Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32481 

alternate standard will achieve a level of 

security and integrity sufficient to 

accomplish the purpose of the standard 

it is to replace. 

(2) For each enumerated standard for 

which the TGRA approves an alternate 

standard, it must submit to the Chair 

within 30 days, a detailed report, which 

must include the following: 

(i) An explanation of how the 

alternate standard achieves a level of 

security and integrity sufficient to 

accomplish the purpose of the standard 

it is to replace; and 

(ii) The alternate standard as 

approved and the record on which the 

approval is based. 

(3) In the event that the TGRA or the 

tribe’s government chooses to submit an 

alternate standard request directly to the 

Chair for joint government to 

government review, the TGRA or tribal 

government may do so without the 

approval requirement set forth in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(b) Chair Review. 

(1) The Chair may approve or object 

to an alternate standard granted by a 

TGRA. 

(2) Any objection by the Chair must 

be in written form with an explanation 

why the alternate standard as approved 

by the TGRA does not provide a level 

of security or integrity sufficient to 

accomplish the purpose of the standard 

it is to replace. 

(3) If the Chair fails to approve or 

object in writing within 60 days after 

the date of receipt of a complete 

submission, the alternate standard is 

considered approved by the Chair. The 

Chair may, upon notification to the 

TGRA, extend this deadline an 

additional 60 days. 

(4) No alternate standard may be 

implemented until it has been approved 

by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section or the Chair has 

approved pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(c) Appeal of Chair decision. A 

Chair’s decision may be appealed 

pursuant to 25 CFR subchapter H. 

Dated this 22nd of May 2012. 

Tracie L. Stevens, 

Chairwoman. 

Steffani A. Cochran, 

Vice-Chairwoman. 

Daniel J. Little, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12992 Filed 5–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0912; FRL–9680–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans: Oregon 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Oregon (the State) on October 6, 2010, 

and an August 31, 2011, supplementary 

letter, for the purpose of establishing 

transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures related to interagency 

consultation, and enforceability of 

certain transportation related control 

and mitigation measures. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2010–0912, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov.: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, 

U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, 

Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101 

• Hand Delivery: US EPA Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

Attention: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, 

Office of Air Waste, and Toxics (AWT– 

107). Such deliveries are only accepted 

during normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010– 

0912. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the 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 the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the 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: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material is 

not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone 

number: (206) 553–6121, email address: 

vaupel.claudia@epa.gov, or the above 

EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the purpose of this action? 

II. What is the background for this proposed 

action? 

III. What is the State’s process to submit SIP 

revisions to EPA? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Oregon’s SIP 

revision? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the purpose of this action? 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), 

Division 252 ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity’’ of the Oregon SIP that 

address the requirements of section 176 

of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.390(b). By 

approving these revisions to OAR 

Division 252, EPA is making them part 

of the federally enforceable SIP for 

Oregon under the CAA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32482 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

II. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

Transportation conformity is required 

under section 176(c) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) to ensure that 

federally supported highway, transit 

projects, and other activities are 

consistent with (‘‘conform to’’) the 

purpose of the SIP. Transportation 

conformity currently applies to areas 

that are designated nonattainment, and 

to areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment after 1990 (maintenance 

areas) with plans developed under 

section 175A of the Act, for the 

following transportation related criteria 

pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter 

(PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide, and 

nitrogen dioxide. 

Conformity to the purpose of the SIP 

means that transportation activities will 

not cause new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the relevant criteria 

pollutants, also known as national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

The transportation conformity 

regulation is found in 40 CFR 93 and 

provisions related to transportation 

conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 

51.390. 

EPA promulgated the Federal 

transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures (‘‘Transportation Conformity 

Rule’’) on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 

62188). On August 10, 2005, the ‘‘Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users’’ (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into 

law. SAFETEA-LU revised section 

176(c) of the CAA transportation 

conformity provisions. One of the 

changes streamlines the requirements 

for conformity SIPs. Under SAFETEALU, states are required to address and 

tailor only three sections of the rules in 

their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 

CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and, 40 CFR 

93.125(c). In general, states are no 

longer required to submit conformity 

SIP revisions that address the other 

sections of the conformity rule. These 

changes took effect on August 10, 2005, 

when SAFETEA-LU was signed into 

law. Oregon’s SIP revision updates the 

State’s transportation conformity 

provisions, OAR Division 252, to be 

consistent with the CAA as amended by 

SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 

CFR Part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390). 

Oregon’s SIP revision also adds a 

provision that requires approval by the 

air quality agency in order for an MPO 

to shorten the timeframe of a conformity 

determination (OAR–340–252–0070). 

III. What is the State’s process to 

submit SIP revisions to EPA? 

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses 

EPA’s process to act on State 

submissions that would revise a SIP. 

The CAA requires States to observe 

certain procedural requirements in 

developing SIP revisions for submittal 

to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 

requires that each SIP revision be 

adopted after reasonable notice and 

public hearing. This must occur prior to 

the revision being submitted by a State 

to us. 

The submission includes evidence 

that the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 

provided adequate public notice of the 

revisions to OAR 340, Division 252 and 

held a public hearing on November 23, 

2009. The Oregon Department of 

Transportation submitted comments on 

three aspects of the proposed rules and 

ODEQ provided a response on 

December 4, 2009. This SIP revision 

became State effective on February 18, 

2010, and was submitted to EPA on 

October 6, 2010. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Oregon’s 

SIP revision? 

EPA has evaluated this SIP 

submission and finds that the State has 

addressed the requirements of the 

Federal transportation conformity rule 

as described in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 

T and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A. The 

transportation conformity rule requires 

the states to develop their own 

processes and procedures for 

interagency consultation and resolution 

of conflicts meeting the criteria in 40 

CFR 93.105. The SIP revision must 

include processes and procedures to be 

followed by the MPO, state DOT, and 

U.S. DOT in consulting with the state 

and local air quality agencies and EPA 

before making transportation conformity 

determinations. The transportation 

conformity SIP must also include 

processes and procedures for the state 

and local air quality agencies and EPA 

to coordinate the development of 

applicable SIPs with MPOs, state DOTs, 

and U.S. DOT, and requires written 

commitments to control measures and 

mitigation measures. 

EPA has reviewed the submittal to 

assure consistency with the CAA as 

amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA 

regulations (40 CFR Part 93 and 40 CFR 

51.390) governing state procedures for 

transportation conformity and 

interagency consultation and has 

concluded that the submittal is 

approvable with the exception of an 

example in OAR–340–252–0070 for 

shortening the conformity timeframe. 

Details of our review are set forth in a 

technical support document (TSD), 

which has been included in the docket 

for this action. Specifically, in the TSD, 

we identify how the submitted 

procedures, as clarified by the State’s 

August 31, 2011, supplementary letter, 

satisfy our requirements under 40 CFR 

93.105 for interagency consultation with 

respect to the development of 

transportation plans and programs, SIPs, 

and conformity determinations, the 

resolution of conflicts, and the 

provision of adequate public 

consultation, and our requirements 

under 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 

93.125(c) for enforceability of control 

measures and mitigation measures. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing approval of the SIP 

revision that was submitted by the State 

of Oregon on October 6, 2010. The SIP 

revision updates OAR, Division 252 

‘‘Transportation Conformity’’ of the 

Oregon SIP so as to meet the Federal 

transportation conformity consultation 

requirements as described in section 

176 of the CAA 42 U.S.C. 7506 and in 

40 CFR 51.390(b), 40 CFR 93.105(a) 

through (e), 40 CFR 93 122(a)(4)(ii), and 

40 CFR 125(c). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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); 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32483 

• 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 SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 22, 2012. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13344 Filed 5–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0236; FRL–9670–9] 

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 

a revision to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This revision concerns particulate 

matter (PM) emissions from cement 

manufacturing facilities. We are 

proposing to approve a local rule to 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by July 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012,0236, 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 

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

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 947–4125, 

vineyard.christine@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rule: SCAQMD Rule 1156, Further 

Reductions of Particulate Emissions 

from Cement Manufacturing Facilities. 

In the Rules and Regulations section of 

this Federal Register, we are approving 

this local rule in a direct final action 

without prior proposal because we 

believe these SIP revisions are not 

controversial. If we receive adverse 

comments, however, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule and address the comments in 

subsequent action based on this 

proposed rule. Please note that if we 

receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: April 24, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13302 Filed 5–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2011–0112; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AX69 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for 

the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

supplementary documents. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

of the proposed revised designation of 

critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. Also, a draft environmental 

assessment of this proposed action will 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS