58078 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, these rules do not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: September 5, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23154 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0734; FRL–9727–4] 

Withdrawal of Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; 1-Hour and 8-Hour 

Ozone Extreme Area Plan Elements 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw 

a March 8, 2010 final action approving 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

California under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) to provide for attainment of the 

1-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the San 

Joaquin Valley extreme ozone 

nonattainment area. This proposed 

action is in response to a decision 

issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 

671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012)) remanding 

EPA’s approval of these SIP revisions. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to withdraw 

our approval of a portion of a March 1, 

2012 final rule approving SIP revisions 

submitted by California to provide for 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. The 

portion of this final action for which 

EPA is proposing to withdraw its 

approval addressed requirements 

regarding emissions growth caused by 

growth in vehicle miles traveled under 

the CAA. This proposed action is in 

response to a decision issued by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Association of Irritated 

Residents, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), 

as amended Jan. 27, 2012), rejecting 

EPA’s interpretation of the CAA, which 

had provided the basis for this portion 

of EPA’s March 1, 2012 final rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0734, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Frances Wicher, 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this proposed action is available 

electronically on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site and in 

hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material), and some 

may not be publicly available at 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 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), (415) 972–3957, 

wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. San Joaquin Valley 2004 1-Hour Ozone 

Plan 

A. Background 

B. EPA’s Proposed Action 

II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

A. Background 

B. EPA’s Proposed Action 

III. Public Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58079 

1EPA established a new 8-hour ozone standard in 

1997 (62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997)) and 

subsequently revoked the 1-hour ozone standard 

effective June 15, 2005 in the SJV (40 CFR 50.9(b); 

69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 44470 

(August 3, 2005)). However, the SJV area remains 

subject to certain CAA requirements for the 1-hour 

ozone standard through the anti-backsliding 

provisions in EPA’s implementing regulations. See 

40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) and 51.900(f). 

I. San Joaquin Valley 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan 

A. Background 

On March 8, 2010, EPA fully 

approved state implementation plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

California to provide for attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the San 

Joaquin Valley (SJV) extreme ozone 

nonattainment area. 75 FR 10420. The 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

had submitted these SIP revisions to 

satisfy the applicable requirements of 

part D, title I of the CAA following 

EPA’s reclassification of the SJV area 

from severe to extreme nonattainment 

for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS effective 

May 17, 2004. 69 FR 20550 (April 16, 

2004).1 The SIP revisions that EPA 

approved consisted of the following four 

submissions: (1) The ‘‘Extreme Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration Plan,’’ 

adopted by the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD or District) in October 2004 

and submitted by CARB on November 

15, 2004 (2004 SIP); (2) amendments to 

the 2004 SIP adopted by the District in 

October 2005 and submitted by CARB 

on March 6, 2006 to, among other 

things, amend the control strategy (2005 

Amendments); (3) the ‘‘Clarifications 

Regarding the 2004 Extreme Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration Plan,’’ 

adopted by the District in August 2008 

and submitted by CARB on September 

5, 2008 to provide updates to the 2004 

SIP related to reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) measures 

adopted by the SJVUAPCD, the rate-ofprogress (ROP) demonstration, and 

contingency measures (2008 

Clarifications); and (4) relevant portions 

of the ‘‘2003 State and Federal Strategy 

for the California State Implementation 

Plan,’’ adopted by CARB in October 

2003 and submitted to EPA on January 

9, 2004 (2003 State Strategy), which 

identify CARB’s regulatory agenda to 

reduce ozone and particulate matter in 

California and include statewide control 

measures applicable in the SJV. The 

2003 State Strategy, as modified by 

CARB’s resolution adopting it and 

CARB’s resolution adopting the 2004 

SIP, also includes State commitments to 

reduce emissions in the SJV area by 

specified amounts. The 2004 SIP relies 

in part on the 2003 State Strategy for the 

reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment and ROP for the 1-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV area. See 75 

FR 10420, 10421 (March 8, 2010). 

These submittals, which we refer to 

collectively as the ‘‘2004 1-Hour Ozone 

Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan,’’ contained the 

following required elements of a 1-hour 

ozone plan for the SJV: (1) A rate of 

progress (ROP) demonstration as 

required by CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 

182(c)(2); (2) ROP contingency measures 

as required by CAA sections 172(c)(9) 

and 182(c)(9); (3) an attainment 

demonstration as required by CAA 

sections 182(c)(2)(A) and 181(a); (4) 

attainment contingency measures as 

required by CAA section 172(c)(9); (5) a 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) demonstration as required by 

CAA section 172(c)(1); (6) provisions for 

clean fuels/clean technologies for 

boilers as required by CAA 182(e)(3); 

and (7) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

provisions as required by CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A), including the requirement 

regarding transportation control 

strategies and transportation control 

measures sufficient to offset any growth 

in emissions from growth in VMT or 

numbers of vehicle trips in the SJV area 

(VMT emissions offset requirement). 

The Sierra Club and several 

environmental groups filed a petition 

for review of EPA’s March 8, 2010 

approval of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone 

Plan, arguing, among other things, that 

EPA’s action was arbitrary and 

capricious under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) because it did not 

take into account new emissions 

inventory data that California had 

submitted subsequent to its submittal of 

the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan. On 

January 20, 2012, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted 

the petition with respect to this issue, 

holding that EPA’s failure to consider 

the new emissions data rendered the 

Agency’s action arbitrary and capricious 

under the APA and remanding EPA’s 

action, in its entirety, for further 

proceedings consistent with the 

decision. See Sierra Club, et. al. v. EPA, 

671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012) (Sierra 

Club). The court declined to reach the 

other issues raised in the petition for 

review. 

B. EPA’s Proposed Action 

Consistent with the Sierra Club 

court’s remand, EPA is proposing to 

withdraw its March 8, 2010 approval of 

the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan (75 FR 

10420) in its entirety. This withdrawal, 

if finalized, would have the effect of 

removing the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan 

from the applicable California SIP and 

deleting the provisions in 40 CFR 

52.220(c) where EPA’s approval of the 

Plan is currently codified. See 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(317)(i)(B)(1), (c)(339)(i)(B)(1) 

and (ii)(C), (c)(348)(i)(A)(2), and 

(c)(369)–(371). The District has stated its 

intent to withdraw the Plan from EPA’s 

consideration following EPA’s 

withdrawal of approval, and to submit 

a new 1-hour ozone plan to EPA by June 

30, 2013. See letter dated July 10, 2012, 

from Seyed Sadredin, Executive 

Director/APCO, SJVUAPCD, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

U.S. EPA Region IX, Re: ‘‘San Joaquin 

Valley 1-hour Ozone Plan.’’ Consistent 

with these representations, we 

understand that California intends to 

promptly withdraw the 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan from EPA’s consideration if 

EPA finalizes today’s proposal. 

Accordingly, EPA is not proposing 

additional action on the 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan at this time. 

As a consequence of EPA’s 

reclassification of the SJV to extreme 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard in 2004, California was 

obligated to submit plan revisions for 

the SJV area meeting CAA and 

regulatory requirements for extreme 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment areas. 

Because California will be in default of 

these obligations should it withdraw the 

Plan from EPA’s consideration, 

following such withdrawal EPA will 

promptly issue a finding of failure to 

submit pursuant to CAA section 

179(a)(1), effective upon publication in 

the Federal Register. This finding 

would trigger mandatory sanctions 

under CAA section 179 unless the 

deficiency is corrected within 18 

months of such finding and would also 

trigger an obligation on EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c) 

unless California submits and we 

approve SIP revisions that correct the 

deficiency within two years of such 

finding. Should California fail to 

promptly withdraw the 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan upon finalization of today’s 

proposal, EPA plans to commence a 

new rulemaking addressing the 

approvability of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone 

Plan. 

If California withdraws the 2004 1- 

Hour Ozone Plan, the plan elements 

under subparts 1 and 2 of part D, title 

I of the CAA for which the State will no 

longer have a valid submission and thus 

would be required to submit for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS for the SJV area are 

as follows: (1) A ROP demonstration 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2); (2) ROP 

contingency measures meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) 

and 182(c)(9); (3) an attainment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58080 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2For a more detailed description of this SIP, see 

76 FR 57846, 57847 (September 16, 2011). 

3Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act states as follows: 

Within 2 years after November 15, 1992, the State 

shall submit a revision that identifies and adopts 

specific enforceable transportation control strategies 

and transportation control measures to offset any 

growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles 

traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area 

and to attain reduction in motor vehicle emissions 

as necessary, in combination with other emission 

reduction requirements of this subpart, to comply 

with the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) and 

(c)(2)(B) of this section (pertaining to periodic 

emissions reduction requirements). The State shall 

consider measures specified in section 7408(f) of 

this title, and choose from among and implement 

such measures as necessary to demonstrate 

attainment with the national ambient air quality 

standards; in considering such measures, the State 

should ensure adequate access to downtown, other 

commercial, and residential areas and should avoid 

measures that increase or related emissions and 

congestion rather than reduce them. 

