### 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.


### 22677 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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 section205, 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.


### 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