58072 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 Ground-level ozone or smog is formed when 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), and oxygen react in the 

presence of sunlight, generally at elevated 

temperatures. Strategies for reducing smog typically 

require reductions in both VOC and NOX emissions. 

Ozone causes serious health problems by damaging 

lung tissue and sensitizing the lungs to other 

irritants. When inhaled, even at very low levels, 

ozone can cause acute respiratory problems, 

aggravate asthma, temporary decreases in lung 

capacity of 15 to 20 percent in healthy adults, 

inflammation of lung tissue, lead to hospital 

admissions and emergency room visits, and impair 

the body’s immune system defenses, making people 

more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, including 

bronchitis and pneumonia. 

proposed 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 

proposes to withdraw previous 

approvals of certain SIP revisions, and 

proposes disapproval of the same, 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 30, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22973 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0721; FRL–9727–5] 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for 

California State Implementation Plan 

Revision; South Coast 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In response to a remand by 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act, EPA is 

proposing to find that the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin 

(South Coast) is substantially 

inadequate to comply with the 

obligation to adopt and implement a 

plan providing for attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone standard. If EPA finalizes 

this proposed finding of substantial 

inadequacy, California would be 

required to revise its SIP to correct these 

deficiencies within 12 months of the 

effective date of our final rule. If EPA 

finds that California has failed to submit 

a complete SIP revision as required by 

a final rule or if EPA disapproves such 

a revision, such finding or disapproval 

would trigger clocks for mandatory 

sanctions and an obligation for EPA to 

impose a Federal Implementation Plan. 

EPA is also proposing that if EPA makes 

such a finding or disapproval, sanctions 

would apply consistent with our 

regulations, such that the offset sanction 

would apply 18 months after such 

finding or disapproval and highway 

funding restrictions would apply six 

months later unless EPA first takes 

action to stay the imposition of the 

sanctions or to stop the sanctions clock 

based on the State curing the SIP 

deficiencies. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0721, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Air 

Planning Office, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, Mailcode 

AIR–2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://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 an email comment 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

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

may not be publicly available at either 

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

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, Mail Code 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. Background 

A. Regulatory Context 

B. South Coast Ozone Designations and 

Classifications and Related SIP Revisions 

C. Litigation on EPA’s Final Action on 

2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP 

D. Determination of South Coast’s Failure 

to Attain 1-Hour Ozone Standard 

II. Rationale for Proposed SIP Call 

III. Consequences of Proposed SIP Call 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Regulatory Context 

The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

requires EPA to establish national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS 

or ‘‘standards’’) for certain widespread 

pollutants that cause or contribute to air 

pollution that is reasonably anticipated 

to endanger public health or welfare 

(see sections 108 and 109 of the CAA). 

In 1979, under section 109 of the 

CAA, EPA established a primary healthbased NAAQS for ozone 1 at 0.12 parts 

per million (ppm) averaged over a 1- 

hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February 

8, 1979). The Act, as amended in 1990, 

required EPA to designate as 

nonattainment any area that had been 

designated as nonattainment before the 

1990 Amendments [section 107(d)(1)(C) 

of the Act; 56 FR 56694; (November 6, 

1991)]. The Act further classified these 

areas, based on the severity of their 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58073 

2 In 2008, EPA tightened the 8-hour ozone 

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

2008). Today’s proposed action relates only to SIP 

requirements arising from the classifications and 

designations of the South Coast with respect to the 

1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. 

3The 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). 

4Among the elements EPA approved in 2009 

were control measures adopted by the California 

Air Resources Board, including a control measure, 

referred to as ‘‘PEST–1’’ that carried forward the 

existing Pesticide Element from the 1994 California 

1-Hour Ozone SIP that EPA approved in 1997, and 

a demonstration submitted by the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District addressing the first 

element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), referred to 

herein as the ‘‘VMT emissions offset 

demonstration.’’ 

nonattainment problem, as Marginal, 

Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme. 

The control requirements and date by 

which attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard was to be achieved varied with 

an area’s classification. Marginal areas 

were subject to the fewest mandated 

control requirements and had the 

earliest attainment date, November 15, 

1993, while Extreme areas were subject 

to the most stringent planning 

requirements and were provided the 

most time to attain the standard, until 

November 15, 2010. The various ozone 

planning requirements to which 

Extreme ozone nonattainment areas are 

subject are set forth in section 172(c) 

and section 182(a)–(e) of the CAA. 

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).2 We promulgated final 

rules to implement the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard in two phases. The 

‘‘Phase 1’’ rule, which was issued on 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951) 

establishes, among other things, the 

classification structure and 

corresponding attainment deadlines, as 

well as the anti-backsliding principles 

for the transition from the 1-hour ozone 

standard to the 8-hour ozone standard. 

For an area that was designated 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard at the time EPA designated it 

as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard as part of the initial 8- 

hour ozone designations, most of the 

requirements that had applied by virtue 

of the area’s classification for the 1-hour 

ozone standard continue to apply even 

after revocation of the 1-hour ozone 

standard (which occurred in June 2005 

for most areas). See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.900(f). Thus, for 

example, an area that was designated 

nonattainment and classified as Extreme 

for the 1-hour ozone standard at the 

time of an initial designation of 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

standard remains subject to the 

requirement to have a fully-approved 

attainment demonstration meeting 

Extreme area requirements for the 1- 

hour ozone standard or an alternative as 

provided under 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(ii). 

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

51.900(f)(13). 

The Phase 2 rule, which was issued 

on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 

addresses the SIP obligations for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. Under the 

Phase 2 rule, an area that is designated 

as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, and classified under 

subpart 2 (of part D of title I of the 

CAA), is subject to the requirements of 

subpart 2 that apply for that 

classification. See 40 CFR 51.902(a). 

B. South Coast Ozone Designations and 

Classifications and Related SIP 

Revisions 

As noted above, the CAA, as amended 

in 1990, required EPA to designate as 

nonattainment any area that was 

violating the 1-hour ozone standard. 

The CAA also required EPA to classify 

nonattainment areas as Marginal, 

Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme 

depending upon the design value of the 

area. On November 6, 1991, EPA 

designated the Los Angeles-South Coast 

Air Basin Area (‘‘South Coast’’) 3 as 

nonattainment and classified it as 

Extreme for the 1-hour ozone standard; 

thus the area had an attainment date no 

later than November 15, 2010 (56 FR 

56694). 

The California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) has submitted a number of SIP 

revisions over the years for the South 

Coast to address 1-hour ozone SIP 

planning requirements. Specifically, in 

1994, CARB submitted a 1-hour ozone 

SIP that, among other things, included 

for the South Coast an attainment 

demonstration, a ‘‘rate of progress’’ 

(ROP) demonstration, and 

transportation control measures (TCMs). 

In 1997, EPA approved the 1994 South 

Coast Ozone SIP as it applied to the 

South Coast for the 1-hour standard. See 

62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997). 

In 1997 and 1999, CARB submitted 

revisions to the 1994 South Coast 1- 

Hour Ozone SIP, including a revised 

ROP demonstration and a revised 

attainment demonstration (‘‘1997/1999 

South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP’’), which 

EPA approved in 2000. See 65 FR 18903 

(April 10, 2000). In 2004, CARB 

submitted revisions to the 1997/1999 

South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP (‘‘2003 

South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP’’) 

intended to update and replace the 

State’s control measure commitments in 

the 1997/1999 South Coast 1-Hour 

Ozone SIP. See 73 FR 63408, 63410 

(October 24, 2008). The revised 

attainment demonstration submitted as 

part of the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour 

Ozone SIP included updated emissions 

inventories showing higher mobile 

source emissions than the State had 

previously projected and updated 

modeling that indicated a lower 

‘‘carrying capacity’’ in the South Coast 

air basin, as well as additional 

commitments by CARB to achieve 

specified amounts of VOC and NOX

emission reductions needed for 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date (November 15, 2010) in light of 

these updated analyses. Id. at 73 FR 

63410, 63416 (October 24, 2009). In 

2008, however, CARB withdrew key 

components of the emission reduction 

commitments in the 2003 South Coast 1- 

Hour Ozone SIP. See 73 FR at 63410– 

12 (citing letter from James Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, dated 

February 13, 2008). 

In 2009, EPA approved certain 

elements of the 2003 South Coast 1- 

Hour Ozone SIP 4 but disapproved the 

revised ROP demonstrations and 

attainment demonstration in the 2003 

South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP, in large 

part because CARB’s 2008 withdrawal 

of key components of the emission 

reduction commitments submitted in 

2004 rendered the plan insufficient to 

demonstrate attainment and to meet 

ROP milestones. 74 FR 10176, 10181 

(March 10, 2009). More specifically as to 

the attainment demonstration, EPA 

concluded that the 2003 South Coast 1- 

Hour Ozone SIP did not meet the CAA 

section 182(c)(2)(A) requirement for a 

demonstration of attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date because the modeled 

attainment demonstration ‘‘relies upon 

emission reductions from [CARB’s] 

control strategy as set forth in the 2003 

State Strategy, most of which was 

withdrawn by [CARB] on February 13, 

2008.’’ 73 FR 63408, 63416; (October 24, 

2008). EPA also concluded that the 

disapproval of the attainment 

demonstration did not trigger sanctions 

clocks or a Federal implementation plan 

(FIP) obligation because the approved 

SIP already contained an approved 1- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

meeting CAA requirements. See 74 FR 

at 10177, 10181. 

With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, EPA initially designated the 

South Coast as nonattainment and 

classified it as ‘‘Severe-17,’’ but later 

approved a request by California to 

reclassify the area to ‘‘Extreme.’’ See 69 

FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) and 75 FR 

24409 (May 5, 2010). In 2007, CARB 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58074 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5EPA is addressing issues #2 and #3 in separate 

rulemakings. With respect to issue #2 (the 

continuation of the 1994 Pesticide Element, also 

known as ‘‘PEST–1’’), the EPA Region IX Regional 

Administrator signed a final rule on August 14, 

2012 approving certain State fumigant regulations 

and a revised Pesticide Element commitment for 

San Joaquin Valley, thereby responding to the 

remand in the Association of Irritated Residents 

case. See, also, 77 FR 24441; (April 24, 2012) 

(proposed rule on fumigant regulations and revised 

Pesticide Element for San Joaquin Valley). With 

respect to issue #3 (VMT emissions offset 

requirement), EPA is proposing action in a separate 

document in today’s Federal Register. 

6See Docket Nos. 09–71383 and 09–71404 

(consolidated), Docket Entry 41–1, Petition for 

Panel Rehearing. 

submitted a SIP revision to address the 

Extreme 8-hour ozone SIP planning 

requirements for the South Coast (‘‘2007 

South Coast 8-hour Ozone SIP’’), which 

EPA fully approved in March 2012. See 

77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012). 

C. Litigation on EPA’s 2009 Final Action 

on the South Coast 2003 1-Hour Ozone 

SIP 

On May 8, 2009, several 

environmental and community groups 

filed a petition for review in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

challenging EPA’s March 2009 partial 

approval and partial disapproval of the 

2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP. 

Association of Irritated Residents et al. 

v. EPA, Case Nos. 09–71383 and 09– 

71404. The case centered on three main 

issues: (1) The consequences of EPA’s 

final disapproval of the attainment 

demonstration; (2) the necessity for 

substantive review of the previouslyapproved 1994 Pesticide Element 

brought forward in the 2003 State 

Strategy; and (3) EPA’s interpretation of 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), which 

requires SIPs for ‘‘Severe’’ or ‘‘Extreme’’ 

ozone nonattainment areas to include 

specific transportation control strategies 

and transportation control measures 

(TCMs) to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in vehicle miles 

traveled (‘‘VMT emissions offset 

requirement’’), and EPA’s approval of 

the State’s demonstration of compliance 

with this SIP requirement.5

On February 2, 2011, the Ninth 

Circuit ruled in favor of the petitioners 

on all three issues and remanded EPA’s 

2009 final action on the 2003 South 

Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP. Association of 

Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 

(9th Cir. 2011). In so doing, the court 

held that EPA must promulgate a FIP 

under CAA section 110(c) or issue a SIP 

call where EPA disapproves a new 

attainment demonstration unless the 

Agency determines that the SIP as 

approved remains sufficient to 

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. 

Specifically, the court rejected EPA’s 

argument that there is no FIP duty 

where the EPA had already approved 

into the SIP the required plan element 

and the submission disapproved was 

voluntarily submitted by the State to 

replace the existing approved SIP 

element. The court briefly referenced its 

analysis of the FIP provisions to 

conclude that the disapproval also 

triggered mandatory sanctions. Id. at 

591–594. 

As to the 1994 Pesticide Element, the 

court held that EPA had an affirmative 

duty to review the substance of the 

element anew in light of subsequent 

litigation over the Pesticide Element 

that revealed approvability issues not 

accounted for in EPA’s previous review 

and approval of the element. Id. at 594– 

595. EPA is addressing this portion of 

the court’s decision in a separate 

rulemaking. See footnote #5 of this 

document. 

Finally, the court disagreed with 

EPA’s interpretation of the VMT 

emissions offset requirement and found 

that the plain language of the Act 

requires SIPs subject to CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) to include additional 

transportation control strategies and 

measures whenever vehicle emissions 

are projected to be higher, due to growth 

in VMT, than they would have been had 

VMT not increased, even when 

aggregate vehicle emissions are actually 

decreasing. Id. at 595–597. EPA is 

addressing this portion of the court’s 

decision in a separate rulemaking. See 

footnote #5 of this document. 

On May 5, 2011, EPA filed a petition 

for panel rehearing requesting the court 

to reconsider its decision on the issue of 

whether CAA section 179 sanctions are 

triggered by disapproval of a revision to 

an already-approved SIP element, and 

on the court’s interpretation of CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A).6 On January 27, 

2012, the Ninth Circuit denied EPA’s 

petition for rehearing but issued an 

amended opinion deleting references to 

the imposition of sanctions following 

disapproval of the South Coast plan. 

The mandate in the case issued on 

February 13, 2012. See 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 v. 

EPA’’). The decision, as amended, states 

inter alia that ‘‘EPA should have 

ordered California to submit a revised 

attainment plan for the South Coast after 

it disapproved the 2003 Attainment 

Plan’’ and remands EPA’s action ‘‘for 

further proceedings consistent with 

[the] opinion.’’ Id. at 681. 

D. Determination of South Coast’s 

Failure to Attain 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

On December 30, 2011, EPA 

determined that the South Coast 

extreme ozone nonattainment area had 

failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by its applicable attainment 

date of November 15, 2010. 76 FR 

82133; (December 30, 2011). This 

determination was based on qualityassured and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data from 2008–2010, the 

three-year period preceding the 

applicable attainment date. Id. EPA 

made this determination pursuant to its 

obligation and authority under CAA 

section 301(a) and the relevant portion 

of section 181(b)(2) to ensure 

implementation of 1-hour ozone antibacksliding contingency measures and 

section 185 fee program requirements. 

Id. at 82145. 

II. Rationale for Proposed SIP Call 

The Ninth Circuit concluded in AIR v. 

EPA that EPA must promulgate a FIP 

under CAA section 110(c) or issue a SIP 

call where EPA disapproves an 

attainment demonstration submitted to 

replace an already-approved attainment 

demonstration in the SIP, unless the 

Agency determines that the SIP as 

approved remains sufficient to 

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. 

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

2011), as amended at 686 F.3d 668. 

Consistent with this directive and in 

response to the court’s conclusion that 

‘‘EPA should have ordered California to 

submit a revised attainment plan for the 

South Coast after it disapproved the 

2003 Attainment Plan,’’ id. at 681, EPA 

is proposing to issue a SIP call under 

CAA section 110(k)(5) to require 

California to submit a new attainment 

demonstration for the 1-hour ozone 

standard in the South Coast. 

Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA states, in 

relevant part, as follows: 

Whenever the Administrator finds that the 

applicable implementation plan for an area is 

substantially inadequate to attain or maintain 

the relevant national ambient air quality 

standard, * * * or to otherwise comply with 

any requirement of [the Act], the 

Administrator shall require the State to revise 

the plan as necessary to correct such 

inadequacies, and may establish reasonable 

deadlines (not to exceed 18 months after the 

date of such notice) for the submission of 

such plan revisions. Such findings and notice 

shall be public. Any finding under this 

paragraph shall, to the extent the 

Administrator deems appropriate, subject the 

State to the requirements of this chapter to 

which the State was subject when it 

developed and submitted the plan for which 

such finding was made, except that the 

Administrator may adjust any dates 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58075 

7Under CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), the State must 

submit a revision to the SIP that includes a 

demonstration that the plan, as revised, will 

provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The 

attainment demonstration must be based on 

photochemical grid modeling or any other 

analytical method determined by the EPA to be at 

least as effective. 

applicable under such requirements as 

appropriate (except that the Administrator 

may not adjust any attainment date 

prescribed under part D of this subchapter, 

unless such date has elapsed). 

Our proposed SIP call is based on the 

evidence submitted by California in the 

form of the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan that the approved 1997/ 

1999 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP was 

substantially inadequate to provide for 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

by the applicable attainment date of 

November 15, 2010. Two major 

developments that occurred after EPA 

approval of the 1997/1999 South Coast 

1-Hour Ozone SIP led the State of 

California to reconsider the adequacy of 

the control strategy for attaining the 1- 

hour ozone standard in the South Coast 

by the applicable attainment date 

(2010). 

First, CARB released a significant 

update to California’s mobile source 

emissions model (EMFAC2002) that 

resulted in significantly higher motor 

vehicle emissions estimates than 

previously calculated, and second, 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) updated its ozone 

modeling and concluded that the 

carrying capacity of the South Coast Air 

Basin was significantly lower than 

previously calculated. See, generally, 

appendix III (‘‘Base and Future Year 

Emission Inventories’’) and appendix V 

(‘‘Modeling and Attainment 

Demonstrations’’) of the SCAQMD’s 

2003 South Coast Air Quality 

Management Plan (AQMP), August 

2003. 

Together, these technical 

considerations prompted CARB and 

SCAQMD to conclude that more control 

measures would be necessary than 

contained in the 1997/1999 South Coast 

1-Hour Ozone SIP to attain the 1-hour 

ozone standard by 2010. In reference to 

the 1997/1999 South Coast 1-Hour 

Ozone SIP, the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour 

Ozone SIP states: ‘‘The Plan is 

consistent with and builds upon the 

approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP 

and the 1999 Amendments to the Ozone 

SIP for the South Coast Air Basin for the 

attainment of the federal ozone air 

quality standard. However, this revision 

points to the urgent need for additional 

emission reductions (beyond those 

incorporated in the 1997/99 Plan) to 

offset increased emission estimates from 

mobile sources and meet all federal 

criteria pollutant standards within the 

time frames allowed under the federal 

Clean Air Act.’’ See SCAQMD, 2003 Air 

Quality Management Plan,’’ August 

2003, pages ES–1 and ES–2. 

In 2003, EPA approved the use of 

EMFAC2002 for SIP development 

purposes, and in 2004, EPA found the 

1-hour ozone motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) in the 2003 South 

Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP to be adequate 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

See 68 FR 15720; (April 1, 2003) and 69 

FR 15325; (March 25, 2004). Adequacy 

findings for transportation conformity 

purposes are generally based on cursory 

reviews of submitted plans, but EPA’s 

approval of EMFAC2002 and finding of 

adequacy of the MVEBs in 2003 South 

Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP show general 

agreement by EPA with the technical 

foundation for the 2003 South Coast 1- 

Hour Ozone SIP, which highlights the 

inadequacy of the attainment 

demonstration in the 1997/1999 South 

Coast 1-Hour Ozone Plan. 

In addition, in 2011, EPA determined, 

based on quality-assured and certified 

ambient air quality monitoring data, that 

the South Coast area has failed to attain 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of November 

15, 2010. 76 FR 82133; (December 30, 

2011). EPA’s 2011 determination of 

failure to attain the standard by the 

applicable attainment date provides 

further support for our proposed action 

because it establishes, as a factual 

matter, that the 1997/1999 South Coast 

1-Hour Ozone SIP failed to achieve its 

stated purpose of bringing the South 

Coast area into attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. 

In light of the evidence discussed 

above, we propose to find that the 

approved 1997/1999 South Coast 1- 

Hour Ozone SIP is substantially 

inadequate to provide for attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard and is 

therefore substantially inadequate to 

comply with EPA’s ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

requirement at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i) to 

adopt and implement such a plan for 

the South Coast. 

III. Consequences of Proposed SIP Call 

EPA is proposing to require the State 

of California to submit, within 12 

months, a SIP revision meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

182(c)(2)(A) 7 and demonstrating 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

in the South Coast as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than five years 

from the effective date of a final SIP call 

unless the State can justify a later date, 

not to exceed 10 years beyond the 

effective date of the final SIP call, by 

considering the severity of the 

remaining nonattainment problem in 

the South Coast and the availability and 

feasibility of pollution control measures. 

See CAA section 172(a)(2). 

The SIP call provisions of CAA 

section 110(k)(5) direct EPA, ‘‘to the 

extent [EPA] deems appropriate,’’ to 

‘‘subject the State to the requirements of 

this chapter to which the State was 

subject when it developed and 

submitted the plan for which such 

finding was made, except that the 

Administrator may adjust any dates 

applicable under such requirements as 

appropriate (except that the 

Administrator may not adjust any 

attainment date prescribed under part D 

of this subchapter, unless such date has 

elapsed).’’ By relying on section 

172(a)(2) as the basis for the applicable 

attainment date for the South Coast, we 

are subjecting the State to the same CAA 

requirement that applied at the time that 

the State developed and submitted the 

1997/1999 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone 

SIP, because, at that time, the area was 

an extreme ozone area with an 

attainment date of 2010 and subject to 

the potential for a finding of failure to 

attain by the applicable attainment date 

under CAA section 179(c) that would 

trigger a requirement under CAA section 

179(d) to submit a new plan meeting the 

requirements of section 172. 

The 12-month deadline for submittal 

of a revised attainment demonstration 

plan is appropriate in light of the time 

that has elapsed since the AIR decision 

was published and the significant 

planning effort that the SCAQMD has 

already undertaken to develop a new 1- 

hour ozone attainment plan but also 

recognizing the potential need to 

develop additional control measures, 

beyond those already adopted for the 

purposes of the South Coast 8-hour 

Ozone SIP, given the geographic extent 

and frequency of exceedances of the 1- 

hour ozone standard. See, e.g., the 1- 

hour ozone summary data for 2008– 

2010 published at 76 FR 56694, at 

56697; (September 14, 2011). 

If EPA subsequently finds that 

California has failed to submit a 

complete SIP revision that responds to 

a final SIP call, CAA section 179(a) 

provides for EPA to issue a finding of 

State failure. Such a finding starts 

mandatory 18-month and 24-month 

sanctions clocks and a 24-month clock 

for promulgation of a FIP by EPA. The 

two sanctions that apply under CAA 

section 179(b) are the 2-to-1 emission 

offset requirement for all new and 

modified major sources subject to the 

nonattainment new source review 

program and restrictions on highway 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58076 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

funding. However, section 179 leaves it 

up to the Administrator to decide the 

order in which these sanctions apply. 

EPA issued an order of sanctions rule in 

1994 (59 FR 39832, August 4, 1994, 

codified at 40 CFR 52.31) but did not 

specify the order of sanctions where a 

state fails to submit or submits a 

deficient SIP in response to a SIP call. 

However, the order of sanctions 

specified in that rule (40 CFR 52.31) 

should apply here for the same reasons 

discussed in the preamble to that rule. 

Thus, if EPA issues a final SIP call 

and California fails to submit the 

required SIP revision, or submits a 

revision that EPA determines is 

incomplete or that EPA disapproves, 

EPA proposes that the 2-to-1 emission 

offset requirement will apply for all new 

sources subject to the nonattainment 

new source review program 18 months 

following such finding or disapproval 

unless the State corrects the deficiency 

before that date. EPA proposes that the 

highway funding restrictions sanction 

will also apply 24 months following 

such finding or disapproval unless the 

State corrects the deficiency before that 

date. EPA is also proposing that the 

provisions in 40 CFR 52.31 regarding 

staying the sanctions clock and 

deferring the imposition of sanctions 

would apply. 

In addition, CAA section 110(c) 

obligates EPA to promulgate a FIP 

addressing the deficiency that is the 

basis for a finding of failure to submit 

or a disapproval within two years after 

the effective date of such finding or 

disapproval, unless EPA has approved a 

revised SIP correcting the deficiency 

before that date. 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

EPA is proposing to find, pursuant to 

section 110(k)(5) of the CAA, that the 

California SIP is substantially 

inadequate to comply with the 

obligation to adopt and implement a 

plan providing for attainment of the 

one-hour ozone NAAQS in the South 

Coast. If EPA finalizes this proposal, 

California will be required to submit a 

SIP revision correcting the deficiency 

within 12 months of the effective date 

of EPA’s final rule. 

We will accept comments on this 

proposal for 30 days following 

publication of this proposed rule in the 

Federal Register. We will consider all 

submitted comments in our final 

rulemaking. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, a finding of 

substantial inadequacy and subsequent 

obligation for a State to revise its SIP 

arise out of section 110(a) and 110(k)(5). 

The finding and State obligation do not 

directly impose any new regulatory 

requirements. In addition, the State 

obligation is not legally enforceable by 

a court of law. EPA would review its 

intended action on any SIP submittal in 

response to the finding in light of 

applicable statutory and Executive 

Order requirements, in subsequent 

rulemaking acting on such SIP 

submittal. For those reasons, this 

proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the finding 

of SIP inadequacy would not apply in 

Indian country located in the State, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 30, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22972 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0611; FRL–9730–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern lead 

emissions from large lead-acid battery 

recycling facilities. We are approving a 

local rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number R09–OAR– 

2012–0611, 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS