Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18849 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0176] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Saugus River, Saugus and Lynn, MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the regulation 

governing the operation of the Route 

107 temporary bridge across the Saugus 

River, mile 2.5, between Saugus and 

Lynn, Massachusetts. The bridge will 

not open for vessel traffic during the 

installation of the moveable span. This 

deviation allows the bridge to remain 

closed for six days. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

April 1, 2013, until April 6, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2013– 

0176 and are available online at 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2013–0176 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ and then 

clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are also 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. John McDonald, Project 

Officer, First Coast Guard District, 

telephone (617) 223–8364, 

john.w.mcdonald@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Route 

107 temporary bridge, across the Saugus 

River, mile 2.5, between Saugus and 

Lynn, Massachusetts, has a vertical 

clearance in the closed position of 6 feet 

above mean high water and 15 feet 

above mean low water. The bridge is 

required to open on signal at all times 

in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5. 

The waterway is transited by 

recreational and commercial fishing 

boats. 

The lift span at the new bridge will be 

installed between April 1, 2013, and 

April 6, 2013. During that time period 

the span will be in the closed position. 

Once the construction of the lift span is 

completed the draw will be placed in 

the full open position until all the 

operating machinery is installed. 

The upstream facilities and the 

fishermen were advised regarding the 

six day closure. No objections were 

received. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

Route 107 temporary bridge may remain 

in the closed position from April 1, 

2013 through April 6, 2013. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the bridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: March 18, 2013. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07151 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0713; FRL–9794–5] 

Disapproval of Implementation Plan 

Revisions; State of California; South 

Coast VMT Emissions Offset 

Demonstrations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

withdraw its previous approvals of state 

implementation plan revisions 

submitted by the State of California to 

meet the vehicle-miles-traveled 

emissions offset requirement under the 

Clean Air Act for the Los Angeles-South 

Coast Air Basin 1-hour and 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is also 

taking final action to disapprove the 

same plan revisions. EPA is finalizing 

the withdrawal and disapproval actions 

in response to a remand by the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in Association 

of Irritated Residents v. EPA. The effect 

of this action is to trigger deadlines by 

which new plan revisions meeting the 

applicable requirements must be 

submitted by the State of California and 

approved by EPA to avoid sanctions and 

to avoid an obligation on EPA to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on April 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0713 for this 

action. The index to the docket for this 

action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California, 94105– 

3901. 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: 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, Mailcode AIR–2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901, 415–947–4192, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Action 

II. Background 

III. Response to Public Comments 

IV. Final Action and Consequences of Final 

Disapproval 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Today’s Action 

EPA is taking final action to withdraw 

our previous approvals of revisions to 

the state implementation plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of California to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) emissions 

offset requirement under Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 182(d)(1)(A) with respect 

to the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standard 

in the South Coast nonattainment area. 

EPA is taking this action in response to 

a decision by the Ninth Circuit in 

Association of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA. Under section 110(k) of the CAA, 

we are also taking final action to 

disapprove these same plan elements 

because they reflect an approach to 

showing compliance with section 

182(d)(1)(A) that was rejected by the 

Ninth Circuit. 

Subject to our regulations at 40 CFR 

52.31, our disapproval of the SIP 

revisions will trigger the new source 

review (NSR) offset sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(2) and the highway 

funding sanction under CAA section 

179(b)(1) in the South Coast ozone 

nonattainment area 18 months, and 24 

months, respectively, after the effective 

date of this action unless we take final 

action approving SIP revisions meeting 

the relevant requirements of the CAA 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18850 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1Under 40 CFR 52.31(d), the application of 

sanctions shall be deferred or stayed (depending on 

timing) if the State submits a new SIP that corrects 

the SIP deficiency and EPA proposes approval of 

that SIP and issues an interim final determination 

that the State has corrected the deficiency. This 

deferral or stay will continue unless and until EPA 

proposes to or takes final action to instead 

disapprove the new SIP, in which case sanctions 

would apply depending on the timing of EPA’s 

action with respect to the relevant 18-month and 

24-month periods. 

2The South Coast includes Orange County, the 

southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, 

southwestern San Bernardino County, and western 

Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305). 

3 In 2008, EPA tightened the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to 0.075 ppm, see 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 

2008). Today’s action relates only to SIP 

requirements arising from the classifications and 

designations of the South Coast with respect to the 

1979 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. 

4Letter from Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive 

Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, dated September 10, 2008, approved at 40 

CFR 52.220(c)(339)(ii)(B)(2). 

5See pages 6–23 and 6–27 (table 6–12) of the 

Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, June 

2007, prepared by the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

prior to the time the sanctions would 

take effect.1 In addition to the sanctions, 

CAA section 110(c) provides that EPA 

must promulgate a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) addressing 

the deficiency that is the basis for this 

disapproval two years after the effective 

date of the disapproval unless we have 

approved a revised SIP before that date. 

II. Background 

On September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58067), 

we proposed the same actions that we 

are finalizing today. In our proposed 

rule, we reviewed the regulatory and 

SIP submittal history of the South Coast 

Air Basin 1-hour and 8-hour 

nonattainment areas with respect to the 

VMT emissions offset requirement 

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

related EPA actions, and the ensuing 

litigation and court decision. We 

provide a summary of that discussion 

herein. For a more detailed discussion, 

please see our September 19, 2012 

proposed rule at pages 58068–58070. 

The CAA requires EPA to promulgate 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for certain 

pervasive air pollutants to protect 

public health and welfare with an 

adequate margin of safety. In 1979, EPA 

promulgated an ozone NAAQS of 0.12 

parts per million (ppm), averaged over 

a 1-hour period. Under the CAA, EPA 

must also designate areas as attainment, 

nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the 

NAAQS, and States with designated 

nonattainment areas must submit 

revisions to their SIPs that provide for, 

among other things, attainment of the 

standards within certain prescribed 

periods. 

The control requirements and date by 

which attainment of the one-hour ozone 

standard was to be achieved varied with 

an area’s classification. Under the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA 

designated the Los Angeles-South Coast 

Air Basin Area (‘‘South Coast’’) 2 as 

‘‘extreme’’ nonattainment for the 1-hour 

ozone standard, with an attainment date 

no later than November 15, 2010. See 56 

FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). Extreme 

areas were subject to the most stringent 

planning requirements and were 

provided the most time to attain the 

standard. The various ozone planning 

requirements to which Extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas were subject are set 

forth in section 172(c) and section 

182(a)–(e) of the CAA. Of particular 

importance for the purposes of this 

action, section 182(d)(1)(A) requires the 

following: 

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 relocate 

emissions and congestion rather than reduce 

them.’’ 

As we discussed in our proposed rule, 

EPA believes that it is appropriate to 

treat the three required elements of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting 

emissions growth, attainment of the 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

reduction, and attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS) as separable. As to the first 

element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) 

(i.e., offsetting emissions growth), EPA 

has historically interpreted this CAA 

provision 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). The proposed rule and this 

final rule relate only to the first element 

of section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting 

emissions growth). Herein, we refer to 

this element as the VMT emissions 

offset requirement. 

In 1997, EPA replaced the 1-hour 

ozone standard with an 8-hour ozone 

standard of 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856 

(July 18, 1997).3 EPA’s anti-backsliding 

rules governing the transition from the 

1-hour ozone standard to the 8-hour 

ozone standard revoked the 1-hour 

ozone standard effective June 2005 but 

also carried forward most of the SIP 

requirements, which had applied to an 

area by virtue of its 1-hour ozone 

classification, to areas designated as 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 

2004); 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1); and 40 CFR 

51.900(f). The VMT emission offset 

requirement is one of the requirements 

carried forward; thus, the South Coast, 

which is designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 

remains subject to the VMT emissions 

offset requirement for the 1-hour ozone 

standard notwithstanding the revocation 

of that standard in 2005. Moreover, the 

South Coast is subject to the VMT 

emissions offset requirement for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard itself by 

virtue of its classification, first as 

‘‘Severe-17,’’ and now as ‘‘Extreme,’’ for 

the 1997 ozone standard. See 69 FR 

23858 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 71612 

(November 29, 2005); 75 FR 24409 (May 

5, 2010); and 40 CFR 51.902(a). 

In 2008, to comply with the VMT 

emissions offset requirement for the 1- 

hour ozone standard, the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) submitted a demonstration 

showing decreases in aggregate yearover-year motor vehicle emissions in the 

South Coast from a base year through 

the applicable attainment year (2010).4

The following year, EPA approved the 

South Coast 1-hour ozone VMT 

emissions offset demonstration as 

meeting the VMT emissions offset 

requirement. See 74 FR 10176 (March 

10, 2009). The State of California also 

submitted a VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the South Coast for 

the 8-hour ozone standard, and it too 

demonstrated compliance through a 

showing of aggregate year-over-year 

motor vehicle emissions decreases from 

a base year (2002) through the 

applicable attainment year (2024).5

Meanwhile, as explained in more 

detail in our September 19, 2012 

proposed rule, EPA’s approval of the 

SCAQMD’s VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard was challenged in the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, and in 2011, 

the court ruled against EPA, 

determining that EPA incorrectly 

interpreted the statutory phrase ‘‘growth 

in emissions’’ in section 182(d)(1)(A) as 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18851 

6 Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and 

Climate Division, EPA Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality, to Carl Edlund and Deborah Jordan, 

‘‘Guidance on Implementing Clean Air Act Section 

182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and 

Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth 

in Emissions Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles 

Travelled,’’ August 30, 2012. 

meaning a growth in ‘‘aggregate motor 

vehicle emissions.’’ In other words, the 

court ruled that additional 

transportation control strategies and 

measures are required whenever vehicle 

emissions are projected to be higher 

than they would have been had vehicle 

miles traveled not increased, even when 

aggregate vehicle emissions are actually 

decreasing. Association of Irritated 

Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584, at 596– 

597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as 

amended on January 27, 2012, 686 F.3d 

668, further amended February 13, 2012 

(‘‘Association of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA’’). 

Based on this reasoning, the court 

remanded the approval of the South 

Coast VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard back to EPA for further 

proceedings consistent with the 

opinion. In May 2011, EPA filed a 

petition for panel rehearing requesting 

the court to reconsider its decision as to 

the VMT emissions offset requirement. 

In January 2012, the court denied the 

request and issued the mandate, but 

prior to the court’s mandate, EPA took 

final action to approve the South Coast 

VMT emissions offset demonstration for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as part 

of a larger plan approval action. See 77 

FR 12674 (March 1, 2012). Shortly 

thereafter, several environmental and 

community groups filed a lawsuit in the 

Ninth Circuit challenging EPA’s 

approval of that larger plan (i.e., the 

South Coast 1997 8-hour ozone plan). 

Communities for a Better Environment, 

et al. v. EPA, No. 12–71340. 

In light of the remand in the 

Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

case and the current court challenge to 

EPA’s approval of the same SIP element 

for the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA 

proposed to withdraw the Agency’s 

previous approvals of the VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations 

submitted by the State of California to 

comply with the VMT emissions offset 

requirement under CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) for the 1-hour and the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards in the South 

Coast. EPA also proposed to disapprove 

those same submittals. 

EPA proposed the withdrawals of 

previous approvals and the disapprovals 

because the Ninth Circuit rejected EPA’s 

long-standing interpretation of the first 

element of section 182(d)(1)(A) that 

states could demonstrate compliance 

with the VMT emissions offset 

requirement through submittal of 

aggregate motor vehicle emissions 

estimates showing year-over-year 

declines in such emissions and because 

the submitted demonstrations and 

related EPA approvals were predicated 

on the long-standing interpretation that 

was rejected by the court. Specifically, 

as explained in our September 19, 2012 

proposed rule, we found that the 

submitted VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations are not consistent with 

the court’s ruling on the requirements of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) because they fail 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. See the proposed rule 

at page 58070. 

III. Response to Public Comments 

Publication of our September 19, 2012 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

started a 30-day public comment period 

which ended on October 19, 2012. We 

received two comment letters, one from 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), and one from the SCAQMD. 

Neither comment letter objects to our 

proposed withdrawal or disapproval 

actions. Rather, both comment letters 

address aspects of a non-binding and 

non-final guidance memorandum 6

issued by EPA in response to the court’s 

decision on the section 182(d)(1)(A) 

VMT emissions offset requirement. 

EPA appreciates the comments from 

CARB and the SCAQMD on the 

guidance. However, the comments are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking, 

and EPA is not here taking any final 

action to respond to these comments or 

with respect to the non-final and nonbinding guidance that they address. 

This final action simply withdraws 

EPA’s previous approvals of the VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations for the 

South Coast with respect to the 1-hour 

and 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

disapproves the same because they are 

based on a rationale for compliance 

with section 182(d)(1)(A) that was 

rejected by the Ninth Circuit in 

Association of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA. EPA is not relying on the non-final 

and non-binding section 182(d)(1)(A) 

guidance memorandum for today’s final 

action. If a future SIP submission 

implements the guidance, EPA will take 

separate regulatory final action to 

address that SIP and its satisfaction of 

section 182(d)(1)(A). Lastly, EPA 

appreciates CARB’s and SCAQMD’s 

willingness to respond promptly to the 

court decision and this final action, and 

to submit revisions to the South Coast 

portion of the California SIP to address 

the section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions 

offset requirement for the 1-hour and 8- 

hour ozone standards. 

IV. Final Action and Consequences of 

Final Disapproval 

For the reasons provided in the 

proposed rule and summarized herein, 

EPA is taking final action to withdraw 

our previous approvals of SIP revisions 

submitted by the State of California to 

demonstrate compliance with the VMT 

emissions offset requirement under 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) with respect 

to the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone 

standards in the South Coast 

nonattainment area. EPA is taking this 

action in response to a decision of the 

Ninth Circuit in Association of Irritated 

Residents v. EPA. Under section 110(k), 

EPA is also taking final action to 

disapprove those same submittals 

because they reflect an approach to 

showing compliance with section 

182(d)(1)(A) that was rejected by the 

court as inconsistent with the CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions 

offset requirement. 

Pursuant to CAA section 179(a), our 

disapproval of the SIP revisions will 

trigger the NSR offset sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(2) and the highway 

funding sanction under CAA section 

179(b)(1) in the South Coast ozone 

nonattainment area 18 months, and 24 

months, respectively, after the effective 

date of this action unless we take final 

action approving SIP revisions meeting 

the relevant requirements of the CAA 

prior to the time the sanctions would 

take effect. If we propose approval of a 

SIP revision meeting the relevant 

requirements of the CAA and determine 

at that time that it is more likely than 

not the deficiency has been corrected, 

sanctions will be deferred. See 40 CFR 

52.31 which sets forth when sanctions 

apply and when they may be stopped or 

deferred. 

In addition to the sanctions, CAA 

section 110(c) provides that EPA must 

promulgate a FIP addressing the 

deficiency that is the basis for this 

disapproval action two years after the 

effective date of the disapproval unless 

we have approved a revised SIP before 

that date. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18852 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

V. 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 Reduction 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 or SIP 

disapprovals under section 110 of the 

Clean Air Act do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve or 

disapprove requirements that the State 

is already imposing. Therefore, because 

the withdrawal of previous approvals of 

certain SIP revisions, and disapproval of 

the same, do 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 a 

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 section 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 

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 

withdraws previous approvals of certain 

pre-existing SIP elements and 

disapproves the same, 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 withdraws previous approvals of 

certain SIP revisions implementing a 

Federal standard and disapproves the 

same, 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 rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

withdraws previous approvals of certain 

SIP revisions implementing a Federal 

standard and disapproves the same. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18853 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

withdraws previous approvals of certain 

SIP revisions implementing a Federal 

standard and disapproves the same 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

and will not in-and-of itself create any 

new requirements. Accordingly, it 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. 

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). 

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 May 28, 2013. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: March 14, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended 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 

§ 52.220 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(339)(ii)(B)(2). 

[FR Doc. 2013–06905 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0920; FRL–9779–2] 

Revision to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) from organic liquid 

storage. We are approving a local rule 

that regulates these emission sources 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 28, 

2013 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by April 29, 

2013. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number [EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0920], by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

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. 

www.regulations.gov 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 comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES