> **6560-50-P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**

**40 CFR PART 52**

**\[FRL- \]**

> **Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation
> Plans**
>
> **for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS**

**AGENCY**: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION**: Final Rule.

**SUMMARY**: The EPA is making a finding concerning whether or not each
State has submitted a complete State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
provides the basic program elements specified in Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). By this action, EPA is identifying those
States that: (i) have failed to make a complete submission for all
requirements; (ii) have failed to make a complete submission for
specific requirements; or (iii) have made a complete submission. The
findings of failure to submit for all or a portion of a State's SIP
establish a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to address the outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the affected States submit, and EPA
approves, the required SIPs. The findings that all, or portions of a
State's SIP submission, is complete establishes a 12-month deadline for
EPA to take action upon the complete SIP elements in accordance with
section 110(k).

**[DATES]{.underline}:** The effective date of this rule is **\[INSERT
DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER**\].

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** General questions concerning this
notice should be addressed to Mr. Larry D. Wallace, Ph.D., Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code
C504-2, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709;
telephone (919) 541-0906.

**[SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION]{.underline}:**

**For questions related to a specific State please contact the
appropriate regional office:**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Regional Offices                    States

  Dave Conroy, Acting Branch Chief,   Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
  Air Programs Branch, EPA New        New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
  England, I Congress Street, Suite   Vermont.
  1100, Boston, MA 02203-2211.        

  Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
  Branch, EPA Region II, 290          and Virgin Islands.
  Broadway, 21^th^ Floor, New York,   
  NY 10007-1866.                      

  Christina Fernandez, Acting Branch  Delaware, District of Columbia,
  Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
  EPA Region 111, 1650 Arch Street,   and West Virginia.
  Philadelphia, PA 19103-2187.        

  Dick A. Schutt, Chief, Regulatory   Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
  Development Section, EPA Region IV, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
  Sam Nun Atlanta Federal Center, 61  Carolina, South Carolina, and
  Forsyth, Street, SW, 12^th^ Floor,  Tennessee.
  Atlanta, GA 30303.                  

  Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs    Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
  Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West       Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
  Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604.  

  Tom Diggs, Acting Associate         Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
  Director Air Programs, EPA Region   Oklahoma, and Texas.
  VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX    
  75202-2733.                         

  Joshua A. Tapp, Chief, Air Programs Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and
  Branch, EPA Region VII, 901 North   Nebraska.
  5^th^ Street, Kansas City, Kansas   
  66101-2907.                         

  Cynthia Cody, Unit Leader, Air      Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
  Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region   South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming
  VIII Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop St.  
  (8P-AR), Denver, CO 80202-1129.     

  Lisa Hanf, Air Planning Office, EPA Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii,
  Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San and Nevada.
  Francisco, CA 94105.                

  Mahbubul Islam, Manager, State and  Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and
  Tribal Air Programs, EPA Region X,  Washington.
  Office of Air , Waste, and Toxics,  
  Mail Code OAQ-107, 1200 Sixth       
  Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.          
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Table of Contents:

I.  Background:

II. This Action

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  Finding of Failure to Submit for States that Failed to Make a
    Submittal

B.  Finding of Failure to Submit Specific Elements of Section 110(a)(2)

C.  List of States that Submitted Complete Submissions to Satisfy the
    Section 110(a)(2) Requirements

III\. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

C.  Paperwork Reduction Act

D.  Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

E.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

F.  Executive Order 13132: Federalism

G.  Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
    Tribal Governments

H.  Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
    health and Safety Risks

I.  Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
    Supply, Distribution, or Use

J.  Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
    Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

K.  National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

L.  Congressional Review Act

M.  Judicial Review

**I. Background**

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour
average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed
from 0.12 ppm to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38,856).

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a) requires States to submit SIPs that
provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of such NAAQS,
or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)
imposes the obligation upon States to make a SIP submission to EPA for a
new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary
depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and
analytical tools available at the time the State develops and submits
the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS necessarily affects the content of
the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the State's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, States typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone
standards.

Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that States must meet in these
SIP submissions. The requirements include SIP infrastructure elements
such as requirements for modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories
that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
requirements that are the subject of this action are listed in EPA's
October 2, 2007 memorandum entitled "Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM-2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards."

Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the
three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs
incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather
are due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due
pursuant to section 172 These requirements are: (i) submissions required
by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit
program as required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions
required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment
planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Therefore, this
action does not cover these specific SIP elements. This action also does
not pertain to section 110(a)(2)(D), because EPA has previously
addressed that requirement.[^1]

As of 2004, States had not submitted complete SIPs to satisfy all of the
section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS revision.
On March 4, 2004, Earth Justice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to these requirements. Subsequently, EPA entered into a Consent Decree
with Earth Justice which required EPA, among other things, to complete a
[Federal Register]{.underline} notice announcing EPA's determinations
pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each State has made
complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007. Subsequently, EPA
received an extension of the date to complete this [Federal
Register]{.underline} notice until March 17, 2008, based upon an
agreement to make the findings with respect to submissions made by
January 7, 2008. In accordance with the Consent Decree, EPA is making
completeness findings for each State based upon what the Agency received
from each State as of January 7, 2008. This notice reflects EPA's
determinations with respect to the section 110(a)(2) requirements, based
upon the submissions made by the States, either certifying that they
have already met the requirements, making a submission to meet any
outstanding requirements, or both.

For those States that have not yet made a submittal, or that made a
submittal that was not complete with respect to each element of section
110(a)(2), EPA is making a finding of failure to submit. For those
States that did not make any submittal by January 7, 2008, EPA is making
a finding with respect to all of the section 110(a)(2) SIP elements. For
those States that did not make a submittal that addressed all of the
section 110(a)(2) elements, EPA is making these findings only with
respect to those specific section 110(a)(2) SIP elements which a State
has not certified that it has met, or not made a SIP submission to meet,
as of January 7, 2008. These findings establish a 24 month deadline for
the promulgation by EPA of a FIP, in accordance with section 110(c)(1).
These findings of failure to submit do not impose sanctions, or set
deadlines for imposing sanctions as described in section 179 of the CAA,
because these finding do not pertain to the elements of a Title I part D
plan for nonattainment areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I), and
because this action is not a SIP call pursuant to section 110(k)(5).

With respect to the remaining section 110(a)(2) SIP elements in those
States in which EPA has identified specific findings of failure to
submit, EPA is by this action making a finding that the remainder of
such SIPs are complete. Likewise, with respect to those States for which
EPA has not made any finding of failure to submit concerning the section
110(a)(2) SIP elements, EPA is by this action making a finding that such
SIPs are complete for all such elements. These full and partial
completeness findings establish a 12-month deadline for EPA to take
action upon such SIPs in accordance with section 110(k).

**II. This Action**

The EPA is making a finding concerning whether each State has submitted
or failed to submit a complete SIP that provides the basic program
elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For those States that have not yet made a complete
submission, or that have not made a submission that is complete for each
element of section 110(a)(2), these findings establish a 24-month
deadline for the promulgation by EPA of a FIP addressing these specific
SIP elements, in accordance with section 110(c)(1). For those States
that have submitted a complete SIP, and for those elements of SIPs in
States for which EPA has identified only partial incompleteness, these
findings establish a 12-month deadline for action upon the SIP, in
accordance with section 110(k). This action will be effective on
**\[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER\]**.

A.  **[Finding of Failure to Submit for States that Failed to Make a
    Submittal]{.underline}**

The following States failed to make a complete submittal to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) by January 7, 2008. EPA is by this
action starting a 24-month deadline by which time EPA must promulgate a
FIP for the affected States to address section 110(a)(2) requirements,
if the affected States fail to submit, and obtain EPA approval of, the
SIP revisions necessary to address these requirements. The States and
territories that are affected by this finding of failure to submit are
the following:

**Region I: Vermont**

**Region VI: Texas**

**Region VIII: North Dakota**

**Region IX: Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada,**[^2] **Guam, American Samoa,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.**

**Region X: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington.**

[B Finding of Failure to Submit Specific Elements of Section
110(a)(2)]{.underline}

The following States made submissions that address some, but not all of
the section 110(a)(2) requirements, by January 7, 2008. EPA is by this
action identifying the specific elements for which States have not made
a complete submission:

**Region II:**

**New York:** The State of New York has failed to submit a SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).
However, this requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that
remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation.

**New Jersey:** The State of New Jersey has failed to submit a SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).
However, this requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that
remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation.

**Puerto Rico**: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has failed to submit a
SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).
However, this requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that
remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation.

**Virgin Islands:** The Virgin Islands has failed to submit a SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).
However, this requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that
remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation.

**Region III:**

**Maryland**: As required by sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State of
Maryland has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to its part C PSD
permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

**Pennsylvania:** The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has failed to submit
a SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program)
for only the Allegheny County portion of the Commonwealth. However, this
requirement has already been addressed by a FIP (Implementation of the
Federal PSD program has been delegated to the Allegheny County Health
Department) that remains in place, and therefore this action will not
trigger any additional FIP obligation. All other areas of the
Commonwealth, exclusive of Allegheny County, has a SIP approved PSD
program in place.

**Virginia:** The Commonwealth of Virginia has failed to submit a SIP
addressing the part C PSD permit program, which consists of changes
required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page 71699) final rule
that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the Part C regulations at 40 CFR
51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

**Washington, D.C.:** The District of Columbia has failed to submit a
SIP addressing sections 110(a)(2)(B), (C) (the Part C PSD permit
program), (E)(i), (F) (the public availability of reports), (H), and (J)
(with respect to a part C Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permit program and to public notification under section 127).[^3] The
section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program) requirement has
already been addressed by a FIP that remains in place, and therefore
this action will not trigger any additional FIP obligation with respect
to this requirement.

**West Virginia:** The State of West Virginia has failed to make a
submittal with respect to sections 110(a)(2)(B), (E)(i), (G) (with
respect to authority comparable to section 303), (H) and (J) (relating
to public notification under section 127) and (M). The State of West
Virginia has also failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to the part
C PSD permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

**Delaware:** As required by sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State of
Delaware has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to its part C PSD
permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the Part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

**Region IV**:

**Florida:** The State of Florida has failed to submit a SIP addressing
the emergency episode plan requirement of section 110(a)(2)(G).

**Georgia**: The State of Georgia has failed to submit a SIP addressing
the emergency episode plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G).

**North Carolina**: As required by sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the
State of North Carolina has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to
its part C PSD permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR
71612 page 71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the
Part C regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.[^4]

**Tennessee:** As required by sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State
of Delaware has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to its part C
PSD permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the Part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.[^5]

**Region V**:

**Illinois:** The State of Illinois has failed to submit a SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).
However, this requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that
remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation.

**Minnesota:** The State of Minnesota has failed to submit a SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).
However, this requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that
remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation.

**Region VI**:

**Arkansas:** As required by section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State of
Arkansas has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to the part C PSD
permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

**New Mexico:** As required by section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State
of New Mexico has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to the part
C PSD permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

**Oklahoma**: As required by section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State of
Oklahoma has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to the part C PSD
permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

**Region IX:**

**California:** The State of California has failed to submit a SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program) that
applies to some Air Districts within the State. However, this
requirement has already been addressed for these Air Districts by a FIP
that remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation. All other areas of the State, exclusive of
these Air Districts has an approved PSD program in place.

[C. List of States that Submitted Complete Submissions to Satisfy the
Section 110(a)(2) Requirements]{.underline}

The following States have been determined by EPA to have made complete
SIP submissions that address all of the section 110(a)(2) requirements
by January 7, 2008:

**Region I: Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire**

**Region IV: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina**

**Region V: Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin**

**Region VI: Louisiana**

**Region VII: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri**

**Region VIII: Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.**

**III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews**

A.  [Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures
    Act]{.underline}

This is a final EPA action, but is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b). The EPA invokes, consistent with past practice (for example, 61
FR 36294), the good cause exception pursuant to APA, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B). Notice and comment are unnecessary because no significant
EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to submit SIPs,
or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where States have made no
submissions or incomplete submissions to meet the requirement by the
statutory date.

B.  [Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review]{.underline}

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is a "significant regulatory action" because it is likely to result in a
rule that may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket for this action.

C.  [Paperwork Reduction Act]{.underline}

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
[et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}. This rule relates to the requirement
in the CAA for States to submit SIPs under section 110(a) to satisfy
certain infrastructure and general authority-related elements required
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that States submit SIPs that
implement, maintain, and enforce a new or revised NAAQS which satisfies
the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within 3 years of promulgation of
such standard, or shorter period as EPA may provide. The present final
rule does not establish any new information collection requirement apart
from that already required by law. Burden means that total time, effort,
or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in the CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

D.  [Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)]{.underline}

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA) or any other statute 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
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For the purpose of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities,

small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that is a small
industry entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) size standards (See, 13 CFR 121); (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
independently owned and operated is not dominate in its field.

Courts have interpreted the RFA to require a regulatory flexibility
analysis only when small entities will be subject to the requirements of
the rule. [See, Michigan v. EPA]{.underline}, 213 F.3d 663, 668-69 (D.C.
Cir. 2000), [cert. den.]{.underline}, 532 U.S. 903 (2001). This rule
would not establish requirements applicable to small entities. Instead,
it would require States to develop, adopt, and submit SIPs to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2), and would leave to the States the
task of determining how to meet those requirements, including which
entities, if any, to regulate. Moreover, because affected States would
have discretion to choose the sources to regulate and how much emissions
reductions each selected source would have to achieve, EPA could not
predict the effect of the rule on small entities.

After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

E.  [Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)]{.underline}

Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal mandate" that may
result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of \$100 million or more in any one
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify, and
consider, a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small government on compliance with
regulatory requirements.

This action does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of
UMRA that may result in expenditures of \$100 million or more in any 1
year by either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate or
to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. It does not create any additional
requirements beyond those of the 1997 8 hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38652;
62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997), therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. This
rule responds to the requirement in the CAA for States to submit SIPs
under section 110(a) to satisfy certain infrastructure and general
authority-related elements required under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
that States submit SIPs that implement, maintain, and enforce a new or
revised NAAQS which satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within 3 years of promulgation of such standard, or shorter period as
EPA may provide.

The EPA believes that any new controls imposed as a result of this
action will not cost in the aggregate \$100 million or more annually.
Thus, this Federal action will not impose mandates that will require
expenditures of \$100 million or more in the aggregate in any 1 year.

F.  [Executive Order 13132: Federalism]{.underline}

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, or the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government."

This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme
whereby States take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS. This
rule will not modify the relationship of the States and EPA for purposes
of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.

G.  [Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
    Tribal]{.underline}

[Governments]{.underline}

Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input
by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
Tribal implications." This final rule does not have "Tribal
implications" as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule responds
to the requirement in the CAA for States to submit SIPs under section
110(a) to satisfy certain elements required under section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (NAAQS). Section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA requires that States submit SIPs that provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS,
and which satisfy the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2),
within 3 years of promulgation of such standard, or within shorter
period as EPA may provide. The CAA provides for States and Tribes to
develop plans to regulate emissions of air pollutants within their
jurisdictions. The regulations clarify the statutory obligations of
States and Tribes that develop plans to implement this rule. The Tribal
Authority Rule (TAR) gives Tribes the opportunity to develop and
implement CAA programs, but it leaves to the discretion of the Tribe
whether to develop these programs and which programs, or appropriate
elements of a program, the Tribe will adopt.

This rule does not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive
Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, because no Tribe has implemented an air quality
management program related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Furthermore,
this rule does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The
CAA and the TAR establish the relationship of the Federal government and
Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does
nothing to modify that relationship. Because this rule does not have
Tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

[H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks]{.underline}

Executive Order 13045: "Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that
(1) is determined to be "economically significant" as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health and
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe that the environmental health
risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate
risk or safety risk to children. Nonetheless, we have evaluated the
environmental health or safety effects of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on
children. The results of this risk assessment are contained in the NAAQS
for the 1997 8-hour ozone, Final Rule \[(62 FR 38652) and (62 FR 38856),
July 18, 1997\]**.**

I.  [Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
    Supply, Distribution, or Use]{.underline}

This rule is not a "significant energy action" as defined in Executive
Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001))
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. At the time of proposal of the
implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, information on
the methodology and data regarding the assessment of potential energy
impacts regarding implementation of the 1997 8-hour standard was
addressed in Chapter 6 of U.S. EPA 2003, Cost, Emission Reduction,
Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Rule Establishing
the Implementation Framework for the 1997 8-Hour, 0.08 ppm Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard, prepared by the Innovative
Strategies and Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 24, 2003. Subsequently, EPA
issued an Addendum 1 to that analysis for the Phase 1 final rule (April
30, 2004 (69 FR 33951)) and designated nonattainment areas. By adopting
the more flexible approaches while providing for attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour NAAQS as required by the CAA for the areas
covered by this rulemaking, additional energy cost associated with more
extensive use of less flexible approaches would be averted.

[J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations]{.underline}

Executive Order (EO) 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 has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not directly affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. This notice is
making a finding concerning whether each State has submitted or failed
to submit a complete SIP that provides the basic program elements of
section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

**K**[. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act]{.underline}

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of
1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any VCS.

[L Congressional Review Act]{.underline}

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
"major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective
**\[INSERT** **DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER**\] .

[M. Judicial Review]{.underline}

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the days from the
date final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a
petition for review by the Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must
be final, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.

Thus, any petitions for review of this action related to a findings of
failure to submit related to the requirements of section 110(a) to
satisfy certain elements required under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (NAAQS) must be filed in the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the
date final action is published in the [Federal Register]{.underline}.

**Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans**

**for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS -- Page 27 of 27**

**LIST OF SUBJECTS in 40 CFR Part 52**

Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Environmental
protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution
control, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Dated:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Robert J. Meyers,

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator.

[^1]: EPA published a finding that all States had failed to submit SIPs
    addressing interstate transport for the 8-hour ozone and PM~2.5~
    NAAQS , as required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). See, 70 FR 21,147
    (April 25, 2005).

[^2]: It should be noted that, while the State of Nevada did not make
    the submittal addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2) by
    the January 7, 2008 timeframe specified in the amended Consent
    Decree with Earth Justice, the State has subsequently made a
    submittal to address these requirements on February 1, 2008 and EPA
    is currently reviewing the submittal for completeness and
    approvability.

[^3]: While the District of Columbia did not make the submittal
    addressing the aforementioned requirements by the January 7, 2008
    timeframe called for under the Consent Decree with Earth Justice,
    the District of Columbia subsequently made a submittal on January
    11, 2008 that addresses the requirements related to sections
    110(a)(2)(B), (E)(i), (F) (with respect to the public availability
    of reports), (H), and (J) (with respect to public notification under
    section 127). The EPA is currently reviewing the submittal for
    completeness. The District of Columbia has not submitted a part C
    PSD permit program required under sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). It
    should be noted, however, that the District of Columbia is already
    subject to a FIP for a PSD permit program pursuant to 40 CFR 52.499.

[^4]: The State of North Carolina is currently going through the
    rulemaking process to approve the requirements to meet this element
    of section 110(a)(2) and anticipates making the submittal to address
    the requirement by May 2008.

[^5]: The State of Tennessee is currently going through the rulemaking
    process to approve the requirements to meet this element of section
    110(a)(2) and anticipates making the submittal to address the
    requirement by May 2008.