fermentation provisions does not 

relax any SIP requirements or 

commitments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rule as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 

approving this rule 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71111 

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, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 30, 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)(416) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(416) Specified portions of the 

following rule were submitted on 

November 18, 2011 by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). 

(1) The following specified portions of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4694, Wine 

Fermentation and Storage Tanks, 

adopted December 15, 2005: 

(i) Section 1.0 (Purpose), except for 

the words ‘‘fermentation and’’ and ‘‘or 

achieve equivalent reductions from 

alternative emission sources’’; 

(ii) Section 2.0 (Applicability), except 

for the words ‘‘fermenting wine and/or’’; 

(iii) Section 3.0 (Definitions), 

paragraphs 3.1—Air Pollution Control 

Officer (APCO), 3.2—Air Resources 

Board (ARB or CARB), 3.18—Gas Leak, 

3.19—Gas-Tight, 3.21—Must, 3.22— 

Operator, 3.27—Storage Tank, 3.29— 

Tank, 3.33—Volatile Organic 

Compound (VOC), 3.35—Wine, and 

3.36—Winery; 

(iv) Section 4.0 (Exemptions), 

paragraph 4.2; 

(v) Section 5.0 (Requirements), 

paragraph 5.2—Storage Tanks; and 

(vi) Section 6.0 (Administrative 

Requirements), paragraph 6.4— 

Monitoring and Recordkeeping, 

introductory text and paragraph 6.4.2. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) 

(1) CARB Executive Order S–11–024, 

November 18, 2011, adopting specified 

portions of SJVUAPCD Rule 4694 as a 

revision to the SIP. 

(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

(1) SJVUAPCD Resolution No. 11–08– 

20, August 18, 2011, adopting specified 

portions of SJVUAPCD Rule 4694 as a 

revision to the SIP. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28826 Filed 11–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0935, FRL–9755–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Florida; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is finalizing a full 

approval of the Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) determinations 

addressed in the Agency’s May 25, 

2012, proposed rulemaking action on a 

regional haze state implementation plan 

(SIP) submitted by the State of Florida, 

through the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP). These 

BART determinations were submitted to 

the EPA in a draft regional haze SIP on 

April 13, 2012, for parallel processing, 

and re-submitted in final form on 

September 17, 2012. Specifically, the 

portion of Florida’s September 17, 2012, 

regional haze SIP that is being acted 

upon in this final action addresses some 

of the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) and the EPA’s rules that 

require states to prevent any future and 

remedy any existing anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas (national parks and 

wilderness areas) caused by emissions 

of air pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. The EPA 

will take separate action at a later date 

to address the remainder of Florida’s 

September 17, 2012, regional haze SIP. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective December 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0935. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the 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 

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. The EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

for further information. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, 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. Ms. 

Notarianni may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9031, or via electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES