[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6376-6380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2497]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; FRL-9261-8]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana and Ohio;
Disapproval of Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Revision
for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA
is proposing to disapprove the portions of submittals by the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) that pertain to requirements
of the CAA to address interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). EPA is not, however, currently taking action on the remainder
of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals from IDEM and Ohio
EPA concerning other basic or ``Infrastructure'' elements required
under the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0805, by one of the following methods:
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: [email protected].
3. Fax: (312) 692-2551.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Acting Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Acting Chief, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2009-0805. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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
[[Page 6377]]
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.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0258, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What is the background for this action?
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires States to submit basic or
``Infrastructure'' SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within three
years after promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe. As provided by section 110(k)(2) of the
CAA, within twelve months of a determination that a submitted SIP is
complete under 110(k)(1) of the CAA, the Administrator shall act on the
plan. As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, where portions of
the State submittals are severable, within that twelve-month period EPA
may approve the portions of the submittals that meet the requirements
of the CAA, take no action on certain portions of the submittals, and
disapprove the portions of the submittals that do not meet the
requirements of the CAA. When the deficient provisions are not
severable from all of the submitted provisions, EPA must propose
disapproval of the submittals, consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA.
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 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, also known as the CAA ``good neighbor'' provisions.
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 [mu]g/m\3\ (see, 71 FR 61144).\1\ On
September 25, 2009, EPA issued its ``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)''
(2009 Guidance). EPA developed the 2009 Guidance for States making
submissions to meet the requirements of section 110, including
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 PM2.5
NAAQS were due on September 21, 2009, three years from the September
21, 2006 signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As identified in the 2009 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.
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 2009 Guidance, EPA indicated that SIP submissions from
States pertaining to the ``significant contribution'' and ``interfere
with maintenance'' requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) should
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 further
indicated that the State's submission should explain whether or not
emissions from the State have this impact and, if so, address the
impact. EPA stated that the State's conclusion should be supported by
an adequate technical analysis. EPA recommended the various types of
information that could be relevant to support the State SIP 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.
Furthermore, EPA indicated 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, in the 2009 Guidance, EPA stated that States
could not rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR does not address this NAAQS.
EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005 (see, 70 FR 25162). CAIR
required
[[Page 6378]]
States to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that
significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance of the 1997
NAAQS for PM2.5 and/or ozone in any downwind State. CAIR was
intended to provide States covered by the rule with a mechanism to
satisfy their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to address
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 issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and
the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 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 (DC Cir. 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).\2\ As part of the proposed Transport Rule, EPA specifically
examined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement 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 both Indiana and Ohio significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDEM and Ohio EPA made submittals on October 20, 2009, and
September 4, 2009, respectively, that were intended to demonstrate
satisfaction of all Infrastructure SIP elements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Both States relied predominantly on their
respective EPA-approved CAIR regulations to meet the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Indiana further
committed to amend its rule once the Federal CAIR is amended or
replaced.
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?
Indiana and Ohio each asserted in their submissions that they have
met their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by a series of regulations,
including their approved CAIR rules.\3\ However, 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 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\4\ Thus, as EPA's 2009 Guidance explicitly
notes, States cannot rely on CAIR to comply with section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Furthermore, Indiana and Ohio provided no analyses to assess the
quantity of emissions which can be permitted within the State
consistent with the requirement to prohibit emissions which interfere
with attainment and maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in other States. Because the submittals from Indiana and Ohio
relied predominantly on CAIR to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS while CAIR does not address that NAAQS, and because Indiana and
Ohio provided no analysis or supplemental rules expressly addressing
the requirement to prohibit emissions that interfere with attainment
and maintenance of this standard, the submissions are deficient.
Furthermore, Indiana and Ohio will not be able to permanently rely upon
the emissions reductions predicted by CAIR, because EPA needs to
address the concerns of the Court as outlined in its decision remanding
CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Indiana's CAIR regulations were fully approved by EPA on
November 29, 2010 (see, 75 FR 72956). Ohio's CAIR regulations were
fully approved by EPA on September 29, 2009 (see, 74 FR 48857).
\4\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule
proposal, 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010), the DC 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, EPA cannot approve Indiana's and Ohio's SIP
submissions pertaining to the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
also concludes that the elements of the Infrastructure SIP submittals
from Indiana and Ohio addressing the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS are severable; therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove those
provisions which relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
demonstration, while taking no action on the remainder of the
Infrastructure SIP submittals from each respective State.
In addition to relying on the State's CAIR regulations, Indiana's
October 20, 2009 submittal cited various programs that IDEM has adopted
and implemented related to interstate transport. These measures include
stack height requirements, acid deposition control regulations, and the
Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program (NOX SIP Call).
Although EPA's 2009 Guidance directed that a State's submittal must be
supported by an adequate technical analysis, no such analysis was
provided by IDEM justifying that these measures are sufficient to meet
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Furthermore, programs
such as the Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program have limited
relevance to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ EPA finds that
these measures are not sufficient to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As
previously mentioned, EPA is proposing to disapprove the provisions
which relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration, while
taking no action on the remainder of the Infrastructure SIP submittal
from Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program was effectively
replaced by CAIR's NOX ozone season trading program, and
only addresses summertime NOX. PM2.5 and
SO2 (a precursor to PM2.5) are not addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Ohio also asserted in its September 4, 2009, submittal
that other regulations in the State have been adopted and implemented
in order to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Specifically, the State referenced rules pertaining to stack height
requirements, acid rain permits and compliance, the Nitrogen Oxides
Budget Trading Program (NOX SIP Call), and the Clean Air
Mercury Rule. Additionally, Ohio EPA cited instances where the existing
SIP was revised to alleviate modeled violations in two neighboring
States. Although EPA's 2009 Guidance directed that a State's
[[Page 6379]]
submittal must be supported by an adequate technical analysis, no such
analysis was provided by Ohio EPA justifying that these measures are
sufficient to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Furthermore, programs such as the Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading
Program and the Clean Air Mercury Rule have limited relevance to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\ EPA finds that these measures
are not sufficient to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As
previously mentioned, EPA is proposing to disapprove the provisions
which relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration, while
taking no action on the remainder of the Infrastructure SIP submittal
from Ohio.
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (section 171--section 193
of the CAA), or is required in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy as described in section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock.
The provisions in the submittals we are disapproving were not submitted
by Indiana or Ohio to meet either of those requirements. Therefore, if
EPA takes final action to disapprove these submittals, no sanctions
under section 179 will be triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program was effectively
replaced by CAIR's NOX ozone season trading program, and
only addresses summertime NOX. PM2.5 and
SO2 (a precursor to PM2.5) are not addressed.
The Clean Air Mercury Rule was vacated in 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the
requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two 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 Transport Rule, when
final, is the FIP that EPA intends to implement for the States of
Indiana and Ohio.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to disapprove
submittals from Indiana and Ohio intended to demonstrate that each
respective State has adequately addressed the elements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with regard to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. This action pertains only to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); the States' submittals for the remainder of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure SIPs will be
addressed in separate rulemakings.
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 CAA 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 approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law.
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review under the Executive Order.
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).
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 today's rule 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 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.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
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.
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 relationship between
the national
[[Page 6380]]
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.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and 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.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
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.
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.
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``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 OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The 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.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
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.
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 disapproves
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.
Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 110
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter.
Dated: January 28, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011-2497 Filed 2-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P