Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 67767 

show that no affected firewall shutoff or 

crossfeed valve is installed, then the 

inspection requirement of paragraph (h) of 

this AD and the replacement requirement of 

paragraph (i) of this AD do not apply. You 

must make an entry into the aircraft records 

that shows compliance with these portions of 

the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). 

(h) Inspection 

Within 5 days after September 3, 2003 (the 

effective date of AD 2003–17–03 (68 FR 

50693, August 22, 2003)), inspect the three 

firewall shutoff and crossfeed valves to 

determine whether they incorporate a serial 

number as referenced in the Effectivity table 

of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB No. 

ASB80–0191, dated February 27, 2003. 

(i) Replacement/Modification 

If any of the firewall shutoff or crossfeed 

valves that are referenced in the Effectivity 

table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB 

No. ASB80–0191, dated February 27, 2003, 

are found, before further flight, replace or 

modify each affected valve following 

PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. Service 

Bulletin (SB) No. ASB80–0191, dated 

February 27, 2003; and Electromech 

Technologies SB 484–3 AB, dated February 

18, 2003. 

(j) Spares 

As of 5 days after September 3, 2003 (the 

effective date of AD 2003–17–03 (68 FR 

50693, August 22, 2003)), do not install, on 

any airplane, a firewall shutoff or crossfeed 

valve that is referenced in the Effectivity 

table of PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. SB 

No. ASB80–0191, dated February 27, 2003, 

unless it has been modified per paragraph (i) 

of this AD. 

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: 

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4144; fax: (816) 329– 

4090; email: mike.kiesov@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(3) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on September 3, 2003 (68 

FR 50693, August 22, 2003): 

(i) PIAGGIO Aero Industries S.p.A. Service 

Bulletin (SB) No. ASB80–0191, dated 

February 27, 2003; and 

(ii) Electromech Technologies SB 484–3 

AB, dated February 18, 2003. 

(4) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Piaggio Aero Industries 

S.p.A–Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi 

Cibrario, 4–16154 Genova-Italy; phone: +39 

010 6481353; fax: +39 010 6481881; email: 

airworthiness@piaggioaero.it; Internet: http:// 

www.piaggioaero.com/#/en/aftersales/ 

service-support. 

(5) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

(6) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

October 31, 2012. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27051 Filed 11–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–1078; FRL–9751–3] 

Revision to the South Coast Portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan, CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 

1318 Tracking System 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a source-specific State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for 

the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (‘‘SCAQMD’’ or 

‘‘District’’) portion of the California SIP. 

This source-specific SIP revision is 

known as the CPV Sentinel Energy 

Project AB 1318 Tracking System (‘‘AB 

1318 Tracking System’’). The SIP 

revision consists of enabling language 

and the AB 1318 Tracking System to 

revise the District’s SIP approved new 

source review (NSR) program. The SIP 

revision allows the District to transfer 

offsetting emission reductions for 

particulate matter less than 10 microns 

in diameter (PM10) and one of its 

precursors, sulfur oxides (SOX), to the 

CPV Sentinel Energy Project 

(‘‘Sentinel’’), which will be a natural gas 

fired power plant. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The index to the docket for 

this final action is available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While generally all categories 

of documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., voluminous documents, 

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: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3524, yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The Facility and Prior Actions 

B. Description of Final Rule 

II. Evaluation of Source-Specific SIP Revision 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. The Facility and Prior Actions 

The Sentinel Energy Project is 

designed to be a nominally rated 850 

megawatt, natural gas-fired electrical 

generating facility covering 

approximately 37 acres within Riverside 

County, adjacent to Desert Hot Springs 

in the Palm Springs, California area. 

EPA’s Federal Register notices for the 

January 13, 2011 proposal (76 FR 2294), 

April 20, 2011 final action (76 FR 

22038), and August 23, 2012 

supplemental proposal for this action 

(77 FR 50973) contain a detailed 

description of the project and the Clean 

Air Act’s (CAA) requirements for offsets 

during new source review permitting. 

In response to our January 13, 2011 

proposed rule, we received four 

comments. We responded to those 

comments on April 20, 2011 (76 FR 

22038). One commenter, jointly 

California Communities Against Toxics 

and Communities for a Better 

Environment (jointly ‘‘CCAT’’) filed a 

Petition for judicial review in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (‘‘9th Circuit’’) shortly 

thereafter and an Opening Brief on July 

26, 2011. On September 14, 2011, EPA 

requested the 9th Circuit to remand the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
67768 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

final rule to us to correct minor errors 

and revise our reasoning on one issue. 

Motion for a Voluntary Remand of the 

Record, to Vacate the Briefing Schedule, 

and to Stay the Proceedings During 

Remand, Case No. 11–71127 (Sept. 14, 

2011). CCAT opposed EPA’s motion for 

voluntary remand. The 9th Circuit 

Appellate Commissioner denied EPA’s 

motion for voluntary remand on 

November 7, 2011, and ordered briefing. 

After briefing and oral argument, the 9th 

Circuit remanded the final rule (without 

vacatur) to EPA on July 26, 2012. 

California Communities Against Toxics 

v. EPA, 688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012). 

EPA published a supplemental proposal 

on August 23, 2012, (77 FR 50973) and 

took comment on the supplemental 

proposal through September 24, 2012. 

Copies of the comments on the 

supplemental proposal have been added 

to the docket and are accessible at 

www.regulations.gov. Comment letters 

from the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (‘‘SCAQMD’’ or 

‘‘District’’) and CPV Sentinel LLC 

(‘‘Sentinel’’) support EPA’s approval of 

the AB 1318 Tracking System as a 

source-specific SIP revision. A comment 

letter from CCAT opposes our proposal 

and supplemental proposal to approve 

of the source-specific SIP revision. 

B. Description of Final Rule 

We are finalizing our proposal and 

supplemental proposal to approve the 

AB 1318 Tracking System into the SIP 

as a source-specific SIP revision. Even 

with the slight revision to Attachment A 

discussed below, the District transferred 

more offsets into the AB 1318 Tracking 

System than the amount that is needed 

to allow Sentinel to operate. We are 

finalizing our approval because the 

offsets listed in the Revised Attachment 

A meet the federal offset integrity 

criteria, including proper quantification 

and surplus adjustment. We are 

finalizing the reasoning in our 

supplemental proposal for finding that 

the offsets meet the requirement in 40 

CFR part 51, appendix S and 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(ii) for offsets 

resulting from facilities or sources 

shutting down to have occurred after the 

base-year for SIP planning purposes. We 

are interpreting this provision to refer to 

the 2003 AQMP for PM10 for the South 

Coast and the Coachella Valley Air 

Basins. 

In response to CCAT’s comments on 

September 24, 2012, EPA is making a 

slight revision to Attachment A to the 

Technical Support Document for our 

supplemental proposal. Attachment A 

contains tables showing our evaluation 

of a subset of all of the facilities from 

which the District transferred offsets 

into its AB 1318 Tracking System. In 

this final rule, we are attaching a 

slightly revised version of Attachment A 

to our Response to Comments 

document. The only change in the 

Revised Attachment A is that we have 

applied a more conservative assumption 

of zero emissions for the data missing 

for the facilities listed in Attachment A, 

Section II.B. The facilities listed in 

Section II.B were missing Year 2 data. 

Our supplemental proposal assumed 

that the Year 2 data would be the same 

as the reported Year 1 data for these 

offsets. Based on comments we received 

from CCAT, we changed the assumption 

for this group of facilities. In our 

Revised Attachment A, we are assuming 

that Year 2 data for these facilities is 

zero. This change means that we are 

using the most conservative approach 

(zero emissions) to quantify the offsets. 

This revision lowers the quantity of 

offsets listed in Attachment A by 306 

pounds for PM10 and 2 pounds for SOX. 

Even with this adjustment the quantity 

of offsets listed in Revised Attachment 

A exceeds the quantity that Sentinel 

needs for operation. Because the District 

is committed to retiring all of the 

remaining offsets in the AB 1318 

Tracking System, including those not 

listed in Attachment A, the net effect 

will be a greater reduction in emissions 

than is required by the CAA. 

For additional background 

information, please see the January 13, 

2011 notice of proposed rule for this 

action (76 FR 2294), the notice of final 

rule (which was remanded without 

vacatur on July 26, 2012) (76 FR 22038 

Apr. 20, 2011) and the August 23, 2012 

supplemental proposal (77 FR 50974). 

II. Evaluation of Source-Specific SIP 

Revision 

A. What action is EPA is finalizing? 

EPA is finalizing our approval of a SIP 

revision for the South Coast portion of 

the California SIP. The SIP revision is 

codified in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(384) and 

incorporates by reference the CPV 

Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 

Tracking System, as adopted by the 

District. 

The SIP revision provides a federally 

approved and enforceable mechanism 

for the District to transfer PM10 and SOX

offsets from the District’s internal bank 

to the AB 1318 Tracking System for use 

by the Sentinel Energy Project. 

B. Public Comment and Final Action 

Our detailed response to all 

significant comments is contained in the 

Response to Comments (‘‘RTC’’) 

document in the docket for this action. 

The RTC can be accessed through 

www.regulations.gov and a very brief 

summary of our responses to certain 

comments is provided below. Please 

refer to our RTC document for our 

complete response to all comments. 

Comment Letter from South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

Comment: The District supported 

EPA’s proposal and supplemental 

proposal to approve the AB 1318 

Tracking System based on the 

quantification and surplus adjustment 

of the offsets listed in Attachment A to 

the Technical Support Document for the 

supplemental proposal. The District 

commented that its 2003 PM10 Air 

Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was 

the appropriate plan and attainment 

demonstration to establish the base-year 

for SIP planning as set forth in 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(ii). The District 

also commented that growth was added 

to the 2007 AQMP for PM2.5. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

District’s comments, as discussed in the 

RTC document provided in the docket 

for this rule. 

Comment Letter from Sentinel Energy 

LLP 

Comment: Sentinel also supported 

EPA’s proposal and supplemental 

proposal to approve the SIP revision on 

generally the same basis as the District. 

Response: EPA agrees with Sentinel’s 

comments, as discussed in the RTC 

document provided in the docket for 

this rule. 

Comment: On October 26, 2012, 

Sentinel submitted a late comment letter 

in which it requested EPA to use the 

good cause exception set forth in section 

553(d)(3) of the Administrative 

Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to 

make this final rule effective 

immediately upon publication in the 

Federal Register. Sentinel stated that 

the purpose of the usual 30-day delay 

for rule effectiveness is to allow the 

regulated entity an opportunity to make 

any changes necessary to be in 

compliance with the rule. Sentinel 

stated that it has been aware of what 

would be required of it as a result of this 

rule for 18 months. Sentinel anticipates 

beginning its commission period in 

November 2012. Sentinel added that if 

the power plant is on-line next summer, 

it will help the region avoid any 

potential electricity shortfalls. 

Response: EPA has discretion to 

accept late comments and will accept 

the comment submitted by Sentinel. 

EPA agrees with Sentinel that it has 

demonstrated good cause for EPA to 

issue this final rule with an immediate 

effective date. Sentinel has been 

constructing the power plant for the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 67769 

past 12 to 18 months in anticipation of 

beginning its commissioning period in 

November 2012. Sentinel and the 

District provided information regarding 

the potential effects of delaying 

commissioning and operations beyond 

this date in the briefs submitted in the 

9th Circuit ligation pertaining to this 

rulemaking. Sentinel has indicated that 

it will not be harmed by the immediate 

effective date. Therefore the final rule 

will become effective upon publication. 

Comment Letter From California 

Communities Against Toxics (CCAT) 

and Communities for a Better 

Environment (CBE) (collectively CCAT) 

Comment: CCAT contends that it was 

arbitrary and capricious for EPA to 

publish a supplemental proposal to 

approve the source-specific SIP revision 

after the 9th Circuit remanded the 

rulemaking to EPA without vacatur. 

Response: CCAT is incorrect. EPA has 

discretion under Section 553 of the 

Administrative Procedures Act to 

supplement its existing proposed 

approval of the source-specific SIP 

revision. We provided notice of the 

supplemental proposal and a 30-day 

period for comments. The 9th Circuit’s 

Opinion in California Communities 

Against Toxics v. EPA, 688 F.3d at 989 

did not indicate that EPA could not 

supplement its prior proposal. 

Comment: CCAT states: ‘‘The 

Planning Year for the Failed 2003 

AQMP Cannot be the Base Year for 

Valid Offsets: In the Absence of an 

Approved Attainment Demonstration 

for PM10, Only Replacement Capacity 

Can offset New Emissions.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees. CCAT 

asserts that the 2003 AQMP is ‘‘no 

longer valid’’ because the South Coast 

and Coachella Air Basins failed to be redesignated to attainment for PM10 in 

2006. Based on this presumption, CCAT 

argues that the SCAQMD is prohibited 

from relying on offsets resulting from 

sources that shut down, unless the new 

source of emissions is replacement 

capacity for the facility or source that is 

shutting down. CCAT’s presumption is 

incorrect. Failure to attain a National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(‘‘NAAQS’’) by the attainment date does 

not invalidate the plan and attainment 

demonstration—in this case the 2003 

PM10 AQMP. The control measures and 

strategies remain in effect and 

enforceable along with the emissions 

inventories and attainment 

demonstration. Therefore, there is no 

prohibition on using offsets from 

facilities or sources that have shut down 

after the 1997 base-year from the 2003 

PM10 AQMP to allow new source 

emissions growth in the South Coast 

and Coachella Air Basins. 

