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
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58077 

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. 

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: 

Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3576, borgia.adrianne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to 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. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action. 

III. 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 dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD ............................. 1420.1 Emissions Standard For Lead From Large Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Facilities.11/5/10 9/27/11 

On October 24, 2011, EPA determined 

that the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 

1420.1 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? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rules 1420.1 in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

Lead is classified as a hazardous air 

pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Section 112 (b). On November 12, 2008, 

The EPA published the final rule on the 

Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). The revisions to 

the primary and secondary Lead 

NAAQS were to provide increased 

protection for children and other at-risk 

populations against an array of health 

effects. Such health effects most notably 

include neurological effects in children, 

including neurocognitive and 

neurobehavioral effects. Section 110(a) 

of the CAA requires States to submit 

regulations that control lead emissions. 

SCAQMD Rule 1420.1 imposes these 

revised emission standards for large 

lead-acid battery recycling facilities. 

EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) has more information about this 

rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). A SIP, outlining the strategy to 

demonstrate attainment with the lead 

NAAQS, must be submitted within 18 

months of the final designation date. In 

addition, SIP rules must implement 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM), including Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT 

(see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 

189(b)(1)). The SCAQMD regulates a 

lead nonattainment (see 40 CFR part 

81), so SCAQMD must implement 

RACM/RACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACM/RACT requirements consistently 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; 

Clarification to Appendix D of 

November 24, 1987 Federal Register 

Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of 

availability published in the May 25, 

1988 Federal Register. 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘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). 

4. ‘‘Implementation of the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Guide to Developing Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) for 

Controlling Lead Emissions,’’ EPA 457/ 

R–12–001, March 2012. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACM/RACT, 

and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve The Rule 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule but are not currently the basis for 

rule disapproval. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it as 

described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58078 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this 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 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 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, these rules do 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: September 5, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23154 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0734; FRL–9727–4] 

Withdrawal of Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; 1-Hour and 8-Hour 

Ozone Extreme Area Plan Elements 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw 

a March 8, 2010 final action approving 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

California under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) to provide for attainment of the 

1-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the San 

Joaquin Valley extreme ozone 

nonattainment area. This proposed 

action is in response to a decision 

issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 

671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012)) remanding 

EPA’s approval of these SIP revisions. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to withdraw 

our approval of a portion of a March 1, 

2012 final rule approving SIP revisions 

submitted by California to provide for 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. The 

portion of this final action for which 

EPA is proposing to withdraw its 

approval addressed requirements 

regarding emissions growth caused by 

growth in vehicle miles traveled under 

the CAA. This proposed action is in 

response to a decision issued by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Association of Irritated 

Residents, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), 

as amended Jan. 27, 2012), rejecting 

EPA’s interpretation of the CAA, which 

had provided the basis for this portion 

of EPA’s March 1, 2012 final rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0734, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Frances Wicher, 

(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: The index to the docket for 

this proposed action is available 

electronically on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site and in 

hard copy at EPA Region 9, 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: 

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), (415) 972–3957, 

wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. San Joaquin Valley 2004 1-Hour Ozone 

Plan 

A. Background 

B. EPA’s Proposed Action 

II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

A. Background 

B. EPA’s Proposed Action 

III. Public Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS