49190 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. 

Effective December 18, 2006, EPA strengthened the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 

mg/m3. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 

50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA strengthened 

the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the 

level to 12 mg/m3. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) 

and 40 CFR 50.18. In this preamble, all references 

to the PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, 

are to the 1997 24-hour standard (65 mg/m3) and 

annual standard (15.0 mg/m3) as codified in 40 CFR 

50.7. 

2 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005), codified at 40 CFR 

81.305. 

3For a precise description of the geographic 

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 

area, see 40 CFR 81.305. 

4 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011) (final 

action on 2008 PM2.5 Plan). 

5 Id. at 69924. 

6 78 FR 53113, 53115–53116 (August 28, 2013) 

(proposed action on Contingency Measure SIP). 

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. 

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

Dated: August 3, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20026 Filed 8–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0534; FRL–9932–45– 

Region 9] 

Withdrawal of Approval and 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Contingency Measures 

for the 1997 PM2.5 Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw 

a May 22, 2014 final action approving 

a state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

California under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) to address contingency measure 

requirements for the 1997 annual and 

24-hour national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin 

Valley. Simultaneously, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove this SIP 

submission. These proposed actions are 

in response to a decision issued by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Committee for a Better Arvin v. 

EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015)) 

remanding EPA’s approval of a related 

SIP submission and rejecting EPA’s 

rationale for approving plan 

submissions that rely on California 

mobile source control measures to meet 

SIP requirements such as contingency 

measures, which was a necessary basis 

for the May 22, 2014 final rule. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0534, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: lo.doris@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Doris Lo, (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: 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 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials in person, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lo, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

(415) 972–3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act 

Consequences 

III. Request for Public Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA established 

new national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for particles less 

than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in 

diameter (PM2.5), including an annual 

standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 

and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 65 mg/ 

m3 based on a 3-year average of 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations.1 Effective April 5, 2005, 

EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley 

(SJV) area in California as 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.2 The SJV PM2.5

nonattainment area is located in the 

southern half of California’s central 

valley and includes all or part of eight 

counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, 

and the valley portion of Kern.3 The 

local air district with primary 

responsibility for developing state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to attain 

the NAAQS in this area is the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD or District). 

Between 2007 and 2011, California 

made six SIP submittals to address 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements for the 1997 annual and 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.4 We 

refer to these submittals collectively as 

the ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan.’’ On November 9, 

2011, EPA approved all elements of the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan except for the 

contingency measures, which EPA 

disapproved for failure to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9).5

On July 3, 2013, the State made a new 

submission to meet the contingency 

measure requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV (2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal) to 

correct the deficiencies identified in 

EPA’s November 2011 action 

disapproving the contingency measure 

element of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.6

On May 22, 2014, EPA fully approved 

the 2013 Contingency Measure 

Submittal based on the Agency’s 

conclusion that this SIP submittal 

corrected then outstanding deficiencies 

in the CAA section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measures for the 1997 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 49191 

7 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014) (final action on 

Contingency Measure SIP). 

8 78 FR 53113, 53123 (August 28, 2013) and 79 

FR 29327, 29336–29337 (May 22, 2014). 

9 78 FR 53113, 53123 and 79 FR 29327, 29350. 

10 79 FR 29327, 29350. 

11Committee for a Better Arvin et al. v. EPA, Case 

No. 11–73924 (9th Cir.). 

12 Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. v. 

EPA, Case No. 14–72219 (9th Cir.). 

13 Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. v. 

EPA, Case No. 14–72219 (9th Cir.), United States 

Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Remand of the 

Rule at Issue Without Vacatur, Docket Entry 29–1. 

14 Id. 

15 Id. 

16 Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. v. 

EPA, Case No. 14–72219 (9th Cir.), Order, Docket 

Entry 30. 

17 79 FR 29327, 29336–37 (May 22, 2014). 

18See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(438)(ii). 

PM2.5 NAAQS.7 Among other things, the 

2013 Contingency Measure Submittal 

relied on the ongoing implementation of 

California’s mobile source control 

program as a basis for satisfying the 

contingency measure requirements in 

CAA section 172(c)(9). Specifically, the 

2013 Contingency Measure Submittal 

relied on California mobile source 

measures to achieve 21 tons per day 

(tpd) of reductions in emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) in 2015, roughly 

two-thirds of the total amount of NOX

emission reductions (31.6 tpd) 

necessary to achieve one year’s worth of 

reasonable further progress (RFP) in the 

SJV.8 In its May 22, 2014 final action on 

the 2013 Contingency Measure 

Submittal, EPA determined that CARB’s 

continuing implementation of these 

mobile source control measures in 2015, 

together with other fully-adopted 

measures implemented by the District in 

the same timeframe, would provide for 

an appropriate level of continued 

emission reduction progress should the 

SJV area fail to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date, which was April 5, 2015, thereby 

meeting the requirement for 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain.9 With respect to the requirement 

for contingency measures for failure to 

meet RFP requirements, EPA 

determined that this requirement was 

moot because the District had already 

met the RFP requirements relevant to 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan by the time of EPA’s 

May 22, 2014 action.10

Several environmental and 

community organizations filed a 

petition for review of EPA’s November 

9, 2011 action on the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

arguing, among other things, that the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan had calculated the 

necessary emission reductions and 

forecasts in part based on state-adopted 

mobile source measures that are not 

themselves incorporated into the 

federally enforceable plan, in violation 

of the CAA.11 At that time, EPA’s 

longstanding and consistent practice 

had been to allow California SIPs to rely 

on emission reduction credit for state 

mobile source rules waived or 

authorized by EPA under section 209 of 

the Act (‘‘waiver measures’’) to meet 

certain SIP requirements without 

requiring approval of those control 

measures into the SIP under section 110 

of the Act. On May 20, 2015, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

granted the petition with respect to this 

issue, holding that EPA violated the 

CAA by approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

even though the plan did not include 

the waiver measures on which the plan 

relied to achieve its emission reduction 

goals. Committee for a Better Arvin, et 

al. v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(CBA) (partially granting and partially 

denying petition for review). The court 

rejected EPA’s arguments supporting the 

Agency’s longstanding practice, finding 

that section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act 

plainly mandates that all control 

measures on which states rely to attain 

the NAAQS must be ‘‘included’’ in the 

SIP and subject to enforcement by EPA 

and citizens. The court remanded EPA’s 

November 9, 2011 action for further 

proceedings consistent with the 

decision. 

Separately, environmental and 

community organizations also filed a 

petition for review of EPA’s May 22, 

2014 action on the 2013 Contingency 

Measure Submittal, arguing, among 

other things, that EPA violated the CAA 

by approving that submittal even though 

it did not include the waiver measures 

on which it relied to achieve the 

necessary emission reductions to meet 

contingency measure requirements.12

On June 10, 2015, EPA filed an 

unopposed motion for voluntary 

remand of the May 22, 2014 final rule 

without vacatur based, inter alia, on the 

Agency’s substantial and legitimate 

need to reexamine this rulemaking in 

light of the Ninth Circuit’s May 20, 2015 

decision in CBA.13 As explained in 

EPA’s motion, the 2013 Contingency 

Measure Submittal that EPA approved 

in the May 22, 2014 rulemaking relied 

upon waiver measures to achieve a 

significant percentage of the emission 

reductions necessary to comply with the 

statutory requirement for contingency 

measures, and these waiver measures 

are not included in the SIP.14 EPA 

moved the court for an order remanding 

the May 22, 2014 final rule to allow the 

Agency to reconsider it in light of the 

CBA decision.15 On June 15, 2015, the 

Ninth Circuit granted EPA’s motion and 

remanded the petition for review to 

EPA.16

II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act 

Consequences 

As noted above, the Ninth Circuit 

rejected EPA’s prior interpretation of the 

CAA under which EPA had allowed 

California SIPs to rely on waiver 

measures without requiring approval of 

those measures into the SIP in 

accordance with section 110 of the Act. 

This interpretation formed a necessary 

basis for EPA’s approval of the 2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal.17 In 

response to the court’s ruling in CBA, 

we are proposing to withdraw our May 

22, 2014 approval of the 2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal (79 FR 

29327) because it was predicated on an 

interpretation of the CAA that has been 

rejected by the Ninth Circuit. For the 

same reason, we are proposing to 

disapprove the 2013 Contingency 

Measure Submittal for failure to satisfy 

the requirements of the Act. This 

proposed withdrawal and disapproval, 

if finalized, would have the effect of 

removing the 2013 Contingency 

Measure Submittal from the applicable 

California SIP and deleting the 

provisions in 40 CFR 52.220(c) where 

EPA’s approval of the SIP submittal is 

currently codified.18

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a SIP submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D, title 

I of the Act or is required in response 

to a finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP 

Call) starts a mandatory sanctions clock. 

Disapproval of a SIP element also 

triggers the requirement under CAA 

section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a 

FIP no later than 2 years from the date 

of the disapproval unless the State 

corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision, before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

this disapproval of the 2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal does 

not start a mandatory sanctions clock or 

FIP clock because the specific type of 

contingency measure at issue in that 

submittal is no longer a required 

attainment plan element under the facts 

and circumstances of this situation. 

CARB submitted the 2013 Contingency 

Measure Submittal to address the 

contingency measure requirement in 

CAA section 172(c)(9) as applied to the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, which provided for 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

April 5, 2015, the latest permissible 

attainment date for this area under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49192 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

19 80 FR 1482, 1483 at n. 10 (January 12, 2015) 

(proposed rule to reclassify SJV as Serious 

nonattainment for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

20 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). 

21 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015). California has 

requested an extension of the Serious area 

attainment date pursuant to CAA section 188(e), 

and EPA is currently evaluating that request. See 

letter dated June 25, 2015, from Richard Corey, 

Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, 

to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, transmitting ‘‘2015 Plan for the PM2.5

Standard.’’ 

22EPA does not interpret the requirement for 

failure-to-attain contingency measures to apply to 

Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas that cannot 

practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory 

attainment date. Rather, EPA believes it is 

appropriate for the state to identify and adopt 

attainment contingency measures as part of the 

Serious area attainment plan that it will develop 

once EPA reclassifies the area. See 59 FR 41998, 

42015 (August 16, 1994). 

subpart 1 of part D, title I of the Act.19

Thus, CARB intended the specific 

measures to be contingency measures 

that would apply in the event of a 

failure to attain by April 5, 2015. 

However, intervening events have 

affected the applicable requirements for 

contingency measures for this area. A 

January 2013 decision of the D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals (NRDC v. EPA, 

706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013)) held that 

EPA must implement the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in accordance with the 

requirements of subpart 4 of Part D, title 

I of the Act. In order to address the 

requirements of subpart 4, EPA 

promulgated a rulemaking to classify all 

existing PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 

including SJV, as ‘‘Moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas and to provide 

additional time for states to make or 

supplement SIP submissions in order to 

meet the requirements of subpart 4.20

On April 7, 2015, EPA determined that 

the SJV area could not attain by the 

applicable attainment date (i.e., April 5, 

2015) and therefore reclassified the area 

from ‘‘Moderate’’ to ‘‘Serious.’’ As a 

consequence of the SJV area’s 

reclassification as a Serious area for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, California is now 

required to submit a Serious area plan, 

including both a demonstration that the 

plan provides for attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV by the 

Serious area attainment date, which is 

December 31, 2015, and contingency 

measures to be implemented if the area 

fails to make RFP or to attain by that 

date.21 Another consequence of this 

reclassification, however, is that the 

specific requirement for contingency 

measures for failure to attain as a 

Moderate area plan requirement was 

superseded and eliminated.22 Thus, the 

specific contingency measures at issue 

in the 2013 Contingency Measure 

Submittal are no longer required and 

disapproval of those specific measures 

should not be a basis for sanctions or a 

FIP under these facts and 

circumstances. 

Our proposed disapproval of the 2013 

Contingency Measure Submittal, if 

finalized, would not trigger sanctions or 

FIP clocks because the contingency 

measure requirement that this SIP 

submittal addressed has been 

superseded by different planning 

obligations under subpart 4 of part D, 

title I of the Act. That is, because the 

State submitted the 2013 Contingency 

Measure Submittal to address a 

contingency measure requirement for 

failure to attain by a statutory 

attainment date that no longer applies to 

the area (April 5, 2015), this SIP 

submittal no longer addresses an 

applicable requirement of part D, title I 

of the Act, and our disapproval of it 

therefore would not trigger sanctions. 

For the same reason, our disapproval of 

the 2013 Contingency Measure 

Submittal would not create any 

deficiency in a mandatory component of 

the SIP for this area and, therefore, 

would not trigger the obligation for EPA 

to promulgate a FIP under section 110(c) 

to address this issue. 

III. Request for 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 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

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., because this 

proposed SIP disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply disapproves certain 

State requirements submitted for 

inclusion into the SIP. 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. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act will not in-andof itself create any new requirements 

but simply disapproves certain State 

requirements submitted for inclusion 

into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no 

opportunity for EPA to fashion for small 

entities less burdensome compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the Clean Air Act 

prescribes that various consequences 

(e.g., higher offset requirements) may or 

will result from disapproval actions 

does not mean that EPA either can or 

must conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for this action. Therefore, this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval 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 action proposes to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 49193 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), 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.’’ 

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 States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to disapprove would not apply on any 

Indian reservation land or in any other 

area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and EPA notes that it will 

not impose substantial direct costs on 

tribal governments or preempt tribal 

law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements submitted for 

inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (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(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur 

oxides, Particulate matter. 

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

Dated: August 6, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

EPA Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20240 Filed 8–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0208; FRL–9931–95– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS64 

Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor 

Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard 

for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties, 

North Carolina 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

request from the state of North Carolina 

for the EPA to relax the Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to 

gasoline introduced into commerce from 

June 1 to September 15 of each year for 

Mecklenburg and Gaston counties, 

North Carolina. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing to amend the regulations to 

allow the RVP standard for Mecklenburg 

and Gaston counties to rise from 7.8 

pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi 

for gasoline. The EPA has preliminarily 

determined that this change to the 

federal RVP regulation is consistent 

with the applicable provisions of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 16, 

2015 unless a public hearing is 

requested by September 1, 2015. If the 

EPA receives such a request, we will 

publish information related to the 

timing and location of the hearing and 

a new deadline for public comment. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0208, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS