Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air Quality Control District, 22676-22678 [2012-9069]
Download as PDF
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 https://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
Local agency
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
5–24–1032
Effective Date: This rule is
effective on May 17, 2012.
DATES:
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 https://
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
https://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.
ADDRESSES:
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
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.
Rule title
Adopted
Federal Enforceable Minimum Standard of Performance-Process
Particulate Emissions.
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
14:20 Apr 16, 2012
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rule No.
PCAPCD ...........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
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.
Jkt 226001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
02/22/95
Submitted
11/27/95
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.
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
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 30day 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:
https://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.’’
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 Apr 16, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22677
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.
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
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.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
14:20 Apr 16, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
rulemaking.
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:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 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
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
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
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22676-22678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9069]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
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 02/22/95 11/27/95
Standard of Performance-
Process Particulate
Emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 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: https://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 cost-effective 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.
[[Page 22678]]
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]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(84)(i)(M) to read
as follows:
Sec. 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