Comment: CCAT states: ‘‘The 2007 

AQMP Applies to PM10 as well as PM2.5

Attainment.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with CCAT. 

The District adopted the 2007 AQMP to 

demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA approved the 2007 AQMP 

to demonstrate attainment with the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The minor references to 

PM10 in the 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 are 

included for a variety of reasons, 

including to comply with California 

state law and to ensure continued 

emissions control at one particular PM10

air quality monitor. Minor references to 

PM10 for limited purposes do not mean 

that the 2007 AQMP establishes a new 

base-year for PM10. EPA does not 

consider the incidental inclusion of 

PM10 control measures or updated 

emissions inventory for a future 

maintenance plan to be the same as 

adopting a new AQMP for PM10. EPA’s 

approval of the 2007 AQMP does not 

mention PM10. 

Comment: CCAT states: ‘‘The 2007 

AQMP Was Final At All Relevant 

Times.’’ 

Response: Our supplemental proposal 

notes that the EPA had not approved the 

2007 AQMP at the time the SCAQMD 

approved transferring the offsets into 

the AB 1318 Tracking System. EPA has 

not found any authority establishing the 

correct date for an approved air quality 

plan to apply. EPA reasonably 

determined that the date of transfer of 

the offsets (i.e. when the offsets become 

enforceable) is an appropriate date to 

establish what AQMP applies. 

Comment: CCAT states ‘‘EPA Cannot 

Rely on the Failed, Superseded 2003 

AQMP for a Base Year.’’ 

Response: CCAT appears to have 

raised the same argument in an earlier 

portion of its comment letter. EPA 

considers this section to provide 

additional argumentation of the same 

point presented in the earlier 

paragraphs. EPA disagrees with CCAT’s 

additional discussion. CCAT has 

mischaracterized the Court’s holding in 

NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1267 (D.C. 

Cir. 2009). The Court held that the baseyear should be established by an 

‘‘approved’’ AQMP and it did not use 

the term ‘‘valid.’’ As discussed 

elsewhere, the CAA does not define air 

quality plans as ‘‘valid’’ and EPA does 

not consider the term to be dispositive 

or persuasive regarding the appropriate 

AQMP to establish the base-year. CCAT 

also comments at length on the 

appropriate method for adding new 

source growth in the absence of an 

approved attainment demonstration. 

EPA considers this portion of CCAT’s 

discussion to be irrelevant because the 

2003 PM10 AQMP is the approved 

attainment demonstration for PM10 for 

the South Coast and Coachella Air 

Basins. 

Comment: CCAT states: ‘‘The Offsets 

Transferred into the 1318 Tracking 

System are Not Quantifiable.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with CCAT 

and is finalizing our proposal and 

supplemental proposal to approve the 

AB 1318 Tracking System because the 

District transferred more properly 

quantified and surplus adjusted PM10

and SOX offsets than Sentinel needs to 

offset its PM10 and SOX emissions. 

CCAT contends that EPA is required to 

use two years of emissions data to 

quantify offsets. CCAT also asserts that 

two years of emissions data cannot be 

satisfied with a conservative (i.e. fewer 

offsets) assumption being used for 

missing data. Nothing in the CAA or 

EPA’s regulations requires EPA to use 

two years of emissions data to quantify 

offsets or prohibits the use of a 

conservative approach for filling in 

missing data. EPA is reasonably 

interpreting our regulations to allow the 

District to exercise discretion to use a 

conservative approach to quantify 

offsets where emissions data is missing. 

Here, we have concluded that the 

District’s quantification of offsets using 

a conservative approach—specifically, 

by substituting zero emissions when 

data is missing—is reasonable and 

consistent with the CAA and applicable 

regulations. 

EPA is revising our final approval 

slightly from our supplemental proposal 

to ensure that the most conservative 

estimation of data is made regardless of 

whether the facility is missing Year 1 or 

Year 2 data. This means that EPA is 

reducing the amount of offsets we are 

determining are properly quantified in 

Attachment A, Section II.B. to reduce it 

by 306 pounds of PM10 and 2 pounds of 

SOX. Therefore, whether a facility is 

missing Year 1 or Year 2 data, EPA is 

assuming the emissions for the missing 

data are zero. 

Comment: CCAT states: ‘‘The Offsets 

Are Not Surplus.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees. The offsets 

listed in Attachment A to the TSD for 

the supplemental proposal are properly 

surplus adjusted to comply with the 

CAA. 

Comment: CCAT states: ‘‘Rule 1315, 

Which EPA Did Not Apply, Dictates 

How the Surplus Adjustment after 

Deposit Occurs.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees. The District 

removed the offsets in the AB 1318 

Tracking System from its internal 

accounts and evaluated each facility to 

determine if the offsets required surplus 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
67770 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

adjustment. Rule 1315 requires the 

District to make an annual aggregate 

adjustment to offsets in its Rule 1315 

internal accounts. All of the offsets in 

Attachment A, as revised, to the TSD for 

EPA’s supplemental proposal are 

properly quantified and surplus 

adjusted. 

Comment: CCAT states: ‘‘If Rule 1315 

Were Not Applicable, EPA’s Analysis Is 

Entirely Incomplete.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees. Rule 1315 

does not apply to this source-specific 

SIP revision for the offset package for a 

single power plant. All of the offsets in 

Revised Attachment A are properly 

surplus adjusted. 

III. EPA Action 

This source-specific SIP revision 

complies with all relevant CAA 

requirements and is consistent with 

EPA’s regulations and guidance. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 

approving this source-specific SIP 

revision into the California SIP. The 

changes in this final rule from EPA’s 

proposal and supplemental proposal are 

described above in Section I.B. EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA and our 

regulations is provided more fully in 

our RTC. 

Our initial approval of this SIP 

revision and its related incorporation by 

reference into the Code of Federal 

Regulations was previously codified at 

40 CFR 52.220(c)(384). Because the SIP 

submittal has not changed since the 

initial approval and related codification, 

and because the previous final rule was 

not withdrawn, we are not revising the 

codification of our approval at 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(384) in this final action. 

This rule is effective immediately 

upon publication in the Federal 

Register. Section 553(d) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553(d), generally provides that 

rules may not take effect earlier than 30 

days after they are published in the 

Federal Register. However, APA section 

553(d)(3) provides an exception when 

the agency finds good cause exists for a 

rule to take effect in less than 30-days. 

The purpose of the APA’s 30-day 

effective date provision is to give 

affected parties time to adjust their 

behavior before the final rule takes 

effect. The Sentinel Energy Project, to 

which this rulemaking applies, 

requested in a comment letter to EPA 

that the rule be made effective upon 

Federal Register publication. 

We find good cause exists here to 

make this rule effective upon 

publication because implementing a 30- 

day delayed effective date would 

interfere with CPV Sentinel’s ability to 

begin commissioning in November 2012 

as scheduled. Such interference would 

delay Sentinel from becoming fully 

operational by the summer of 2013, 

which is when the California Energy 

Commission is expecting the plant to 

come on line. This delay could result in 

significant impacts to electrical 

reliability and air quality. 

In addition, this rule is not a major 

rule under the Congressional Review 

Act (CRA). Thus, the 60-day delay in 

effective date required for major rules 

under the CRA does not apply. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 13563 

This action will approve the sourcespecific SIP revision known as the CPV 

Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 

Tracking System into the California SIP. 

This type of action is exempt from 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 

13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

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 under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval 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 

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis 

would constitute Federal inquiry into 

the economic reasonableness of State 

action. The CAA 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 this final 

action 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 proposes to approve preexisting 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 67771 

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 CAA. 

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. 

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 Population 

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. section 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. Section 804, however, 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: rules of particular 

applicability; rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and rules of 

agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is 

a rule of particular applicability, EPA is 

not required to submit a rule report 

regarding this action under section 801. 

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 January 14, 2013. 

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. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: November 1, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27564 Filed 11–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0985; FRL–9368–7] 

Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of flonicamid in 

or on Berry, low growing, subgroup 13– 

07G; Rapeseed subgroup 20A, and 

cucumber. Interregional Research 

Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

November 14, 2012. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before January 14, 2013, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0985, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES