1414 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

nonattainment area attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. Therefore, EPA has met the 

requirement pursuant to CAA section 

179(c) to determine, based on the area’s 

air quality as of the attainment date, 

whether the area attained the standard. 

EPA also determined that the 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 

nonattainment area is not subject to the 

consequences of failing to attain 

pursuant to section 179(d). 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 4. Section 52.2430 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2430 Determinations of attainment. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the air 

quality data for the 3-year period 2007 

to 2009, EPA determined that the 

Metropolitan Washington, District of 

Columbia-Maryland-Virginia (DC-MDVA) fine particle (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment 

date of April 5, 2010. Therefore, EPA 

has met the requirement pursuant to 

CAA section 179(c) to determine, based 

on the area’s air quality as of the 

attainment date, whether the area 

attained the standard. EPA also 

determined that the Metropolitan 

Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5

nonattainment area is not subject to the 

consequences of failing to attain 

pursuant to section 179(d). 

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 5. Section 52.2527 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2527 Determination of attainment. 

* * * * * 

(e) Based upon EPA’s review of the air 

quality data for the 3-year period 2007 

to 2009, EPA determined that the 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, West VirginiaMaryland (WV-MD) fine particle (PM2.5) 

nonattainment area attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. Therefore, EPA has met the 

requirement pursuant to CAA section 

179(c) to determine, based on the area’s 

air quality as of the attainment date, 

whether the area attained the standard. 

EPA also determined that the 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD PM2.5

nonattainment area is not subject to the 

consequences of failing to attain 

pursuant to section 179(d). 

[FR Doc. 2012–141 Filed 1–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0917; FRL–9616–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans: Alaska 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the Alaska State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to 

the motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program (I/M) for control 

of carbon monoxide (CO) in Anchorage. 

The State of Alaska (the State) 

submitted a September 29, 2010, SIP 

modification that would discontinue the 

I/M program in Anchorage as an active 

control measure in the SIP and shift it 

to a contingency measure. EPA is 

approving the submittal because it 

satisfies the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This action is effective on 

February 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2010–0917. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, (206) 553– 

6121, or by email at 

vaupel.claudia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the notice of proposed 

rulemaking? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

The I/M program is a CO control 

measure in the Anchorage CO 

maintenance plan that was Federally 

approved on June 23, 2004 (69 FR 

34935). The State of Alaska submitted a 

September 29, 2010, SIP modification 

discontinuing the I/M program in 

Anchorage as an active control measure 

in the SIP and shifting it to a 

contingency measure. EPA is approving 

the 2010 submittal because it satisfies 

the requirements of the CAA. 

In accordance with the CAA and EPA 

redesignation guidance, states may 

adjust control strategies in the 

maintenance plan as long as they can 

demonstrate that the revision will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or any 

other CAA requirements. See CAA 

sections 175A and 110(l). However, 

section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that contingency measures in the 

maintenance plan include all measures 

in the SIP for the area before that area 

was redesignated to attainment. 

The SIP revision submitted by Alaska 

included a technical analysis using EPA 

approved models and methods to 

demonstrate that the Anchorage area 

would continue to maintain the CO 

standard without the I/M program in 

place and that the revision would not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the other NAAQS. The 

submittal also documented that 

Anchorage will retain the legal authority 

necessary to implement the I/M program 

as a contingency measure. 

On September 7, 2011, EPA proposed 

to approve the State’s submittal as 

meeting the requirements of the Act (76 

FR 55325). For a more detailed 

discussion of the background of this 

rulemaking, please see EPA’s notice of 

proposed approval. In this final action, 

EPA is approving the SIP modifications 

to the Anchorage CO maintenance plan 

as originally proposed in EPA’s notice 

of proposed rulemaking. 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the notice of proposed 

rulemaking? 

The public comment period for EPA’s 

proposal to approve Alaska’s request 

closed on October 7, 2011. EPA received 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1415 

128 comments. The following 

summarizes the issues raised in 

comments and provides EPA’s 

responses. The majority of comments 

supported the proposed action to 

remove the I/M program as an active 

control measure and move it to the 

contingency measures portion of the 

SIP. In general, the comments opposed 

to the proposed action questioned the 

wisdom of discontinuing a program that 

has a beneficial impact on the 

community. Finally, additional 

comments suggested that EPA retain the 

I/M program as an active control 

measure in the SIP because of air quality 

benefits received by the program. As 

discussed in greater detail below, EPA 

believes that many of these concerns fall 

outside of the scope of this action. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

attributed the improvement in 

Anchorage’s air quality to the I/M 

program and expressed concern that air 

quality in Anchorage would deteriorate 

once the I/M program is discontinued. 

Some of these commenters expressed 

concerns such as ‘‘smoke belcher 

vehicles’’ becoming more common and 

deteriorating air quality. Other 

commenters suggested requiring I/M for 

older vehicles. Two commenters 

provided information on I/M test 

failures in Anchorage. One commenter 

emphasized the importance of 

maintaining oxygen sensors. This 

commenter expressed concern that ‘‘the 

motorist may simply ignore the light 

[malfunction indicator lamp/check 

engine light].’’ One commenter was 

concerned that the State’s analysis did 

not include ‘‘removal and modifications 

or just simple lack of maintenance’’ and 

that it did not ‘‘reflect the rapid growth 

of [A]nchorage.’’ These comments all 

expressed concern regarding diminished 

air quality in the absence of the I/M 

program. 

Response: In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

minimum criteria set by the CAA or any 

applicable EPA regulations. The State’s 

CAA section 110(l) demonstration 

indicates that motor vehicle emissions 

are projected to decline from current 

levels through 2023, even with the 

discontinuation of the I/M program for 

all vehicles. In its submittal, the State 

explains that the analysis was 

conducted ‘‘[u]sing the best available 

data and assumptions regarding growth 

in population, vehicle miles traveled 

and trip starts’’ and that the modeling 

analysis ‘‘assumes that the CO 

reductions provided by the I/M Program 

will be zero in 2011 and beyond.’’ In its 

2007–2023 emission projections, the 

State explains that ‘‘[a] great deal of 

effort was devoted to developing a 

credible highway motor vehicle 

emissions inventory that reflected real 

world conditions and driver behavior in 

Anchorage.’’ The State’s projections 

demonstrate that Anchorage will 

maintain the CO standard through 2023. 

The primary driver for the decline in CO 

emissions is the replacement over time 

of older vehicles with newer, cleaner 

running vehicles. In addition, the SIP 

includes a commitment to analyze air 

quality data to verify continued 

attainment of the CO NAAQS (See 69 

FR 25872). Anchorage will retain the 

legal authority necessary to implement 

the I/M program if needed as a 

contingency measure under the CO SIP 

or for reasons unrelated to the 

requirements of the Federal CAA. 

EPA notes that air quality standards 

are set to protect public health with an 

adequate margin of safety and EPA has 

found that approving the State’s plan to 

remove the I/M program as an active 

control measure in the Anchorage CO 

maintenance plan will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS. EPA believes that the 

applicable criteria for approving 

discontinuation of the I/M program in 

Anchorage have been met and therefore 

the revision should be approved. 

Comment: A number of comments, 

both opposing and supporting the 

proposed action, identified benefits of 

the I/M program beyond the control of 

CO and suggested alternatives to the 

I/M program. Some commenters were 

concerned about vehicle safety and 

vehicle modifications. One commenter 

explained seeing vehicles with ‘‘panels 

and hoods held together with duct tape, 

zipties, rivets, ratchet straps, and baleen 

wire.’’ Another commenter was 

concerned about noise pollution from 

‘‘reduced muffler quality.’’ Some 

commenters suggested replacing the I/M 

program with a safety inspection 

program. One commenter was 

concerned about the economic impacts 

of discontinuing the I/M program as the 

industry may need to ‘‘lay off some of 

its work force’’ which will have a 

‘‘ripple effect’’ throughout the 

Anchorage economy. One commenter 

who supported the proposal suggested 

that ‘‘in the spirit of clean air * * * [a] 

small increase in car registration fees 

* * * go toward enhancing the city’s 

public transportation.’’ 

Response: EPA recognizes that there 

may be ancillary benefits in a 

community that coincide with I/M and 

transit programs. As noted above, states 

have primary responsibility for deciding 

how to attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, the sole issue for EPA’s 

consideration in this rulemaking is 

whether removing the I/M program as 

an active control measure for CO in the 

SIP would be consistent with CAA 

provisions, including whether 

discontinuation is expected to interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of air 

quality standards. EPA is approving 

removal of the I/M program as an active 

control measure in the CO SIP because 

removal is consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA, including 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Many of the alternatives 

suggested by commenters may be 

considered and implemented at the 

local level without EPA’s review or 

approval. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that discontinuation of the I/M program 

should be immediate and not delayed 

by 6 months. 

Response: The commenters did not 

provide information identifying the 6- 

month period they reference. EPA has 

not imposed a 6-month waiting period 

on this SIP revision. EPA’s approval of 

the revision to remove the I/M program 

as an active control measure in the SIP 

will be effective 30 days after the final 

rule is published. EPA believes the 

commenters may be referring to local 

requirements, in which case the issue is 

beyond the scope of this action. EPA is 

acting on the State’s submission, which 

is limited in scope to revisions to the 

existing SIP for CO. Although Federal 

approval of the SIP modification is 

effective within 30 days, local regulators 

may choose to continue the I/M program 

after this date for reasons unrelated to 

Federal CAA requirements. 

Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that the State used the 

MOBILE6.2 emissions model in its 

maintenance demonstration rather than 

using EPA’s most recent model, 

MOVES2010. The commenter ‘‘calls on 

the EPA to require the State of Alaska 

to re-submit the proposed rule change 

relying on MOVES2010 to model 

emissions in Anchorage, Alaska.’’ The 

commenter expressed concern that after 

March 2, 2012 (which is the end of the 

MOVES2010 grace period for 

transportation conformity analyses), 

future emissions modeling with 

MOVES2010 would cause Anchorage to 

be ‘‘out-of-compliance’’ or ‘‘in nonattainment’’ for the CO standard and 

that the I/M program could not be 

implemented quickly enough at that 

time to qualify as a contingency 

measure. 

Response: On March 2, 2010, EPA 

released the MOVES2010 emission 

model (see 75 FR 9411, March 2, 2010) 

and explained that ‘‘[a]lthough 

MOVES2010 should be used in SIP 

development as expeditiously as 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
1416 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1EPA believes that this is supported by existing 

EPA policies and case law [Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 

F.3d. 296, 307–08 (DC Cir. 2004)].’’ (Policy 

Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State 

Implementation Plan Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes, December 2009, 

EPA–420–B–09–046) 

2EPA notes that the State has subsequently 

submitted on September 20, 2011, another CO SIP 

revision for Anchorage that includes a re-analysis 

of the maintenance demonstration and motor 

vehicle emission budget with the MOVES model. 

For EPA’s review of the whether the motor vehicle 

emissions budget in the SIP is adequate for 

conformity purposes, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#anch-ala. 

EPA’s preliminary review of this submission 

indicates that Alaska’s MOVES modeling does not 

contain information indicating that the area may 

not be able to maintain the CO NAAQS throughout 

the maintenance period. EPA will complete its 

review of this latest SIP submittal and commence 

notice and comment rulemaking on that submittal 

in the near future. 

possible, EPA also recognizes the time 

and effort that States have already 

undertaken in SIP development using 

MOBILE6.2. SIPs that EPA has already 

approved are not required to be revised 

solely based on existence of the new 

model. States that have already 

submitted SIPs or will submit SIPs 

shortly after EPA’s approval of 

MOVES2010 are not required to revise 

these SIPs simply because a new motor 

vehicle emissions model is now 

available.’’ 1 Alaska’s MOBILE6 

modeling that was used in support of its 

maintenance demonstration and in 

developing the motor vehicle emissions 

budget was completed prior to March 2, 

2010. Consistent with EPA’s guidance 

on the topic, EPA finds that Alaska’s 

reliance on that modeling in its SIP 

submission was appropriate under these 

circumstances. EPA concludes that this 

does not constitute a basis for 

disapproval of the State’s SIP proposal. 

Regarding the commenter’s concern 

that Anchorage may be ‘‘out-ofcompliance’’ or ‘‘in non-attainment’’ on 

March 2, 2012, EPA reiterates that SIPs 

that have already been approved do not 

need to be revised solely as a result of 

the availability of the new model. Thus, 

EPA will not be reevaluating its 

approval of this SIP revision after March 

2, 2012.2 Furthermore, to the extent the 

commenter is suggesting that Anchorage 

will be out of compliance with the 

NAAQS on March 2, 2012, and 

subsequently designated nonattainment, 

EPA notes that compliance with the CO 

standard in Anchorage will continue to 

be based on air quality monitoring 

values. The end of the MOVES2010 

grace period on March 2, 2012, does not 

relate to the attainment status of the 

area. 

