Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 68103 

because it does 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves the establishment of a 

temporary safety zone that will be 

enforced for a total of one hour and five 

minutes. An environmental analysis 

checklist and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0774 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T07–0774 Safety Zone; Art Gallery 

Party St. Pete 2011 Fireworks Display, 

Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg, FL. 

(a) Regulated area. The following 

regulated area is a safety zone: all waters 

of Tampa Bay within a 140-yard radius 

of position 27°46′31′′ N, 82°37′38′′ W. 

All coordinates are North American 

Datum 1983. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port St. Petersburg in the 

enforcement of the regulated area. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the regulated area 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port St. Petersburg or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area may 

contact the Captain of the Port St. 

Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824– 

7524, or a designated representative via 

VHF radio on channel 16, to request 

authorization. If authorization to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the regulated area is granted by 

the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or 

a designated representative, all persons 

and vessels receiving such authorization 

must comply with the instructions of 

the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or 

a designated representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Effective date. This rule is 

effective from 10:30 p.m. until 

11:35 p.m. on November 11, 2011. 

Dated: September 28, 2011. 

S.L. Dickinson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28448 Filed 11–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0463; FRL–9481–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision was proposed in the Federal 

Register on June 30, 2011 and concerns 

volatile organic compound (VOC) and 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

commercial charbroilers. We are 

approving a local rule that regulates 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on December 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0463 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68104 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

Amendments to Rule 4692, SJVUAPCD, May 21, 

2009, pages C–4 and C–5. 

2Email from Sandra Lowe-Leseth (SJVUAPCD) to 

David Grounds (EPA), September 22, 2011, with 

attachment. 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3019, grounds.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On June 30, 2011 (76 FR 38340), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rule 

into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD .............................. 4692 Commercial Charbroiling ........................................................... 09/17/2009 05/17/10 

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 rules and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received a comment from the 

following party. 

1. Sarah Jackson, Earthjustice, letter 

dated August 1, 2011. The comments 

and our responses are summarized 

below. 

Comment #1: Earthjustice asserts that 

EPA must disapprove Rule 4692 for 

failure to satisfy CAA requirements for 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) and reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) because the rule does 

not require reasonable controls on 

under-fired charbroilers (UFC). 

Response #1: For the reasons 

discussed in our proposed rule (76 FR 

38340) and further below, we disagree 

and continue to believe that Rule 4692 

requires all control measures that are 

‘‘reasonably available’’ for 

implementation in the San Joaquin 

Valley (SJV), considering technical and 

economic feasibility. We respond more 

specifically below to Earthjustice’s 

assertions regarding the technical and 

economic feasibility of UFC controls. 

Comment #2: Earthjustice asserts that 

reductions from this source category 

played a significant role in SJVUAPCD’s 

plan to reduce PM2.5 levels in the SJV, 

but the current rule reduces emissions 

by only 0.02 tons/day—less than 1% of 

what was promised in SJVUAPCD’s 

2008 PM2.5 plan. 

Response #2: As discussed in our 

proposal, EPA evaluated Rule 4692 to 

determine whether it complies with the 

enforceability requirements of CAA 

section 110(a) and whether EPA’s 

approval of it into the SIP would satisfy 

the requirements concerning attainment 

and reasonable further progress (RFP) in 

CAA section 110(l). Although this rule 

is not subject to the specific ozone 

RACT control requirement in CAA 

182(b)(2) and (f), we also evaluated the 

control requirements in the rule to 

determine whether it requires all 

measures that are ‘‘reasonably 

available’’ for implementation in the 

SJV, considering technical and 

economic feasibility. We did not 

evaluate the emission reductions 

associated with this rule as such an 

evaluation belongs in the context of 

EPA’s action on the State/District’s 

RACM demonstration for the relevant 

NAAQS. For this reason, we did not 

propose to make a regulatory 

determination with respect to RACM in 

this rulemaking. Instead, we evaluated 

only the control requirements in the 

rule and considered whether additional 

controls for this particular source 

category are demonstrated to be 

technically and economically feasible 

for implementation in the area at this 

time. As stated in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for our proposal, EPA 

will take action in separate rulemakings 

on the State’s RACM demonstration for 

the relevant NAAQS based on an 

evaluation of the control measures 

submitted as a whole and their overall 

potential to advance the applicable 

attainment dates in the SJV. See 

Technical Support Document For EPA’s 

Direct Final Rulemaking For the 

California State Implementation Plan, 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District Rule 4692, 

Commercial Charbroiling, EPA Region 

9, June 9, 2011, page 4 (TSD). 

Comment #3: Earthjustice contends 

that SJVUAPCD’s May 2009 Rule 4692 

staff report states that UFC control is 

reasonably available and cost-effective 

at as little as $5,800 per ton PM 

reduced, and that SJVUAPCD 

subsequently abandoned UFC control 

based on inflated new cost information. 

Earthjustice also asserts that the October 

2009 staff report does not include UFC 

emission reduction estimates needed to 

recalculate UFC control costeffectiveness. Finally, Earthjustice 

asserts that even using the new inflated 

cost information and the May 2009 

emission estimates, UFC control is still 

more cost-effective than chain-driven 

charbroiler controls that SJVUAPCD and 

EPA are approving in Rule 4692 as 

reasonable. 

Response #3: The $5,800/ton estimate 

provided in SJVUAPCD’s May 2009 staff 

report references a draft staff report that 

relies on 2007 estimates from the Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD).1 This was the low end of a 

range of estimates that BAAQMD had 

developed; the high end of BAAQMD’s 

cost estimates were over $100,000/ton. 

See response to comment 5 below. In 

2009, SJVUAPCD revised the low end of 

the range in the draft staff report by 

increasing it to $22,300/ton, based on 

updated information including cost 

quotes from vendors of control 

equipment. SJVUAPCD’s revised costeffectiveness analysis still resulted in 

cost-per-ton estimates for UFC controls 

within the range of estimates developed 

by BAAQMD and the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD). We believe these cost 

estimates were performed following 

standard accepted procedures and the 

commenter has not provided specific 

information to demonstrate otherwise. 

Comment #4: Earthjustice comments 

that appendix C to SJVUAPCD’s October 

2009 staff report assigns emission 

reductions of 0.453 tons per year (tpy) 

per restaurant to potential UFC controls 

but never explains the basis for this 

estimate or why it is used instead of 

BAAQMD’s estimate, which is based on 

scientific studies. Earthjustice asserts 

that 1.44 tons per day (tpd) (the median 

of the range provided in SJVUAPVD’s 

May 21, 2009 staff report) is a more 

appropriate estimate of emission 

reductions from UFC controls. 

Response #4: In response to EPA’s 

inquiry regarding SJVUAPCD’s costeffectiveness evaluation, the District 

provided additional information to 

explain the cost-effectiveness analyses 

in its August 2009 and September 2009 

staff reports.2 Specifically, SJVUAPCD 

identified the sources of its emission 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 68105 

3Final Staff Report for Amendments to Rule 

4692, SJVUAPCD, October 8, 2009, pages 2 and 

C–6. 

4Staff Report for Regulation 6, Rule 2, BAAQMD, 

November 2007, page 26 (BAAQMD Staff Report). 

5Preliminary Draft Staff Report: Proposed 

Amended Rule 1138, SCAQMD, August 2009, 

Table 4. 

6EPA TSD, pages 4–5. 

7BAAQMD Staff Report, page 18. 

8See Final Staff Report for Amendments to Rule 

4692, SJVUAPCD, October 8, 2009, pages 11–12. 

factor data and explained the 

assumptions underlying its calculations 

of the incremental cost-effectiveness of 

UFC controls. SJVUAPCD used 

information from Dun & Bradstreet on 

the number of restaurants operating 

within SJV, together with other 

reasonable assumptions about the 

numbers of UFC units and the quantities 

and types of meats grilled at these 

restaurants, to develop a ‘‘composite’’ 

emission factor for the source category, 

which provided the basis for its estimate 

of 0.453 tpy in potential PM2.5

reductions per restaurant from the use 

of UFC controls. The SJVUAPCD notes 

that Earthjustice appears to have 

estimated PM10 instead of PM2.5

emissions, which increased the 

emission reduction estimates, and to 

have relied on less accurate estimates of 

the quantity of meat cooked and 

emission factors for various charbroiled 

meats. We have reviewed the additional 

information provided by SJVUAPCD 

and concur with the District that 

additional UFC controls have not been 

demonstrated to be ‘‘reasonably 

available’’ considering technical and 

economic feasibility in the SJV area at 

this time. 

Comment #5: Earthjustice comments 

that except for the wet scrubber, no 

explanation is given for why 

SJVUAPCD’s estimates for UFC control 

cost are much higher than BAAQMD’s. 

Response #5: As explained in our 

TSD, SJVUAPCD’s cost estimates for 

UFC controls are within the range of 

cost estimates that other California 

districts have developed for similar 

controls. See TSD at 4. SJVUAPCD 

estimates that the cost of UFC controls 

ranges from $22K–$58K/ton PM2.5

reduced,3 BAAQMD estimates $17K– 

$143K/ton VOC or PM,4 and SCAQMD 

estimates $8K–$34K/ton PM.5 The 

commenter has provided no specific 

information to indicate otherwise. 

Comment #6: Earthjustice comments 

that BAAQMD concluded that UFC 

control is cost-effective and adopted 

control requirements in 2007. 

Earthjustice also asserts that EPA’s 

claim that UFC controls are not 

reasonably available because none have 

yet been certified to comply with 

BAAQMD’s rule ‘‘is absurd since * * * 

certification is not required until the 

rule limits take effect in 2013.’’ 

Response #6: We explained in our 

TSD our reasons for concurring with 

SJVUAPCD’s conclusion that UFC 

control is not reasonably available for 

implementation within the SJV at this 

time.6 These include SJVUAPCD’s costeffectiveness analysis of UFC controls 

and concerns regarding the technical 

feasibility of UFC controls. We also 

noted that we are unaware of any other 

federal or state regulation or guidance 

suggesting UFC control is reasonably 

available for the commercial 

charbroiling industry except for 

BAAQMD’s Regulation 6 Rule 2. We 

therefore disagree with Earthjustice’s 

suggestion that the absence of 

compliance certifications under the 

BAAQMD’s rule provided the only basis 

for our conclusion. As to BAAQMD’s 

rule, we noted that most facilities in the 

Bay Area are too small to trigger the 

UFC control requirements of Regulation 

6 Rule 2 and that no facilities had yet 

certified compliance with these limits. 

This information is relevant to our 

evaluation of technical feasibility 

because, until the BAAQMD confirms 

that sources are complying with the 

UFC control requirements, we have only 

limited information indicating that such 

controls are demonstrated to be 

technically feasible for the commercial 

charbroiling industry. It appears, 

however, that a large number of 

facilities (200) may be subject to 

BAAQMD’s UFC control requirement 7

and will be required to certify by 2013 

whether they are complying with the 

UFC control requirements of that rule. 

We encourage the District to reevaluate 

Rule 4692 at the earliest opportunity, 

taking into account the most recent 

information about the technical and 

economic feasibility of UFC controls, 

and to adopt all reasonably available 

control measures for commercial 

charbroiling that will expedite 

attainment of the PM2.5 and ozone 

NAAQS in the SJV. 

Comment #7: Earthjustice asserts that 

actual controls have been installed in 

California and provide empirical data 

on costs and emission reductions, and 

further claims that EPA and SJVUAPCD 

are ignoring this data and relying on 

conflicting information that lacks any 

reasonable basis. 

Response #7: We do not dispute that 

UFC controls have been installed at 

facilities in California.8 As discussed in 

our responses above, however, 

SJVUAPCD explained the basis for its 

assessment of the economic feasibility 

of UFC controls in SJV, including the 

empirical data underlying these 

evaluations, and we concur with the 

District’s conclusion based on these 

evaluations that UFC control is not 

reasonably available in the SJV at this 

time. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rule complies with the 

relevant CAA requirements. 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68106 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 3, 2012. 

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, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: September 30, 2011. 

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)(C)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(379) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(5) Rule 4692, ‘‘Commercial 

Charbroiling,’’ amended on September 

17, 2009. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–28388 Filed 11–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0601; FRL–9481–6] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions were proposed in the Federal 

Register on August 23, 2011 and 

concern volatile organic compound 

(VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

flares. We are approving a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on December 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0601 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, multi-volume 

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: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, law.nicole@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 23, 2011 (76 FR 52623), 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

rule into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD .............................. 4311 Flares ........................................................................................ 06/18/09 01/10/10 

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. During this 

period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rule complies with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES