86870 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

applied in such a manner that parts of 

the mark appear on different sides of the 

mailpiece. See 325.1. 

b. The mark must be a DOT-approved 

lithium battery mark, as specified in 49 

CFR 173.183(c)(3)(i) and Exhibit 325.2a. 

c. The mark must include a telephone 

number for those who need to obtain 

additional information. 

d. Lithium metal cells or batteries 

must be marked with UN3090. 

e. Lithium metal cells or batteries 

installed in or packed with the 

equipment they intend to operate must 

indicate UN3091. 

f. Lithium-ion cells or batteries must 

be marked UN3480. 

g. Lithium-ion cells or batteries 

installed in or packed with the 

equipment they intend to operate must 

indicate UN3481. 

6. Lithium battery marks are not 

required on packages containing only 

lithium button cell batteries, no more 

than 4 lithium cells or 2 lithium 

batteries installed in the equipment they 

operate. 

7. All used, damaged, or defective 

electronic devices with lithium cells or 

batteries contained in or packed with 

device (excluding electronic devices 

that are new in original packaging, and 

manufacturer-certified new or 

refurbished devices) must be marked 

with the text ‘‘Restricted Electronic 

Device’’ and ‘‘Surface Transportation 

Only’’ on the address side of the 

mailpiece. 

* * * * * 

[Renumber existing section 349.221 to 

349.222] 

349.222 Lithium Metal 

(Nonrechargeable) Cells and Batteries— 

Domestic 

[Revise item a. as follows:] 

a. General. The following restrictions 

apply to the mailability of all lithium 

metal (or lithium alloy) cells and 

batteries: 

1. Each cell must contain no more 

than 1.0 gram (g) of lithium content per 

cell. 

2. Each battery must contain no more 

than 2.0 g aggregate lithium content per 

battery. 

* * * * * 

[Renumber existing section 349.222 to 

349.223] 

349.223 Lithium-Ion (Rechargeable) 

Cells and Batteries—Domestic 

[Revise item a. as follows:] 

a. General. The following additional 

restrictions apply to the mailability of 

all secondary lithium-ion or lithium 

polymer cells and batteries: 

1. The watt-hour rating must not 

exceed 20 Wh per cell. 

2. The watt-hour rating must not 

exceed 100 Wh per battery. 

3. Each battery must bear the ‘‘Watthour’’ or ‘‘Wh’’ marking on the battery 

to determine if it is within the limits 

defined in items 1 and 2. 

* * * * * 

62 Hazardous Materials: International 

Mail 

621 General Requirements 

* * * * * 

[Insert new section 621.2 and 

renumber existing 621.2 through 621.4 

as 621.3 through 621.5] 

621.2 Outer Packaging Requirements 

Except as otherwise specified, rigid 

outer packaging must be used for 

shipments containing dangerous goods 

following the instructions in 131. 

* * * * * 

Appendix C 

USPS Packaging Instruction 9D 

[Revise third bullet in the Required 

Packaging section to read as follows:] 

Required Packaging 

Lithium Metal and Lithium-Ion 

Batteries 

D Lithium batteries permitted to be 

mailed under section 349 that are 

installed in the device they operate, are 

afforded adequate protection by that 

equipment, and do not display 

hazardous text, markings or labels as 

permitted in 349.221a6, 622.51f and 

622.52g may utilize padded and poly 

bags as outer packaging provided the 

device is within a secondary container 

that can withstand a 1.7-meter drop test. 

Button cell batteries, meeting the 

classification criteria in 349.11d, 

installed in the device they operate are 

not required to be within a secondary 

container that can withstand a 1.2-meter 

drop test prior to utilizing a padded or 

poly bag as outer packaging. 

* * * * * 

USPS Packaging Instruction 9E 

[Insert new second bullet in the 

Required Packaging section to read as 

follows:] 

Required Packaging 

Lithium Metal and Lithium-Ion 

Batteries 

D Lithium batteries installed in the 

device they operate that are permitted to 

be mailed under section 622.5, may 

utilize padded and poly bags as outer 

packaging provided the device is within 

a secondary container that can 

withstand a 1.7-meter drop test. Button 

cell batteries, meeting the classification 

criteria in 349.11d, installed in the 

device they operate are not required to 

be within a secondary container that can 

withstand a 1.7-meter drop test prior to 

utilizing a padded or poly bag as outer 

packaging. 

* * * * * 

Appendix D 

Hazardous Materials Definitions 

* * * * * 

[Revise definition of Rigid to read as 

follows:] 

Rigid means unable to bend or be 

forced out of shape; not flexible. Rigid 

outer packaging is generally interpreted 

to mean a fiberboard (cardboard) box or 

outer packaging of equivalent strength, 

durability, and rigidity. See 131. 

* * * * * 

Colleen Hibbert-Kapler, 

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27643 Filed 12–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0588; FRL–11585– 

01–R9] 

Air Plan Revisions; California; 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Sacramento Metropolitan 

Air Quality Management District 

(SMAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

concerning a rule submitted to address 

section 185 of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 16, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2023–0588 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules 86871 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with a 

disability who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae 

Wang, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: 

(415) 947–4137 or by email at 

wang.mae@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. The EPA’s Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the date that it was 

amended by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule # Rule title Amended Submitted 

SMAQMD .......... 307 Clean Air Act Penalty Fees .......................................................................... 03/23/2023 05/11/2023 

On November 6, 2023, the EPA 

determined that the submittal for 

SMAQMD Rule 307 met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 307 into the SIP on August 26, 

2003 (68 FR 51184). The SMAQMD 

adopted revisions to the SIP-approved 

version on March 23, 2023, and CARB 

submitted them to us on May 11, 2023. 

If we take final action to approve the 

March 23, 2023 version of Rule 307, this 

version will replace the previously 

approved version of this rule in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), (f) and 

185 of the Act, states with ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

‘‘Severe’’ or ‘‘Extreme’’ are required to 

submit a SIP revision that requires 

major stationary sources of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) or oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) emissions in the area to 

pay a fee if the area fails to attain the 

standard by the attainment date. The 

required SIP revision must provide for 

annual payment of the fees, computed 

in accordance with CAA section 185(b). 

The Sacramento Metro ozone 

nonattainment area has been classified 

as Severe for the 1-hour, 1997, and 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). Additionally, on 

January 17, 2023 (88 FR 2541), the EPA 

issued a finding that the State of 

California failed to submit CAA section 

185 fee programs for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS for portions of the Sacramento 

Metro nonattainment area, including the 

portion under the jurisdiction of the 

SMAQMD. The SMAQMD submitted 

Rule 307 to satisfy the requirement to 

submit a CAA section 185 fee program 

for each federal ozone NAAQS for 

which the Sacramento Metro area is 

classified as Severe or Extreme. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable 

(see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). The EPA is also evaluating the rule 

for consistency with the statutory 

requirements of CAA section 185. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we used to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised 

January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little 

Bluebook). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

This rule meets CAA requirements 

and is consistent with relevant guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

revisions. The EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

on our evaluation. 

C. The EPA’s Recommendations to 

Further Improve the Rule 

The TSD includes recommendations 

for the next time the local agency 

modifies the rule. 

D. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve submitted Rule 307 because it 

fulfills all relevant requirements. We 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal until January 16, 2024. 

If we take final action to approve the 

submitted rule, our final action will 

incorporate this rule into the federally 

enforceable SIP. Our final action to 

approve SMAQMD Rule 307 will also 

remove the EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate a FIP associated with the 

January 17, 2023 action. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
86872 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

SMAQMD Rule 307, Clean Air Act 

Penalty Fees, amended on March 23, 

2023, which addresses the CAA section 

185 fee program requirements. The EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these materials available through 

https://www.regulations.gov and at the 

EPA Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. 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 proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it proposes to approve a state 

program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The State did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA did not perform an 

EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in 

this action. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 8, 2023. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27514 Filed 12–14–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1