70376 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, when regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Executive Order 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ which requires 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), as ‘‘any regulatory action 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in this Executive Order.’’ 

VA has examined the economic, 

interagency, legal, and policy 

implications of this final rule and has 

determined that it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as they are 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. This final rule 

will directly affect only individuals and 

will not directly affect small entities. 

Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 

this final rule is exempt from the initial 

and final regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of sections 603 and 604. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program number and the title 

for this regulation is 64.103, Life 

Insurance for Veterans. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. John 

R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, approved this 

document on November 20, 2012, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 9 

Life insurance, Military personnel, 

Veterans. 

Dated: November 20, 2012. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director of Regulation Policy and 

Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs is amending 38 CFR part 9 as 

follows: 

PART 9—SERVICEMEMBERS’ GROUP 

LIFE INSURANCE AND VETERANS’ 

GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1965–1980A, 

unless otherwise noted. 

§ 9.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 9.1(k)(1) by removing 

‘‘natural’’ and adding, in its place, 

‘‘biological’’. 

■ 3. Amend § 9.5 by adding paragraph 

(f) and revising the authority citation at 

the end of the section to read as follows: 

§ 9.5 Payment of proceeds. 

* * * * * 

(f) If a stillborn child is otherwise 

eligible to be insured by the 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance 

coverage of more than one member, the 

child shall be insured by the coverage 

of the child’s insured biological mother. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 1965(10), 

1967(a)(4)(B)) 

[FR Doc. 2012–28611 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0734; FRL–9753–4] 

Withdrawal of Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans and Findings of 

Failure To Submit Required Plans; 

California; San Joaquin Valley; 1-Hour 

and 8-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan 

Elements 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing its March 

8, 2010 final action approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by California to provide for 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley 

extreme ozone nonattainment area. In 

addition, EPA is withdrawing its March 

1, 2012 determination that the 

California SIP satisfies the requirement 

regarding offsetting emissions growth 

caused by growth in vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Finally, EPA is finding that California 

has failed to submit required SIP 

revisions to provide for attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and to 

address the VMT emissions offset 

requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Under the CAA, these findings of failure 

to submit trigger the 18-month time 

clock for mandatory imposition of 

sanctions and the two-year time clock 

for EPA to promulgate federal 

implementation plans. 

DATES: The rule is effective November 

26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0734 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some 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. 

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. Withdrawal of EPA’s Approval of the 

2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan 

B. Finding of Failure To Submit a SIP To 

Provide for Attainment of the 1-Hour 

Ozone Standards in the SJV Extreme 1- 

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 70377 

1California was obligated to submit SIP revisions 

to address the requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) regarding offsetting emissions growth 

caused by growth in VMT for the 1-hour ozone 

standard in SJV no later than May 31, 2002, and 

additional SIP revisions meeting the CAA’s extreme 

area requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard in 

SJV no later than November 15, 2004. See 66 FR 

56476, 56481 (November 8, 2001) (final rule finding 

that SJV failed to attain 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 

applicable attainment date and reclassifying SJV 

from ‘‘serious’’ to ‘‘severe’’ nonattainment, effective 

December 10, 2001) and 69 FR 20550 (April 16, 

2004) (final rule reclassifying SJV from ‘‘severe’’ to 

‘‘extreme’’ nonattainment for 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

effective May 17, 2004). 

2All references in this preamble to the 8-hour 

NAAQS are to the 0.08 parts per million standards 

established in 1997 at 40 CFR 50.10(b). 

3CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) also requires states to 

adopt transportation control strategies and 

measures as necessary to demonstrate attainment 

and reasonable further progress. These 

requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A) are not at issue 

in this action. 

A. Withdrawal of EPA’s Determination 

That the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan 

Satisfies the VMT Emissions Offset 

Requirement in CAA Section 

182(d)(1)(A) 

B. Finding of Failure To Submit a SIP 

Meeting the CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) 

VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for 

the SJV Extreme 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

III. Final Actions 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. San Joaquin Valley 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan 

A. Withdrawal of EPA’s Approval of the 

2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan 

EPA is withdrawing its March 8, 2010 

final action approving SIP revisions 

submitted by California under the CAA 

to provide for attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin 

Valley (SJV) extreme ozone 

nonattainment area (2004 1-Hour Ozone 

Plan) (75 FR 10420). The effect of this 

action is to entirely withdraw the 2004 

1-Hour Ozone Plan from the applicable 

California SIP. We proposed this action 

on September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58078) 

and provided a 30-day period for the 

public to submit comments. We 

received no comments. 

EPA is taking this action in response 

to a decision of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Sierra 

Club et. al v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 

2012) (Sierra Club). For further 

background on this court decision and 

EPA’s rationale for today’s action, 

please see our proposed rule at 77 FR 

58078. 

B. Finding of Failure To Submit a SIP 

To Provide for Attainment of the 1-Hour 

Ozone Standards in the SJV Extreme 1- 

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Following our proposed rule to 

withdraw our March 8, 2010 approval of 

the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan into the 

SIP, California submitted a letter stating 

its intention to withdraw its submission 

of this plan to EPA, effective 

immediately upon EPA’s final 

withdrawal of the March 8, 2010 

approval. See letter dated October 15, 

2012, from James N. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, California Air 

Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

As a consequence of EPA’s final 

withdrawal of our approval of the 2004 

1-Hour Ozone Plan and California’s 

simultaneous withdrawal of the 2004 1- 

Hour Ozone Plan from EPA, the State is 

now in default of its obligation to 

submit a SIP to provide for attainment 

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV 

extreme ozone nonattainment area.1

Therefore, simultaneously with this 

withdrawal of approval, EPA is finding 

that California has failed to submit an 

extreme area plan to provide for 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

in the SJV nonattainment area. 

As explained in our proposed rule (77 

FR at 58079–80), the plan elements 

under subparts 1 and 2 of part D, title 

I of the CAA that California is required 

to submit for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the SJV are as follows: (1) A rate of 

progress (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 

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). See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) 

and 51.900(f); see also 75 FR 10420, 

10436–37. 

This finding of failure to submit is not 

subject to the notice-and-comment 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

EPA believes that because of the limited 

time provided by the CAA to make 

findings of failure to submit, Congress 

did not intend such findings to be 

subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. However, to the extent such 

findings are subject to notice-andcomment rulemaking, we invoke the 

good cause exception pursuant to APA 

section 553(b)(3)(B). Notice and 

comment are unnecessary because no 

EPA judgment is involved in making a 

non-substantive finding of failure to 

submit SIPs required by the CAA. 

Furthermore, notice and comment 

would be contrary to the public interest 

because it would divert EPA resources 

from the critical substantive review of 

complete SIPs. See 58 FR 51270, 51272, 

note 7 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 

39853 (August 4, 1994). 

II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement 

for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards 

A. Withdrawal of EPA’s Determination 

That the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan 

Satisfies the VMT Emissions Offset 

Requirement in CAA Section 

182(d)(1)(A) 

EPA is withdrawing its March 1, 2012 

determination that California’s SIP to 

provide for attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS 2 in the SJV extreme 

ozone nonattainment area (2007 8-Hour 

Ozone Plan) satisfies the requirement 

regarding emissions growth caused by 

growth in vehicle miles traveled in CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Section 182(d)(1)(A) of 

the Act requires, in relevant part, that 

each state containing a ‘‘severe’’ or 

‘‘extreme’’ ozone nonattainment area 

submit a SIP revision that identifies and 

adopts specific enforceable 

transportation control strategies and 

measures to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in vehicle miles 

traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in 

the area (VMT emissions offset 

requirement).3 We proposed this action 

on September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58078) 

and provided a 30-day period for the 

public to submit comments. We 

received no comments. 

EPA is taking this action in response 

to a decision of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 

Association of Irritated Residents v. 

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

reprinted as amended on January 27, 

2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended 

February 13, 2012 (AIR). For further 

background on this court decision and 

EPA’s rationale for today’s action, 

please see our proposed rule at 77 FR 

58078. 

This withdrawal of approval is 

limited to our determination that the 

2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan satisfies the 

VMT emissions offset requirement in 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. All other 

determinations in our March 1, 2012 

final rule approving the 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone Plan at 77 FR 12652 remain 

unchanged and in effect. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

70378 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4Consistent with CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 

EPA’s implementation regulations for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X, 

we interpret the 2-year timeframe for submission of 

the VMT emissions offset SIP for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS to run from the effective date of 

EPA’s reclassification of SJV from ‘‘serious’’ to 

‘‘extreme’’ nonattainment for this standard. 

Accordingly, California was obligated to submit a 

VMT emissions offset SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the SJV area no later than June 4, 2012. 

See 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010) (final rule 

reclassifying SJV from ‘‘serious’’ to ‘‘extreme’’ 

nonattainment for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

effective June 4, 2010). 

B. Finding of Failure To Submit a SIP 

Meeting the CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) 

VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for 

the SJV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area 

EPA’s determination that the 2007 8- 

Hour Ozone Plan satisfies the VMT 

emissions offset requirement for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was made in 

the absence of any specific 

demonstration submitted by the State 

for this purpose and was based on EPA’s 

evaluation of emissions inventory data 

submitted as part of the 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone Plan. See 76 FR 57846, 57863 

(September 16, 2011) and 77 FR 12652, 

12666 and 12670 (March 1, 2012). Thus, 

as a consequence of our withdrawal of 

our determination that the 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone Plan satisfies the VMT emissions 

offset requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A), California is now in 

default of its obligation to submit a SIP 

revision meeting this CAA requirement 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment 

area.4 Therefore, simultaneously with 

this withdrawal of approval, EPA is 

finding that California has failed to 

submit a required SIP revision to meet 

the VMT emissions offset requirement 

in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV 

extreme ozone nonattainment area. 

This finding of failure to submit is not 

subject to the notice-and-comment 

requirements of the APA. EPA believes 

that because of the limited time 

provided by the CAA to make findings 

of failure to submit, Congress did not 

intend such findings to be subject to 

notice-and-comment rulemaking. 

However, to the extent such findings are 

subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, we invoke the good cause 

exception pursuant to APA section 

553(b)(3)(B). Notice and comment are 

unnecessary because no EPA judgment 

is involved in making a non-substantive 

finding of failure to submit SIPs 

required by the CAA. Furthermore, 

notice and comment would be contrary 

to the public interest because it would 

divert EPA resources from the critical 

substantive review of complete SIPs. 

See 58 FR 51270, 51272, note 7 (October 

1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853 (August 4, 

1994). 

III. Final Actions 

A. Withdrawals of Approvals 

EPA is withdrawing its March 8, 2010 

final action approving the 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan, which California submitted 

to provide for attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme ozone 

nonattainment area (75 FR 10420, 

March 8, 2010). 

In addition, EPA is withdrawing its 

March 1, 2012 determination that the 

2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan, which 

California submitted to provide for 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the SJV, satisfies the VMT 

emissions offset requirement in CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme ozone 

nonattainment area (77 FR 12652 at 

12670, March 1, 2012). 

B. Findings of Failure To Submit 

Required SIP Revisions 

As a consequence of EPA’s final 

withdrawal of our previous approval of 

the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan and 

California’s simultaneous withdrawal of 

its submission of the 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan, EPA is finding that 

California has failed to submit a 

required SIP revision to provide for 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment 

area. 

In addition, as a consequence of 

EPA’s withdrawal of our determination 

that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan 

satisfies the VMT emissions offset 

requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, EPA is finding that California 

has failed to submit a required SIP 

revision that identifies and adopts 

transportation control strategies and 

measures to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in VMT or the 

numbers of vehicle trips as required by 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme 

ozone nonattainment area. 

Under CAA section 179(a), a finding 

of failure to submit a plan or plan 

element required by part D of title I of 

the Act triggers sanction clocks under 

CAA section 179(b). These clocks run 

from the effective date of EPA’s finding. 

The first sanction, the offset sanction in 

CAA section 179(b)(2), will apply in the 

SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area 

18 months from November 26, 2012. 

The second sanction, highway funding 

sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1), will 

apply in the area six months after the 

offset sanction is imposed, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 52.31. The 

State can end these sanction clocks or 

lift any imposed sanctions by making 

complete SIP submittals addressing the 

CAA’s extreme area requirements for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS and the VMT 

emissions offset requirement for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV 

area. 

In addition to these sanctions, CAA 

section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA 

must promulgate a federal 

implementation plan addressing the 

CAA’s extreme area requirements for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS and the VMT 

emissions offset requirement for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV 

area, no later than two years after 

November 26, 2012, unless the State 

submits and EPA approves SIP revisions 

addressing these requirements before 

that date. 

C. Effective Date Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

These actions will be effective on 

November 26, 2012. Under APA section 

553(d)(3), an agency rulemaking may 

take effect before 30 days after the date 

of publication in the Federal Register if 

an agency has good cause to specify an 

earlier effective date. Today’s actions to 

withdraw EPA’s previous approval of 

the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan and to 

withdraw EPA’s previous determination 

that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan 

satisfies the VMT emissions offset 

requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS are being taken in response to 

the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in the 

Sierra Club and AIR decisions, as 

discussed above and in our proposed 

rule. The purpose of a delayed effective 

date is to ensure that regulated entities 

have advance notice of obligations with 

which they must comply. Because 

today’s withdrawal actions do not place 

a burden on any entity, a delayed 

compliance date is unnecessary. 

Moreover, because the court has ruled 

that these prior determinations were 

inconsistent with the CAA, it is in the 

public interest for the effective date of 

our actions withdrawing these 

approvals to become effective 

immediately. These reasons support an 

effective date prior to 30 days after the 

date of publication of these withdrawals 

of approval. 

In addition, EPA’s finding that 

California has failed to submit an 

extreme area plan to provide for 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

in the SJV is a necessary consequence of 

EPA’s withdrawal of approval of the 

2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan and 

California’s simultaneous withdrawal of 

this plan from EPA. Similarly, EPA’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 70379 

finding that California has failed to 

submit a VMT emissions offset SIP 

under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the SJV 

is a necessary consequence of EPA’s 

withdrawal of its determination that the 

2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan satisfies this 

requirement. These findings of failure to 

submit concern required CAA 

submittals that are overdue. We 

previously cautioned California and the 

public that we would make such 

findings and that these findings would 

be effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. See 77 FR 58078 at 

58079, 58080. Finally, these findings of 

failure to submit simply start clocks that 

will not result in sanctions against the 

State for 18 months and that the State 

may turn off by making complete SIP 

submittals. These reasons support an 

effective date prior to 30 days after the 

date of publication of these findings. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 and is therefore 

not subject to review under it. 

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 action to withdraw previous EPA 

approvals and determinations and to 

make findings of failure to submit under 

the CAA will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because this action does not 

create any new requirements. This 

action relates to the existing 

requirements in the CAA that states 

submit SIPs to provide for attainment 

and to meet other applicable CAA 

requirements in each of their 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas and to 

submit transportation control strategies 

and measures to offset emissions growth 

from growth in VMT or the numbers of 

vehicle trips in each of their severe and 

extreme 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas. Therefore, because this 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. 

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 action 

to withdraw previous EPA approvals 

and determinations and to make 

findings of failure to submit under the 

CAA 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 

action relates to the existing 

requirements in the CAA that states 

submit SIPs to provide for attainment 

and to meet other applicable CAA 

requirements in each of their 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas and to 

submit transportation control strategies 

and measures to offset emissions growth 

from growth in VMT or the numbers of 

vehicle trips in each of their severe and 

extreme 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas. Accordingly, no additional costs 

to State, local, or tribal governments, or 

to the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the State, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The CAA 

establishes the scheme whereby states 

take the lead in developing SIPs 

including SIPs to attain the NAAQS and 

to meet other applicable CAA 

requirements including the VMT 

emissions offset requirement in CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A)). This action will 

not modify this relationship. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This final action 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 final action. 

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 action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is 

withdrawing previous EPA approvals 

and determinations and making findings 

that California has failed to submit a SIP 

that meets the requirements of CAA the 

SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area. 

The findings of failure to submit 

establish a 24-month deadline for EPA 

to promulgate a FIP to address the 

outstanding SIP requirements unless, 

prior to that time, California submits, 

and EPA approves, the required SIPs. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

70380 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(February 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 has determined that this final 

action will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not directly affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This notice is 

withdrawing previous EPA approvals 

and determinations and making findings 

that California has failed to submit SIPs 

that meet certain requirements of CAA 

for the SJV extreme ozone 

nonattainment area. 

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. section 804(2). This 

rule is effective on November 26, 2012. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 25, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final action 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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: November 9, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

EPA Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 

to read as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(c)(317)(i)(B) and (c)(339)(i)(B); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (c)(339)(ii)(C); 

and 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(c)(369) and (c)(370) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(317) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(339) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(369) [Reserved] 

(370) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–28217 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES