Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 58076-58078 [2012-23154]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58076
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Sep 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
58077
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
SCAQMD .............................
Rule #
Rule title
1420.1
Emissions Standard For Lead From Large Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Facilities.
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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Sep 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
Adopted
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11/5/10
Submitted
9/27/11
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
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 Sep 18, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58076-58078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23154]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD.................................. 1420.1 Emissions Standard For Lead 11/5/10 9/27/11
From Large Lead-Acid Battery
Recycling Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 58078]]
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
