Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 12491 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/Effective 

date 

EPA approval date 

*******

31. Atlanta 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 2002 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory.

Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, 

DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, 

Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and Walton 

Counties in their entireties and portions of Heard and Putnam Counties.

07/06/2010 3/1/2012. [Insert citation of 

publication]. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4988 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0020; FRL–9634–3] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley 

Air Quality Management District and 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Antelope Valley Air Quality 

Management District (AVAQMD) and 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

portions of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern negative declarations 

for volatile organic compound (VOC) 

and oxides of sulfur source categories 

for the AVAQMD and SJVUAPCD. We 

are approving these negative 

declarations under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 30, 

2012 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by April 2, 

2012. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0020, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Allen, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4120, allen.cynthia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What negative declarations did the State 

submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these 

negative declarations? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

negative declarations? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. 

A. How is EPA evaluating the negative 

declarations? 

B. Do the negative declarations meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Administrative Requirements 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What negative declarations did the 

State submit? 

Table 1 lists the negative declarations 

we are approving with the dates that 

they were adopted by the AVAQMD and 

SJVUAPCD and submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS

Local agency Title Adopted Submitted 

AVAQMD .................... Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations—Oxides of Sulfur ...................................................... 01/18/11 06/20/11 

SJVUAPCD ................ Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturing ........................................................... 04/16/09 06/18/09 

SJVUAPCD ................ Coating Operations at Shipbuilding/Ship Repair Facilities ..................................................... 04/16/09 06/18/09 

SJVUAPCD ................ Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tire ................................................................................. 12/16/10 06/20/11 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
12492 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

On December 11, 2009, EPA 

determined that the SJVUAPCD 

Negative Declarations submitted on June 

18, 2009, meet the completeness criteria 

in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which 

must be met before formal EPA review. 

On December 20, 2011, the submittal 

for Antelope Valley AQMD and 

SJVUAPCD Negative Declarations 

submitted on June 20, 2011, was 

deemed by operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

negative declarations? 

There are no previous versions of 

these negative declarations. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

negative declarations? 

For SJVUAPCD, the negative 

declarations were submitted to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2). 

Nonattainment areas are required to 

adopt volatile organic compound (VOC) 

regulations for the published Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 

categories. If a nonattainment area does 

not have stationary sources covered 

under a CTG, then the area is required 

to submit a negative declaration. The 

negative declarations were submitted 

because there are no applicable sources 

within the SJVAPCD jurisdiction. 

For AVAQMD, the negative 

declaration was submitted to rescind 

Rule 1119 because there are no sources 

within the jurisdiction of AVAQMD 

subject to the provisions of the rule. 

EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) has more information about these 

negative declarations. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the negative 

declarations? 

The negative declarations are 

submitted as SIP revisions and must be 

consistent with Clean Air Act 

requirements for Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) (see section 

182(b)(2)) and SIP relaxation (see 

sections 110(1) and 193.) To do so, the 

submittal should provide reasonable 

assurance that no sources subject to 

Rule 1119 and the CTG requirements 

currently exist or are planned for the 

AVAQMD and SJVUAPCD. 

B. Do the negative declarations meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

We believe these negative 

declarations are consistent with the 

relevant policy and guidance regarding 

RACT and SIP relaxations. The TSD has 

more information on our evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted negative declarations as 

additional information to the SIP 

because we believe they fulfill all 

relevant requirements. We do not think 

anyone will object to this approval, so 

we are finalizing it without proposing it 

in advance. However, in the Proposed 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

we are simultaneously proposing 

approval of these negative declarations. 

If we receive adverse comments by 

April 2, 2012, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that the direct final 

approval will not take effect and we will 

address the comments in a subsequent 

final action based on the proposal. If we 

do not receive timely adverse 

comments, the direct final approval will 

be effective without further notice on 

April 30, 2012. 

III. Administrative Requirements 

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 interfere with Executive 

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 

1994)) because EPA lacks the 

discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

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 April 30, 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 12493 

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, oxides of sulfur. 

Dated: February 9, 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 52.222 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (a)(6)(ix) 

and (a)(8) to read as follows: 

§ 52.222 Negative declarations. 

(a) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(ix) Petroleum Coke Calcining 

Operations—Oxides of Sulfur submitted 

on June 20, 2011 and adopted on 

January 18, 2011. 

* * * * * 

(8) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(i) Synthesized Pharmaceutical 

Products Manufacturing and Coating 

Operations at Shipbuilding/Ship Repair 

Facilities submitted on June 18, 2009 

and adopted on April 16, 2009. 

(ii) Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

submitted on June 20, 2011 and adopted 

on September 20, 2010. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–4667 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0900; FRL–9626–3] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Feather River 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 Feather River Air 

Quality Management District 

(FRAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on December 6, 2011 and 

concerns oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

emissions from internal combustion 

engines. Under authority of the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act), this action simultaneously 

approves a local rule that regulates these 

emission sources and directs California 

to correct rule deficiencies. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on April 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0900 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 Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, 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 December 6, 2011 (76 FR 76115), 

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 Adopted Submitted 

FRAQMD .......... 3.22 1 Internal Combustion Engines ........................................................... 06/01/09 01/10/10 

1 In some sections of the published proposal, we incorrectly used the number 2.33 instead of the correct 3.22 to refer to the rule on which we 

were proposing action. The name of the rule was correctly stated in the proposal and the correct rule was available in the docket for reviewing. 

We believe that this error did not negatively impact the public’s opportunity to comment or the intent of our proposal. 

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 rule provision conflicts 

with section 110 and part D of the Act 

which prevents full approval of the SIP 

revision. Section G.1.g allows for 

alternate testing without including 

sufficient QA/QC requirements to 

demonstrate compliance. 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 due to this 

limited disapproval. 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES