31510 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

judicial circuits. In the report on the 1977 

Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the 

CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator’s 

determination that the ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ 

exception applies would be appropriate for any 

action that has a scope or effect beyond a single 

judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323, 

324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402–03. 

80The EPA may take a consolidated, single final 

action on all of the proposed SIP disapproval 

actions with respect to obligations under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. Should the EPA take a single final action 

on all such disapprovals, this action would be 

nationally applicable, and the EPA would also 

anticipate, in the alternative, making and 

publishing a finding that such final action is based 

on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. 

1The State of California refers to reactive organic 

gases (ROG) rather than VOC in some of its ozonerelated SIP submissions. As a practical matter, ROG 

and VOC refer to the same set of chemical 

constituents, and for the sake of simplicity, we refer 

to this set of gases as VOC in this proposed rule. 

2See ‘‘Fact Sheet—2008 Final Revisions to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone’’ 

dated March 2008. 

3The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1979 was 

0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour 

period. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). The 

ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997 was 0.08 ppm 

averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 

(July 18, 1997). 

4See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

5 Information on the 2015 ozone NAAQS is 

available at 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

Administrator intends, if this proposed 

action is finalized, to exercise the 

complete discretion afforded to him 

under the CAA to make and publish a 

finding that this action is based on one 

or more determinations of nationwide 

scope or effect for purposes of CAA 

section 307(b)(1).80

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone. 

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

Dated: May 16, 2022. 

KC Becker, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11153 Filed 5–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0535; FRL–9690–01– 

R9] 

Withdrawal and Partial Approval/Partial 

Disapproval of Clean Air Plans; San 

Joaquin Valley, California; 

Contingency Measures for 2008 Ozone 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to withdraw 

the portion of the March 25, 2019 final 

action conditionally approving state 

implementation plan (SIP) submissions 

from the State of California under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) to address 

contingency measure requirements for 

the 2008 ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS or 

‘‘standards’’) in the San Joaquin Valley, 

California ozone nonattainment area. 

The SIP revisions include the portions 

of the ‘‘2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 8- 

Hour Ozone Standard and the 2018 

Updates to the California State 

Implementation Plan’’ that address the 

contingency measure requirement for 

San Joaquin Valley. Simultaneously, the 

EPA is proposing a partial approval and 

partial disapproval of these SIP 

submissions. These proposed actions 

are in response to a decision issued by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Association of Irritated 

Residents v. EPA, Ninth Circuit, No. 19– 

71223, opinion filed August 26, 2021) 

remanding the EPA’s conditional 

approval of the contingency measure 

SIP submissions. 

DATES: Written comments must arrive 

on or before June 23, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0535 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) 

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 

disabilities 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: 

Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3407, lawrence.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act 

Consequences 

III. Request for Public Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Ground-level ozone pollution is 

formed from the reaction of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of 

sunlight.1 These two pollutants, referred 

to as ozone precursors, are emitted by 

many types of sources, including on-and 

off-road motor vehicles and engines, 

power plants and industrial facilities, 

and smaller area sources such as lawn 

and garden equipment and paints. 

Scientific evidence indicates that 

adverse health effects occur following 

exposure to elevated levels of ozone, 

particularly in children and adults with 

lung disease. Breathing air containing 

ozone can reduce lung function and 

inflame airways, which can increase 

respiratory symptoms and aggravate 

asthma or other lung diseases.2

Under section 109 of the CAA, the 

EPA promulgates NAAQS for pervasive 

air pollutants, such as ozone. The EPA 

has previously promulgated NAAQS for 

ozone in 1979 and 1997.3 In 2008, the 

EPA revised and further strengthened 

the ozone NAAQS by setting the 

acceptable level of ozone in the ambient 

air at 0.075 parts per million (ppm) 

averaged over an 8-hour period.4

Although the EPA further tightened the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm in 

2015, this action relates to the 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.5

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required 

under CAA section 107(d) to designate 

areas throughout the country as 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. 

The EPA classifies ozone nonattainment 

areas under CAA section 181 according 

to the severity of the ozone pollution 

problem, with classifications ranging 

from ‘‘Marginal’’ to ‘‘Extreme.’’ State 

planning and emissions control 

requirements for ozone are determined, 

in part, by the nonattainment area’s 

classification. The EPA designated the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31511 

6See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). 

7For a precise definition of the boundaries of the 

San Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area, 

see 40 CFR 81.305. 

8The population estimates and projections 

include all of Kern County, not just the portion of 

Kern County within the jurisdiction of the 

SJVAPCD. See Chapter 1 and table 1–1 of the 

District’s 2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard. 

9See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015. 

10 84 FR 3302 (February 12, 2019), corrected at 84 

FR 19680 (May 3, 2019); and 84 FR 11198 (March 

25, 2019). 11 84 FR 11198 (March 25, 2019). 

12See Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235–1237 

(9th Cir. 2016). 

13See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005); see also 

2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 

6,2015). 

14 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 6, 2015). 

15 83 FR 61346, at 61356 (November 29, 2018). 

16The specific contingency provision that the 

District committed to adopt is the removal of the 

exemption for architectural coatings that are sold in 

containers with a volume of one liter (1.057 quarts) 

or less, i.e., if triggered by an EPA determination of 

failure to meet an RFP milestone or failure to attain 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. 

San Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on May 

21, 2012, and classified the area as 

Extreme.6

The San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS consists of San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 

Tulare, and Kings counties, and the 

western portion of Kern County. The 

San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area 

stretches over 250 miles from north to 

south, averages a width of 80 miles, and 

encompasses over 23,000 square miles. 

It is partially enclosed by the Coast 

Mountain range to the west, the 

Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and 

the Sierra Nevada range to the east.7 The 

population of the San Joaquin Valley in 

2015 was estimated to be nearly 4.2 

million people and is projected to 

increase by 25.3 percent by 2030 to over 

5.2 million people.8

In California, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB or ‘‘State’’) is 

the state agency responsible for the 

adoption and submission to the EPA of 

California SIP submissions, and it has 

broad authority to establish emissions 

standards and other requirements for 

mobile sources. Under California law, 

local and regional air pollution control 

districts in California are responsible for 

the regulation of stationary sources and 

are generally responsible for the 

development of regional air quality 

plans. In the San Joaquin Valley, the 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 

or ‘‘District’’) develops and adopts air 

quality management plans to address 

CAA planning requirements applicable 

to that region. The District then submits 

such plans to CARB for adoption and 

submission to the EPA as proposed 

revisions to the California SIP. 

Under the CAA, after the EPA 

designates areas as nonattainment for a 

NAAQS, states with nonattainment 

areas are required to submit SIP 

revisions. With respect to areas 

designated as nonattainment, states 

must implement the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS under Title 1, part D of the 

CAA, which includes section 172 

(‘‘Nonattainment plan provisions in 

general’’) and sections 181–185 of 

subpart 2 (‘‘Additional Provisions for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’). To assist 

states in developing effective plans to 

address ozone nonattainment problems, 

in 2015, the EPA issued a SIP 

Requirements Rule (SRR) for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (‘‘2008 Ozone 

SRR’’) that addressed implementation of 

the 2008 standards, including 

attainment dates, requirements for 

emissions inventories, attainment and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

demonstrations, as well as the transition 

from the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

associated anti-backsliding 

requirements.9 The 2008 Ozone SRR is 

codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA. 

In 2017 and 2018, CARB submitted 

SIP revisions to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements 

for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, including the District’s 

‘‘2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard’’ (‘‘2016 Ozone Plan’’) 

and CARB’s ‘‘2018 Updates to the 

California State Implementation Plan’’ 

(‘‘2018 SIP Update’’). In two separate 

final rules, we approved the 2016 Ozone 

Plan and the 2018 SIP Update as 

meeting all the applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements for the San 

Joaquin Valley Extreme nonattainment 

area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with 

the exception of the contingency 

measure requirement.10 For the 

contingency measure requirement, we 

issued a conditional approval that relied 

upon a commitment by the District to 

amend the District’s architectural 

coatings rule to include contingency 

provisions and a commitment by CARB 

to submit the amended District rule to 

the EPA within a year of final 

conditional approval of the contingency 

measure element for the San Joaquin 

Valley.11

Under the CAA, ozone nonattainment 

areas classified under subpart 2 as 

‘‘Serious’’ or above must include in 

their SIPs contingency measures 

consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9). Contingency measures are 

additional controls or measures to be 

implemented in the event the area fails 

to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by 

the attainment date. Contingency 

measures must be designed so as to be 

implemented prospectively; alreadyimplemented control measures may not 

serve as contingency measures even if 

they provide emissions reductions 

beyond those needed for any other CAA 

purpose.12 The SIP should contain 

trigger mechanisms for the contingency 

measures, specify a schedule for 

implementation, and indicate that the 

measure will be implemented without 

significant further action by the state or 

the EPA.13 Neither the CAA nor the 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

establish a specific amount of emissions 

reductions that implementation of 

contingency measures must achieve, but 

the 2008 Ozone SRR reiterates the EPA’s 

guidance recommendation that 

contingency measures should provide 

for emissions reductions approximately 

equivalent to one year’s worth of RFP, 

thus amounting to reductions of 3 

percent of the baseline emissions 

inventory for the nonattainment area.14

The contingency measure element of 

the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 

2018 SIP Update, includes a CARB 

measure referred to as the ‘‘Enhanced 

Enforcement Activities Program’’ and an 

evaluation of the surplus emissions 

reductions from already-implemented 

measures.15 In this context, ‘‘surplus’’ 

emissions reductions refer to emissions 

reductions that are not needed to meet 

other SIP requirements, such as the RFP 

and attainment demonstrations. In 

addition, the District and CARB made 

commitments to adopt and submit a 

contingency provision 16 as part of the 

District’s architectural coatings rule 

within a year of the final conditional 

approval. Once adopted, submitted, and 

approved, the contingency provision in 

the architectural coatings rule would 

become a third part of the contingency 

measure element. The EPA estimated 

that the contingency measure, i.e., the 

contingency provision in the 

architectural coatings rule, would 

achieve approximately 9 percent of one 

year’s worth of RFP. 

In our March 25, 2019 final rule, we 

conditionally approved the contingency 

measure element and found that the one 

contingency measure (i.e., once 

adopted, submitted, and approved by 

the EPA) would be sufficient for the 

State and District to meet the 

contingency measure requirement for 

San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, notwithstanding expected 

emissions reductions from the measure 

equivalent to only a fraction of one 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31512 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

17 84 FR 11198, at 11206. 

18 Id. 

19 Id. 

20Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 19–71223, 

Petitioner’s Opening Brief, Docket Entry 18–1, filed 

September 3, 2019, 2. 

21Association of Irritated Residents. v. EPA, 10 

F.4th 937 (9th Cir. 2021). 

22CARB has confirmed that it has decided to 

retain the Enhanced Enforcement Activities 

Program measure in the San Joaquin Valley portion 

of the California SIP for the purposes of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. See email correspondence dated 

February 24, 2022, from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, 

Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB, to Anita Lee, 

EPA Region IX. 

23The affected paragraphs include 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(496)(ii)(B)(4) and (514)(ii)(A)(2). 

24 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3). Without a protective 

finding, the final disapproval would result in a 

conformity freeze, under which only projects in the 

first four years of the most recent conforming 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 

Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) can 

proceed. Generally, during a freeze, no new RTPs, 

TIPs, or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to 

conform until another control strategy 

implementation plan revision fulfilling the same 

CAA requirements is submitted, the EPA finds its 

motor vehicle emissions budget(s) adequate 

pursuant to § 93.118 or approves the submission, 

and conformity to the implementation plan revision 

is determined. Under a protective finding, the final 

disapproval of the contingency measures element 

would not result in a transportation conformity 

freeze in the SJV ozone nonattainment area and the 

metropolitan planning organizations may continue 

to make transportation conformity determinations. 

year’s worth of RFP.17 We found the 

reductions from the one contingency 

measure to be sufficient when 

considered together with the substantial 

surplus emissions reductions we 

anticipate to occur in the future from 

already-implemented measures and 

from other approved measures in the 

plan.18 In our March 25, 2019 final rule, 

we approved CARB’s Enhanced 

Enforcement Activities Program 

measure as a ‘‘SIP-strengthening’’ 

measure rather than as a contingency 

measure.19

An environmental organization filed a 

petition for review of the EPA’s March 

25, 2019 conditional approval of the 

contingency measure element for San 

Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, arguing, among other things, 

that the EPA had abandoned, without 

providing a reasoned explanation for the 

change, its longstanding interpretation 

of the CAA that contingency measures 

must provide for emissions reductions 

equivalent to one year’s worth of 

progress. The petitioners also argued 

that the EPA had violated the CAA by 

approving CARB’s Enhanced 

Enforcement Activities Program as SIPstrengthening because it is 

unenforceable.20

On August 26, 2021, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted 

the petition in part and denied the 

petition in part, holding that the EPA’s 

conditional approval of the contingency 

measure element was arbitrary and 

capricious because, in the court’s view, 

the Agency had changed its position by 

accepting a contingency measure that 

would achieve far less than one year’s 

worth of RFP, as meeting the 

contingency measure requirement 

without a reasoned explanation.21 The 

court found that by taking into account 

the emissions reductions from alreadyimplemented measures to find that the 

contingency measure would suffice to 

meet the applicable requirement, the 

EPA was circumventing the court’s 2016 

holding in Bahr v. EPA. The court 

rejected the EPA’s arguments that the 

Agency’s approach was grounded in its 

long-standing guidance and was 

consistent with the court’s 2016 Bahr v. 

EPA decision. With respect to CARB’s 

Enhanced Enforcement Activities 

program measure, the court upheld the 

EPA’s approval of it as SIPstrengthening and held that the measure 

was enforceable according to its terms. 

The court remanded the conditional 

approval action back to the Agency for 

further proceedings consistent with the 

decision. 

II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act 

Consequences 

As noted above, the Ninth Circuit 

rejected the EPA’s rationale for 

conditional approval of the contingency 

measure element of the 2016 Ozone 

Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP 

Update, for San Joaquin Valley for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the 

court found that the EPA could not rely 

on surplus emissions reductions from 

already-implemented measures to 

justify approval of a contingency 

measure that would provide only a 

fraction of one year’s worth of RFP as 

meeting the contingency measure 

requirement. In this case, if we do not 

take into account surplus emissions 

reductions, then the one contingency 

measure supporting the conditional 

approval must shoulder the entire 

burden of achieving roughly one year’s 

worth of RFP (if triggered). As noted 

previously, the one contingency 

measure, i.e., the contingency provision 

in the District’s architectural coatings 

rule to which the District has 

committed, would provide 

approximately 9 percent of one year’s 

worth of progress. Because the 

contingency measure would not provide 

reductions roughly equivalent to one 

year’s worth of RFP, we find that the 

conditional approval can no longer be 

supported. We are therefore proposing 

to withdraw our March 25, 2019 

conditional approval of the contingency 

measure element. 

In light of the decision in the 

Association of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA, we are proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

contingency measure element of the 

2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 

2018 SIP Update, with respect to the 

contingency measure requirements 

under CAA section 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9). For the reasons discussed 

above justifying withdrawal of the 

conditional approval, we are proposing 

to disapprove the contingency measure 

element except for the Enhanced 

Enforcement Activities Program 

measure. 

With respect to the Enhanced 

Enforcement Activities Program 

measure, we are proposing approval for 

the same reasons that we provided in 

the March 25, 2019 final rule and that 

were upheld by the Ninth Circuit.22

Namely, while we find that the 

Enhanced Enforcement Activities 

Program measure fails to meet the 

requirements for a stand-alone 

contingency measure, we also find that 

it strengthens the SIP by triggering 

certain actions upon a failure to meet 

RFP or attainment by the applicable 

attainment date that may lead to 

emissions reductions that would not 

otherwise be achieved and thereby 

contribute in part to any remedy for an 

RFP shortfall or failure to attain. 

This proposed withdrawal and partial 

disapproval, if finalized, would have the 

effect of removing the contingency 

measure element of the 2016 Ozone 

Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP 

Update, from the applicable California 

SIP, except for the Enhanced 

Enforcement Activities Program 

measure, and removing the 

corresponding provisions in 40 CFR 

52.220(c) where the EPA’s approval of 

the contingency measure element is 

currently codified.23 Lastly, if the EPA 

finalizes the proposed partial 

disapproval of the contingency measure 

element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as 

modified by the 2018 SIP Update, the 

area would be eligible for a protective 

finding under the transportation 

conformity rule because the 2016 Ozone 

Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP 

Update, reflects adopted control 

measures and contains enforceable 

commitments that fully satisfy the 

emissions reductions requirements for 

RFP and attainment for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS.24

If we finalize the proposed partial 

disapproval of the contingency measure 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31513 

element, the EPA must promulgate a 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) 

under section 110(c) unless we approve 

subsequent SIP revisions that correct the 

rule deficiencies within 24 months. In 

addition, under 40 CFR 52.35, the offset 

sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) will 

be imposed 18 months after the effective 

date of this action, and the highway 

funding sanction in CAA section 

179(b)(1) six months after the offset 

sanction is imposed. A sanction will not 

be imposed if the EPA determines that 

a subsequent SIP submission corrects 

the identified deficiencies before the 

applicable deadline. 

III. Request for Public Comment 

The EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days and will 

consider comments before taking final 

action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

significant regulatory action and was 

therefore not submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

because this proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

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

collection burdens but simply 

disapproves certain state requirements 

submitted for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

rulemaking on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this proposed 

action will not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. This rulemaking does not 

impose any requirements or create 

impacts on small entities. This proposed 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but simply disapproves 

certain state requirements submitted for 

inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it 

affords no opportunity for the EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the Clean Air Act 

prescribes that various consequences 

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

will result from disapproval actions 

does not mean that the EPA either can 

or must conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for this proposed action. 

Therefore, this proposed action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action contains no 

Federal mandates under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

EPA has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either state, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under state or local law and imposes no 

new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this proposed action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ This 

proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain state 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this proposed action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP that 

the EPA is proposing to disapprove 

would not 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, and the EPA notes that it 

will not impose substantial direct costs 

on tribal governments or preempt tribal 

law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this proposed action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

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

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP 

disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31514 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

certain state requirements submitted for 

inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs the 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. The 

EPA believes that this proposed action 

is not subject to requirements of section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. The 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to 

address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 16, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11027 Filed 5–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 

265, 267, 271 and 761 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0609; FRL–7308– 

03–OLEM] 

Integrating e-Manifest With Hazardous 

Waste Exports and Other ManifestRelated Reports, PCB Amendments 

and Technical Corrections; Extension 

of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is extending the comment 

period for the proposed rule entitled 

‘‘Integrating e-Manifest with Hazardous 

Waste Exports and Other Manifestrelated Reports, PCB Amendments and 

Technical Corrections.’’ EPA published 

the proposed rule in the Federal 

Register on April 1, 2022 (87 FR 19290), 

and the public comment period was 

scheduled to end on May 31, 2022. 

However, EPA has received at least one 

request for additional time to develop 

and submit comments on the proposal. 

In response to the request for additional 

time, EPA is extending the comment 

period for an additional 61 days, 

through August 1, 2022. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OLEM–2021–0609, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

OLEM Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier (by 

scheduled appointment only): EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal Holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff also continues to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. Hand deliveries 

and couriers may be received by 

scheduled appointment only. For 

further information on EPA Docket 

Center services and the current status, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on this document, 

contact Bryan Groce, Program 

Implementation and Information 

Division, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery, (202) 566– 

0339; email address: groce.bryan@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary 

On April 1, 2022 (87 FR 19290), EPA 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposal to amend certain aspects of the 

hazardous waste manifest regulations 

under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), specifically 

concerning the e-Manifest system to: (1) 

Incorporate hazardous waste export 

manifests into the e-Manifest system; (2) 

expand the required international 

shipment data elements on the manifest 

form; (3) revise aspects of the manifest 

form to improve compliance with 

import and export consents and tracking 

requirements and to allow for greater 

precision in waste data reported on the 

manifest; (4) incorporate three manifestrelated reports (i.e., discrepancy, 

exception, and unmanifested waste 

reports); (5) provide discussion 

regarding potential future integration of 

the e-Manifest system with Biennial 

Reporting requirements; (6) make 

conforming changes to the 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) 

manifest regulations under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA); and (6) 

make other technical corrections to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1