[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4584-4588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1627]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012-201068; FRL-9257-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Georgia; Disapproval of Interstate Transport Submission for the 2006
24-Hour PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 21, 2009, the State of Georgia, through the
Georgia's Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), provided a letter
to EPA with certification that the Georgia state implementation plan
(SIP) meets the interstate transport requirements with regard to the
2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically, the interstate
transport requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) prohibit a
state's emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with the maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. In
this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Georgia's
October 21, 2009, submission which was intended to meet the requirement
to address interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-1012 by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: [email protected].
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-1012.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Georgia
SIP, contact Mr. Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Farngalo's telephone number is (404)
562-9152; e-mail address: [email protected]. For information
regarding the PM2.5 interstate transport requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), contact Mr. Steven Scofield, Regulatory
Development Section, at the same address above. Mr. Scofield's
telephone number is (404)
[[Page 4585]]
562-9034; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information
by addressing the following questions:
I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's submission for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
On October 21, 2009, the State of Georgia, through GA EPD, provided
a letter to EPA with certification that the Georgia SIP meets the
interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ Specifically, Georgia certified that its
current SIP adequately addresses the elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that implementation plans for each
state contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions
from sources within a state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment in or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (in this
case the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS) in any other state. In
today's action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Georgia's
October 21, 2009, submission related to interstate transport for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA has made the
preliminary determination that this submission does not meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for this NAAQS.
EPA's rationale for this proposed disapproval is provided in the
Section III of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Georgia's October 21, 2009, certification letter also
explained that Georgia's current SIP sufficiently addresses other
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, however, today's proposed action only
relates to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will address the other section
110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in relation to Georgia's SIP in rulemaking separate from today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. Section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA requires states to submit ``infrastructure'' SIPs to address a
new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of such
standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.\2\ As
provided by section 110(k)(2), within 12 months of a determination that
a submitted SIP is complete under 110(k)(1), the Administrator shall
act on the plan. As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the Act, where
portions of the state submittals are severable, within that 12 month
period EPA may decide to approve only those severable portions of the
submittals that meet the requirements of the Act. When the deficient
provisions are not severable from the other submitted provisions, EPA
must propose disapproval of the submittals, consistent with section
110(k)(3) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was signed
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21,
2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP
submittals, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS were due on
September 21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006,
signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new infrastructure
SIPs must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
which pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. States
were required to provide submissions to address the applicable
110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), by September 21, 2009.
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance). EPA developed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance to make recommendations to states for making submissions to
meet the requirements of section 110, including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
As identified in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance, the ``good neighbor'' provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that
adversely affect another state in the ways contemplated in the statute.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to
the impacts of interstate transport. Specifically, the SIP must prevent
sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will:
(1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states;
(3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of
air quality in other states; or (4) interfere with efforts to protect
visibility in other states.
In the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance, EPA
explained that submissions from states pertaining to the ``significant
contribution'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' requirements in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must contain adequate provisions to prohibit
air pollutant emissions from within the state that contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state. EPA described a number of considerations for
states for providing an adequate demonstration to address interstate
transport requirements in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance. First, EPA noted that the state's submission
should explain whether or not emissions from the state contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state and, if so, address the impact. EPA stated
that the state's conclusion must be supported by an adequate technical
analysis. Second, EPA recommended the various types of information that
could be relevant to support the state's submission, such as
information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological
conditions in the state and the potentially impacted states, monitored
ambient concentrations in the state, and air quality modeling. Third,
EPA explained that states should address the ``interfere with
maintenance'' requirement independently which requires an evaluation of
impacts on areas of other states that are meeting the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas designated nonattainment.
Lastly, EPA explained that states could not rely on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR
does not address this NAAQS. Recognizing that the demonstration
required may be a challenging task for the affected states, EPA also
noted in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance the
Agency's intention to complete a rule to address interstate pollution
transport in the eastern half of the continental United States.
EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005 (see 70 FR 25162). CAIR
required states to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 PM2.5 and/or ozone NAAQS in any downwind state.
CAIR was intended to provide states covered by the rule with a
mechanism to satisfy their CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
to address
[[Page 4586]]
significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and interference
with maintenance in another state with respect to the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. Many states adopted the CAIR provisions and
submitted SIPs to EPA to demonstrate compliance with the CAIR
requirements in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
for those two pollutants.
EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit or Court) issued its decision to vacate
and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) in their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836
(D.C. Circuit, July 11, 2008). However, in response to EPA's petition
for rehearing, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d
1176 (D.C. Circuit, December 23, 2008). The Court thereby left CAIR in
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the
Court's opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's
flaws'' consistent with its July 11, 2008, opinion, but declined to
impose a schedule on EPA for completing that action. Id.
In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule).\3\ As part of the proposed Transport Rule, EPA specifically
examined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements that emissions
from sources in a state must not ``significantly contribute to
nonattainment'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by other states. The modeling performed for the
proposed Transport Rule shows that Georgia significantly contributes to
nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's submission for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS?
On October 21, 2009, the State of Georgia, through GA EPD, provided
a letter to EPA with certification that Georgia's SIP meets the
interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In its submission, Georgia states that the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements are addressed through several
regulations and legislation, including Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(sss)--Multi-pollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(uuu)--SO2
Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (Georgia Multi-
pollutant Rule).
Georgia's October 21, 2009, submittal addresses the ``significant
contribution'' and ``interference with maintenance'' requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by relying on Georgia's CAIR SIP.\4\ Contrary to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance explicitly noting
that reliance on CAIR cannot be used to comply with section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Georgia's
submission indicates that it is meeting its 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
obligations with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in part by
virtue of its approved Georgia CAIR SIP. CAIR was promulgated before
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were revised in 2006 and does not
address interstate transport with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.\5\ Because Georgia's submission relies on CAIR to address the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS while CAIR does not address that NAAQS, this
submission is deficient. Several states claim that controls planned for
or already installed on sources within the State to meet the CAIR
provisions satisfied section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, states will not be able to permanently
rely upon the emissions reductions predicted by CAIR, because CAIR was
remanded to EPA and will not remain in force permanently. EPA is in the
process of developing a new Transport Rule to address the concerns of
the Court as outlined in its decision remanding CAIR. For this reason,
EPA cannot approve Georgia's SIP submission pertaining to the
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because it relies on CAIR for
emission reduction measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Georgia explains that their October 21, 2009, submittal
addresses interstate transport of pollutants that form ozone and
particle pollution. EPA notes that the April 25, 2005, finding of
failure to submit a plan to address interstate transport of
pollutants that form ozone and particle pollution only addresses the
1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
\5\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule
proposal, the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA found that EPA's
quantification of states' significant contribution and interference
with maintenance in CAIR was improper and remanded the rule to EPA.
CAIR remains in effect only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, EPA's 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance directed that a state's submission pertaining to the
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must be supported by an
adequate technical analysis. Additionally, EPA recommended the various
types of information that could be relevant to support the state's
submission. While Georgia did refer to the Georgia Multi-pollutant Rule
in its submission, it did not further evaluate or demonstrate with a
technical analysis that this measure and their intention to rely to the
Georgia CAIR SIP addresses the ``significant contribution'' and
``interference with maintenance'' requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as
directed by the guidance.
The modeling conducted by EPA for the proposed Transport Rule
demonstrates that emissions from Georgia significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas. Specifically, EPA's analysis
shows that Georgia contributes to eleven counties containing downwind
24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment sites and three counties
containing downwind 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance sites.
While Georgia's submittal indicates that its current SIP
sufficiently addresses the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect
to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in part by virtue of the CSA and its
approved CAIR SIP, EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Georgia's current SIP does not meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As mentioned above,
Georgia did not provide sufficient analysis to demonstration to address
the ``significant contribution'' and ``interference with maintenance''
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As for CAIR, this rule was
promulgated before the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were revised in
2006 and does not address interstate transport with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\ Based upon our evaluation, EPA is proposing
to disapprove Georgia's certification that its SIP meets the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The submitted provisions are severable from
each other. Therefore, EPA is
[[Page 4587]]
proposing to disapprove those provisions which relate to the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration and to take no action on the remainder
of the demonstration at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule
proposal (75 FR 45210), the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA
found that EPA's quantification of states' significant contribution
and interference with maintenance in CAIR was improper and remanded
the rule to EPA. CAIR remains in effect only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Georgia's October 21,
2009, submission, relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because EPA
has made the preliminary determination that the Georgia SIP does not
satisfy these requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Although EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Georgia's
October 21, 2009, submission, relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
EPA does acknowledge the State's efforts to address this requirement in
its October 21, 2009, submission. Unfortunately, without an adequate
technical analysis EPA does not believe that states can sufficiently
address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The purpose of the Federal Transport Rule that
EPA is developing and has proposed is to respond to the remand of CAIR
by the Court and address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the affected states. EPA is not
proposing to take any action on the remaining elements of the
submission, including the section 110 infrastructure, and section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) portion regarding interference with measures
required in the applicable SIP for another state designed to prevention
of significant deterioration of air quality and protect visibility but
instead will act on those provisions in a separate rulemaking.
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (42 U.S.C.A. Sec. Sec.
7501-7515) or is required in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy as described in section 7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a
sanctions clock. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions (the provisions
being proposed for disapproval in today's notice) were not submitted to
meet requirements for Part D, and therefore, if EPA takes final action
to disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However,
if this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger
the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later
than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the state corrects
the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. The proposed
Federal Transport Rule, when final, is the FIP that EPA intends to
implement to satisfy the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for Georgia for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, 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, EPA's role is to act on state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This 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 CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain state
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The 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 today's rule on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's 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 today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule 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 CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for 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 CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset
requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not mean that
EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA
continues to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed
rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This 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. 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 action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires 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 action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the
[[Page 4588]]
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 CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove 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. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
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
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it 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 CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves certain state requirements for
inclusion into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This 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 (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs 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 EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA believes that this action
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because
application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapprove
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 14, 2011.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011-1627 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P