4As explained in these rulemakings, EPA has 

historically interpreted CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to 

allow areas to meet the requirement by 

demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles 

decline each year through the attainment year. See 

57 FR 13498, at 13521–15323 (April 16, 1992). 

demonstration meeting the requirements 

of CAA sections 182(c)(2)(A) and 

172(a)(2); (4) attainment contingency 

measures meeting the requirements of 

CAA sections 172(c)(9); (5) a reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) 

demonstration meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(1); (6) provisions 

satisfying the requirements for clean 

fuels/clean technologies for boilers in 

CAA 182(e)(3); and (7) provisions 

satisfying the vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) provisions of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A), including the VMT 

emissions offset requirement. See 40 

CFR 51.905(a)(1) and 51.900(f); see also 

75 FR 10420, 10436–37. 

II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement 

for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

A. Background 

On March 1, 2012, EPA fully 

approved SIP revisions submitted by 

California to provide for attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area 

(2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan).2 77 FR 12652 

(March 1, 2012). This final rule, which 

was signed by the Regional 

Administrator on December 15, 2011, 

included a determination that the 2007 

8-Hour Ozone Plan satisfied the VMT 

emissions offset requirement in CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A).3 77 FR at 12670. 

Although the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan 

does not contain a specific 

demonstration to address the VMT 

emissions offset requirement, EPA 

concluded, based on the Agency’s thencurrent interpretation of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A), that California was not 

required to include additional 

transportation control strategies and 

transportation control measures to offset 

growth in emissions from growth in 

VMT in the SJV area for purposes of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the 

2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan demonstrated 

that both volatile organic compounds 

and nitrogen oxides emissions from onroad mobile sources declined steadily 

over the entire period covered by the 

plan. 76 FR 57846, 57863 (September 

16, 2011) (proposed rule) and 77 FR 

12652, at 12666 and 12670 (March 1, 

2012) (final rule).4

As explained in EPA’s proposed and 

final rules, in Association of Irritated 

Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 

2011) (AIR), the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit held that CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) requires states to 

adopt, among other things, 

transportation control measures and 

strategies whenever, due to growth in 

VMT, vehicle emissions are projected to 

be higher than they would have been 

had VMT not increased, even when 

aggregate vehicle emissions are actually 

decreasing. 76 FR 57846, 57863 and 77 

FR 12652 at fn. 4. At the time of 

signature of the final rule approving the 

2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan, December 15, 

2011, the court had not yet issued its 

mandate in the AIR case and EPA had 

not adopted the court’s interpretation 

for the reasons set forth in the Agency’s 

petition for rehearing of the court’s 

ruling on the VMT emissions offset 

requirement, pending a final decision by 

the court. Id. Accordingly, 

notwithstanding adverse comments on 

EPA’s proposal with respect to this 

issue, EPA proceeded to fully approve 

the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan as 

satisfying the VMT emissions offset 

requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) on the basis of EPA’s thencurrent interpretation of this 

requirement. On January 27, 2012, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit denied EPA’s petition for 

rehearing in AIR and issued an amended 

opinion. The mandate issued on 

February 13, 2012. See Association of 

Irritated Residents, et al., v. EPA, Nos. 

09–71383 and 09–71404 (consolidated), 

632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted 

as amended on January 27, 2012, 686 

F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 

2012. 

EPA’s final rule approving the 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone Plan was published on 

March 1, 2012 (77 FR 12652). Shortly 

thereafter, several environmental and 

community groups filed a lawsuit in the 

Ninth Circuit challenging that approval. 

Committee for a Better Arvin et al. v. 

EPA, No. 12–71332. 

B. EPA’s Proposed Action 

As noted above, the Ninth Circuit 

rejected EPA’s prior interpretation of the 

VMT emissions offset requirement in 

section 182(d)(1)(A), under which we 

had allowed states to demonstrate 

compliance through submittal of 

aggregate motor vehicle emissions 

estimates showing year-over-year 

declines in such emissions. This 

interpretation formed the basis for 

EPA’s determination that the 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone Plan satisfied the VMT 

emissions offset requirement. In 

response to the court’s ruling in AIR, we 

are proposing to withdraw our March 1, 

2012 determination that the 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP satisfies the VMT 

emissions offset requirement in CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) because it is 

predicated on an interpretation of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) that has been 

rejected by the Ninth Circuit. The 2007 

8-Hour Ozone Plan fails to identify, 

compared to a baseline assuming no 

VMT growth, the level of increased 

emissions resulting solely from VMT 

growth and to show how such increased 

emissions have been offset through 

adoption and implementation of 

transportation control strategies and 

transportation control measures. This 

withdrawal would be limited to our 

conclusion with respect to the VMT 

emissions offset requirement and would 

not affect any other element of our 

March 1, 2012 action on the 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone SIP. 

Because EPA’s determination that the 

2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP satisfied the 

VMT emissions offset requirement was 

made in the absence of any such 

demonstration submitted by the State, 

California will be in default of its 

obligation to submit a SIP revision 

satisfying this requirement if EPA 

finalizes the withdrawal of its 

determination that the obligation has 

been met. Therefore, simultaneously 

with a final action to withdraw our 

previous determination that the 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone Plan satisfies the VMT 

emissions offset requirement in CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A), EPA intends to 

issue a finding that California has failed 

to submit a SIP revision to address this 

requirement, which would be effective 

upon publication in the Federal 

Register. This finding would trigger 

mandatory sanctions under CAA section 

179 unless the deficiency is corrected 

within 18 months of such finding and 

would also trigger an obligation on EPA 

to promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c) 

unless California submits and we 

approve a SIP revision that corrects the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58081 

deficiency within two years of such 

finding. 

III. Public Comment 

We will accept comments from the 

public on these proposals for the next 

30 days. The deadline and instructions 

for submission of comments are 

provided in the ‘‘Date’’ and ‘‘Addresses’’ 

sections at the beginning of this 

preamble. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action merely proposes to 

withdraw previous EPA actions, or 

portions thereof, on SIP revisions 

submitted by California to provide for 

attainment of ozone standards in the 

San Joaquin Valley. As such it does not 

propose to impose additional 

requirements on any entity. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 

(October 4, 1993)); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 

1999)); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355 (May 22, 2001)); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249; November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP does not apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 30, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

EPA Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22971 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–011; FRL–9729–4] 

RIN–2060–AQ84 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing of Substitutes for OzoneDepleting Substances—Fire 

Suppression and Explosion Protection 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

list three substitutes for ozone-depleting 

substances in the fire suppression and 

explosion protection sector as 

acceptable subject to use restrictions 

under the EPA’s Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. 

This program implements section 612 of 

the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, 

which requires EPA to evaluate 

substitutes for ozone-depleting 

substances and find them acceptable 

where they pose comparable or lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment than other available 

substitutes. In the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register, we are listing three fire 

suppression substitutes as acceptable 

subject to use restrictions as a direct 

final rule without a prior proposed rule. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rule; in such case, the final 

rule will become effective as provided 

in the accompanying direct final rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing or a request for a public hearing 

must be made as provided below by 

October 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0111, by mail to the 

following: ‘‘OAR Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460.’’ Comments 

may also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. To expedite review, a 

second copy of the comments should be 

sent to Bella Maranion at the address 

listed below under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bella Maranion, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs (6205J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

343–9749; fax number: (202) 343–2363; 

email address: maranion.bella@epa.gov. 

The published versions of notices and 

rulemakings under the SNAP program 

are available on EPA’s Stratospheric 

Ozone Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ozone/snap/regs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed 

rule? 

This document proposes to list under 

SNAP certain substitutes for ozonedepleting substances for use in fire 

suppression applications. We have 

published a direct final rule listing three 

substitutes for ozone-depleting halons 

used in the fire suppression and 

explosion protection sector as 

acceptable subject to use restrictions in 

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

this Federal Register because we view 

this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

action in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

This proposed rule would regulate the 

use of Powdered Aerosol F (KSA®) and 

Powdered Aerosol G (Dry Sprinkler 

Powdered Aerosol (DSPA) Fixed 

Generators) by finding them acceptable 

subject to use conditions as substitutes 

for halon 1301 for use in total flooding 

fire suppression systems in normally 

unoccupied spaces. This action also 

proposes to find C7 Fluoroketone 

acceptable subject narrowed use limits 

as a substitute for halon 1211 for use as 

a streaming agent in portable fire 

extinguishers in nonresidential 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS