22676 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DoD Executive Secretary, 1000 Defense, 

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1000. 

DoD Components who receive RFAs 

directly from the requestor will 

immediately forward them to the DoD 

Executive Secretary for disposition, 

distribution, and tracking. 

(C) At a minimum, the RFA will be 

distributed to the ASD(HD&ASA) and 

the CJCS for staffing and 

recommendation. If the RFA is for a 

single capability for which a DoD 

Component is the OPR or serves as a 

DoD Executive Agent, the RFA is sent to 

that Component for action with an 

information copy provided to the 

ASD(HD&ASA) and the CJCS. 

(D) Vetting of RFAs will be in 

accordance with the DoD Global Force 

Management process and consistent 

with criteria published in DoD 8260.03– 

M, Volume 2 (see http://www.dtic.mil/

whs/directives/corres/pdf/826003m_

vol2.pdf). 

(E) Heads of DoD Components will 

consult with the DoD Executive 

Secretary on which DoD official will 

communicate DoD special event support 

decisions to the requesting authorities. 

(4) Execution. Execution of DoD 

support of special events is a shared 

responsibility. The scope and 

magnitude of the support being 

provided will determine the OPR and 

level of execution. 

(i) When joint military forces or 

centralized command and control of 

DoD support to a special event are 

anticipated or required, a Combatant 

Commander may be identified as the 

supported commander in a properly 

approved order issued by the CJCS. The 

designated Combatant Command shall 

be the focal point for execution of DoD 

support to that special event with other 

DoD Components in support. Reporting 

requirements shall be in accordance 

with the properly approved order issued 

by the CJCS and standing business 

practices. 

(ii) When there are no joint military 

forces required and there is no need for 

centralized command and control, DoD 

support of special events shall be 

executed by the CJCS or the Head of a 

DoD Component, as designated in a 

properly approved order or message 

issued by the CJCS. Oversight of DoD 

support will be provided by the 

ASD(HD&ASA). 

(iii) As described in the Joint Action 

Plan for Developing Unity of Effort, 

when Federal military forces and State 

military forces are employed 

simultaneously in support of civil 

authorities in the United States, 

appointment of a dual-status 

commander is the usual and customary 

command and control arrangement. 

Appointment of a dual-status 

commander requires action by the 

President and the appropriate Governor 

(or their designees). 

(5) Recovery. (i) Durable, non-unit 

equipment procured by the Department 

of Defense to support a special event 

shall be retained by the CJCS for use 

during future events in accordance with 

§ 183.5(i)(7) of this part. 

(ii) An after-action report shall be 

produced by the Combatant Command 

or OPR and sent to the ASD(HD&ASA) 

and the CJCS within 60 days of 

completion of the event. 

Dated: April 6, 2012. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9148 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0359; FRL–9639–5] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air 

Quality Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

revision to the Pinal County Air Quality 

Control District portion of the Arizona 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on June 18, 2001 and concerns 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

stationary sources. 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 Arizona to correct rule 

deficiencies. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on May 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0359 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: 

Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 947–4125, 

vineyard.christine@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 18, 2001 (66 FR 32783), EPA 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the following rule that 

was submitted for incorporation into the 

Arizona SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

PCAPCD ........... 5–24–1032 Federal Enforceable Minimum Standard of Performance-Process 

Particulate Emissions.

02/22/95 11/27/95 

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 

some rule provisions conflict with 

section 110 and part D of the Act. These 

provisions include the following: 

1. The rule enforceability is limited, 

because it does not contain periodic 

monitoring requirements. 

2. The rule does not state the test 

method for PM. 

3. The rule allows discretion of the 

Control Officer to determine whether 

the manner of control of fugitive 

emissions is satisfactory. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22677 

4. The rule does not require 

recordkeeping for at least two years. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments on 

Rule 5–24–1032. 

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 Arizona SIP, 

including those provisions identified as 

deficient. As authorized under section 

110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously 

finalizing a limited disapproval of the 

rule. As a result, sanctions will not be 

imposed under section 179 of the Act 

according to 40 CFR 52.31 because the 

PM source category is small and the 

attainment plan does not rely on the 

rule. Note that the submitted rule has 

been adopted by the PCAQCD, and 

EPA’s final limited disapproval does not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. The limited disapproval also does not 

prevent any portion of the rule from 

being incorporated by reference into the 

federally enforceable SIP as discussed in 

a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: 

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

pdf/memo-s.pdf. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals and 

limited approvals/limited disapprovals 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any 

new requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because this 

limited approval/limited disapproval 

action does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

promulgated does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action approves pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
22678 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

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). This rule 

will be effective on May 17, 2012. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 18, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 15, 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 D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(84)(i)(M) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(84) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(M) Rule 5–24–1032, ‘‘Federally 

Enforceable Minimum Standard of 

Performance—Process Particulate 

Emissions,’’ codified February 22, 1995. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–9069 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 110707371–2136–02] 

RIN 0648- XB145 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fisheries; Closure of the 

Trimester 1 Longfin Squid Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the closure 

of the directed fishery for longfin squid 

(longfin) in the Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) for the remainder of 

Trimester 1, effective 0001 hours, April 

17, 2012. Vessels issued a Federal 

permit to harvest longfin may not fish 

for, possess, or land more than 2,500 lb 

(1.13 mt) of longfin per trip for the 

remainder of Trimester 1 (through April 

30, 2011). This action is necessary to 

prevent the longfin fishery from 

exceeding the butterfish mortality cap 

for Trimester 1. 

DATES: Effective 0001 hours, April 17, 

2012, through 2400 hours, April 30, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lindsey Feldman, Fishery Management 

Specialist, 978–675–2179, Fax 978–281– 

9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the longfin and 

butterfish fisheries are found at 50 CFR 

part 648. The regulations require 

specifications for maximum sustainable 

yield, initial optimum yield, allowable 

biological catch (ABC), domestic annual 

harvest (DAH), domestic annual 

processing, joint venture processing, 

and total allowable levels of foreign 

fishing for the species managed under 

the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES