### 71886 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

[FR Doc. 2011–29904 Filed 11–16–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0845; FRL–9492–2]**

**Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer County**  **Air Pollution Control District and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality**  **Management District**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Direct final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from coatings and strippers used on wood products, wood paneling, and miscellaneous metal parts and products. We are approving these local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

**DATES :**  This rule is effective on January 20, 2012 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 21, 2011. 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–2011–0845, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http:// 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 http://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 :**  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. The State’s Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted

rule revisions? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation

criteria? C. EPA Recommendations To Further

Improve the Rules D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.



### TABLE 

### 1—S UBMITTED 

### R ULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted

PCAPCD .......................................... 236 Wood Products and Coating Operations ...................... 10/14/10 04/05/11 PCAPCD .......................................... 238 Factory Coating of Flat Wood Paneling ....................... 10/14/10 04/05/11 SMAQMD ......................................... 451 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. 10/28/10 04/05/11

On May 6, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for PCAPCD 236, PCAPCD 238, and SMAQMD 451 met 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 rules?

We approved earlier versions of PCAPCD 236, PCAPCD 238, and SMAQMD 451 into the SIP on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 18962), February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5288), and January 24, 1985 (50 FR 3338), respectively. The PCAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved versions on October 14, 2010 and CARB submitted them to us on April 5, 2011. There are no subsequent submittals of the PCAPCD rules. The SMAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version of Rule 451 on October 28, 2010 and CARB submitted them to us on April 5, 2011. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. The submitted rules control emissions from coatings and strippers used on wood products, wood paneling, and miscellaneous metal parts and products. EPA’s technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.


### 71887 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The PCAPCD and SMAQMD regulate an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so the rules must fulfill RACT.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:
1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook). 2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). 3. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations,’’ EPA–453/ R–96–007, April 1996. 4. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling,’’ EPA– 450/2–78–032, June 1978. 5. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings,’’ EPA–453-/R– 06–004, September 2006. 6. ‘‘Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R–08–003, September 2008. 7. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R–07– 005, September 2007. 8. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture,’’ EPA–450/2–77–032, December 1977. 9. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products,’’ EPA–450/2– 78–015, June 1978.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. PCAPCD 236, PCAPCD 238, and SMAQMD 451 have a few rule relaxation concerns, but we do not consider them deficiencies. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules 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 the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by December 21, 2011, 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 January 20, 2012. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General 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 20, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by


### 71888 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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 not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: October 24, 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 paragraphs (c)(388) (i)(D)( 3) and (E) to read as follows:

**§ 52.220 Identification of plan.**
* * * * *

(c) * * * (388) * * * (i) * * * (D) * * * ( 3) Rule 451, ‘‘Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products,’’ amended October 28, 2010.

(E) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.

( 1 ) Rule 236, ‘‘Wood Products and Coating Operations,’’ amended October 14, 2010, effective July 1, 2011.

( 2) Rule 238, ‘‘Factory Coating of Flat Wood Paneling,’’ amended October 14, 2010, effective July 1, 2011.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2011–29906 Filed 11–18–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P GENERAL SERVICES**  **ADMINISTRATION**

**41 CFR Parts 302–3 and 302–9**

**[FTR Amendment 2011–06; FTR Case 2011– 307; Docket Number 2011–0025, sequence**  **1]**

**RIN 3090–AJ18**

**Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Storage of a Privately Owned Vehicle**  **When Assigned a Temporary Change of Station in Support of a Contingency**  **Operation**

**AGENCY :**  Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This final rule amends the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), and allows agencies to establish internal policy and procedures for storage of a privately owned vehicle (POV) when an employee is assigned a temporary change of station (TCS) in support of a contingency operation.

**DATES :**  Effective date: This final rule is effective December 21, 2011.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For clarification of content, contact Rick Miller, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Travel Management Policy, at (202) 501–3822 or email at rodney.miller@gsa.gov. The Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, (202) 501– 4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FTR Amendment 2011–06 FTR case
2011–307.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  A. Background

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5738 the Administrator of General Services is authorized to prescribe necessary regulations to implement laws regarding Federal employees when assigned a TCS or when otherwise officially relocated. The overall implementing authority is the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) (41 CFR chapters 300–304).

This final rule incorporates language based on Public Law 110–181, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, section 1104, and 5 U.S.C. 5737a, to allow agencies to establish policies to provide for the storage, without charge, or for the reimbursement of the cost of storage, of a POV that is owned or leased by a covered employee of that agency (or by a dependent of such an employee), when the employee is assigned a TCS in support of a contingency operation. The term ‘‘contingency operation’’ has the meaning given such term in 10 U.S.C. 1482a(c)(2) to include humanitarian operations, peacekeeping operations, and similar operations.

This final rule also amends and clarifies other clerical issues pertaining to FTR Part 302–3, (Subpart B— Transferred Employees—Table H— Temporary Change of Station (TCS), and Subpart E—Employee’s Temporary Change of Station) and Part 302–9 (Allowances for Transportation and Emergency Storage of a Privately Owned Vehicle).

B. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and is not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the revisions are not considered substantive. This final rule is also exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act per 5 U.S.C. 553 (a)(2) because it applies to agency management or personnel. However, this final rule is being published to provide transparency in the promulgation of Federal policies. D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This final rule is also exempt from congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.