The commenter also expressed 

concern that the I/M program does not 

qualify as a contingency measure 

because of the length of time it would 

take to implement the program after it 

has been discontinued. EPA notes that 

the contingency plan in the Anchorage 

CO SIP includes six contingency 

measures available to the State with a 

schedule indicating the time necessary 

to implement each contingency 

measure. The implementation times 

range from 6 to 24 months and the State 

projected it would take 12 to 24 months 

to reinstate the I/M program if that 

measure were selected. The State’s 

contingency plan explains that, ‘‘[i]n the 

event monitoring data indicate that a 

violation of the ambient CO standard 

has occurred, Anchorage would 

examine the data to assess the spatial 

extent (i.e., hot spot versus region), 

severity and time period of the episode 

as well as trends over time. Based on 

this information, Anchorage, in 

consultation with ADEC [Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation], would determine which 

measure or measures in Table III.B.7–1 

to implement.’’ CAA section 175A(d) of 

the Act requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency provisions, as 

EPA deems necessary, to promptly 

correct any violation of the standard 

which occurs after the redesignation of 

the area. Thus, Congress gave EPA 

discretion to evaluate and determine the 

contingency measures EPA ‘‘deems 

necessary.’’ EPA has long exercised this 

discretion in its rulemakings on CAA 

section 175A contingency measures in 

maintenance plans, allowing as 

contingency measures commitments to 

adopt and implement in lieu of fully 

adopted contingency measures, and 

finding that implementation within 18– 

24 months of a violation complies with 

the requirements of section 175A. EPA 

has properly determined here that the 

State’s contingency measures and 

schedules for implementation satisfy the 

CAA’s contingency plan requirements. 

Comment: One commenter was 

concerned about funding for air quality 

monitoring. The commenter explained 

that air quality monitoring in the 

Municipality of Anchorage is funded by 

the I/M program and an alternate source 

of funding has not been identified. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that a 

portion of Anchorage’s air quality 

monitoring program has historically 

been funded by revenue generated by 

the I/M program. However, Anchorage 

has recently passed a budget that 

provides funding to support 

continuation of its air quality 

monitoring program. Accordingly, EPA 

concludes that termination of the I/M 

program as an active SIP control 

measure will not prevent Alaska from 

having adequate resources to implement 

its SIP. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving revisions to the 

Alaska SIP that will remove the I/M 

program as an active control measure for 

CO in the SIP and move it to the 

contingency measures portion of the 

SIP. For the reasons provided above and 

in our September 7, 2010, proposed 

rule, we are approving Alaska’s SIP 

revision that removes the I/M program 

as an active control measure for CO in 

Anchorage and moves it to the 

contingency measures portion of the SIP 

as originally proposed. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1417 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable 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 March 12, 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 28, 2011. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

40 CFR part 52 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 C—Alaska 

■ 2. Section 52.73 is amended by adding 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 52.73 Approval of plan. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) EPA approves as a revision to the 

Alaska State Implementation Plan, the 

Anchorage Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan (Volume II Sections 

II, III.A and III.B of the State Air Quality 

Control Plan adopted August 20, 2010, 

effective October 29, 2010, and Volume 

III of the Appendices adopted August 

20, 2010, effective October 29, 2010) 

submitted by the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation on 

September 29, 2010 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–341 Filed 1–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0723; FRL–9616–5] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and 

disapproving in part a revision to the 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 

or SJV) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This action 

was proposed in the Federal Register on 

September 9, 2011 and concerns 

SJVUAPCD’s ‘‘Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) 

Demonstration for Ozone SIP’’ (RACT 

SIP) for the 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard. Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this 

action directs California to correct 

RACT rule deficiencies in the SJV. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on February 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0723 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at 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 at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4122, tong.stanley@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. Final Action and CAA Consequences 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On September 9, 2011 (76 FR 55842), 

EPA proposed to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the following 

document that was submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 

Local agency Document Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ................ Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP).04/16/2009 06/18/2009 

In our proposed action we divided 

SJVUAPCD’s rules into the following 

categories and evaluated each rule for 

compliance with RACT requirements. 

Group 1: Rules that EPA recently 

approved or proposed to approve as 

implementing RACT. 

Group 2: Rules previously approved 

for which we are not aware of more 

stringent controls that are reasonably 

available. 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES