Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14831 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination will be 

made available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. This 

proposed rule involves the 

establishment of a safety zone. We seek 

any comments or information that may 

lead to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR Part 165, as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. 

L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T13–177 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T13–177 Safety Zone; 2011 Hylebos 

Bridge Restoration, Hylebos Waterway, 

Tacoma, Washington. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters extending 50 

yards to the north and south, along the 

entire length of the Hylebos Bridge in 

Tacoma, WA. 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in 33 CFR Part 

165, Subpart C, no person or vessel may 

enter or remain in the safety zone 

without permission of the Captain of the 

Port or Designated Representative. See 

33 CFR Part 165, Subpart C, for 

additional requirements. Vessel 

operators wishing to enter the zone 

during the enforcement period must 

request permission for entry by 

contacting Vessel Traffic Service Puget 

Sound on VHF channel 14, or the Sector 

Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations 

Center at (206) 217–6001. 

(c) Authorization. All vessel operators 

who desire to transit through or remain 

in the safety zone must obtain 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

or Designated Representative. The 

Captain of the Port may be assisted by 

federal, state, or local agencies as 

needed. 

(d) Enforcement Period. This rule is 

enforced daily from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. 

from August 20, 2011 through August 

22, 2011 unless canceled sooner by the 

Captain of the Port. 

Dated: March 1, 2011. 

S.J. Ferguson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6337 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0279; FRL–9283–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; Kansas; 

Proposed 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 our authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portion of the Kansas CAA 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submittal addressing 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another State with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour fine particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards NAAQS). On April 12, 2010, 

Kansas submitted a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) intended to 

address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for ‘‘infrastructure.’’ The 

submittal also included language to 

address the interstate transport 

requirements under the CAA. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the portion of the Kansas SIP revision 

intended to address requirements 

prohibiting a State’s emissions from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

State. The rationale for the proposed 

action is described in this proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2011–0279 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: kramer.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, Air 

Planning & Development, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Ms. Elizabeth 

Kramer, Air Planning & Development, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
14832 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2011– 

0279 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 through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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 

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 should be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://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 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 U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, 

Kansas City, Kansas 66101, from 8 a.m. 

until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The interested 

persons wanting to examine these 

documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 

24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning & 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101; telephone number: 

(913) 551–7186; fax number: (913) 551– 

7844; e-mail address: 

kramer.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This section provides additional 

information by addressing the following 

questions: 

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 State’s 

submittal? 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

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? 

On December 18, 2006, EPA revised 

the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and 

secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 μg/m3. 

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.1 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 Section 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. 

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. 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 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 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)(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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14833 

2See ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone; Proposed Rule,’’ 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 

2010). 3See Section IV on Defining ‘‘Significant 

Contribution’’ and ‘‘Interference With Maintenance,’’ 

75 FR 45229 of ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to 

Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,’’ 75 FR 45210 

(August 2, 2010). 

4See Section IV on Defining ‘‘Significant 

Contribution’’ and ‘‘Interference With Maintenance,’’ 

75 FR 45229 of ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to 

Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,’’ 75 FR 45210 

(August 2, 2010). 

5See William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality 

Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. ‘‘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.’’ Memorandum to EPA Air 

Division Directors, Regions I–X (September 25, 

2009). 

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 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS because CAIR does not address 

this NAAQS. 

EPA promulgated the 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 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 CAA 

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 Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIP) in their 

entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 836 (DC Cir. Jul. 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 

(DC Cir. Dec. 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).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 

Kansas significantly contributes to 

nonattainment and interferes with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in downwind areas.3

On April 12, 2010, EPA received a SIP 

revision from the State of Kansas 

intended to address the requirements of 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as well as other 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2). In 

this rulemaking, EPA is addressing only 

the requirements that pertain to 

prohibiting sources in Kansas from 

emitting pollutants that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in other States. In its 

submission, the State of Kansas 

indicated that emissions from the State 

do not significantly interfere with the 

attainment nor maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind 

States. The submission included a 

description of relevant State actions 

intended to address the interstate 

transport of emissions. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

State’s submittal? 

On April 12, 2010, EPA received an 

Infrastructure SIP revision from the 

State of Kansas intended to address the 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The portion of Kansas’ submittal to 

address the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligations indicates that the State has 

implemented several actions to address 

interstate transport with respect to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Kansas’ submittal describes how the 

State believes it meets transport 

requirements based in part on recent 

controls established for SO2 and NOX

emissions from EGUs in the State. 

Kansas summarizes that the reductions 

represent a 32% reduction in the total 

Kansas point source NOX emissions and 

a 58% reduction in the total Kansas 

point source SOX emissions from the 

2005 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI). However, EPA’s preliminary 

photochemical modeling for the 

proposed Transport Rule, to address 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), indicates that 

emissions from the State of Kansas 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance in other States with 

respect to the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS.4

EPA’s 2009 Guidance stated that a 

State’s SIP submission pertaining to the 

requirement of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

must be supported by an adequate 

technical analysis.5 EPA recommended 

the various types of information that 

could be relevant to support the State’s 

SIP submission. While Kansas 

submitted a description of actions that 

have been implemented to reduce NOX

and SO2 emissions, the State did not 

further evaluate or demonstrate with a 

technical analysis that these measures 

address the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit Kansas’ air 

pollutant emissions from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance in other 

States. EPA believes that the 

documentation submitted does not 

address the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in part, because the 

submittal lacks a technical 

demonstration. 

Based upon our evaluation, EPA is 

proposing that this SIP revision does not 

meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing disapproval of the 

portion of Kansas’ Infrastructure SIP 

relating to Interstate Transport, Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The submitted 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
14834 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

provisions are severable from each 

other. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove those provisions which 

relate to the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

demonstration and will act on the 

remainder of the SIP submission in a 

subsequent rulemaking. 

Also, 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. §§ 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. The provisions in the 

submittal we are proposing to 

disapprove were not submitted to meet 

either of those requirements. Therefore, 

if EPA takes final action to disapprove 

this submittal, no sanctions will be 

triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a 

State implementation plan revision 

triggers 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 Transport Rule FIP, if 

finalized in the manner proposed, may 

address these requirements for the State 

of Kansas. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

We are proposing to disapprove a 

submission from the State of Kansas 

intended to demonstrate that Kansas has 

adequately addressed the elements of 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that 

require the State’s SIP to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit air 

pollutant emissions from sources within 

a State from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment in or interference with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other State. We are 

proposing to determine that the Kansas 

submission does not contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit air pollutant 

emissions from within the State that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in or interference with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in other downwind States. Any 

remaining elements of the submittal, 

including language to address other 

CAA Section 110(a)(2) elements, 

including Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

regarding interference with measures 

required in the applicable SIP for 

another State designed to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality 

and protect visibility, are not addressed 

in this action. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove only the provisions which 

relate to the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

demonstration. 

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. 

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. 

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 

Clean Air Act 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 Clean Air Act will not inand-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 Clean Air Act 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14835 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. However, today’s proposed 

disapproval does not have federalism 

implications. 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 

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 Clean Air Act 

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 and 

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 Clean Air Act. 

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 Clean Air Act. 

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 Clean Air Act 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: March 10, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6416 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0215; FRL–9283–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; Missouri; 

Proposed 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 our authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portion of the Missouri CAA Section 

110(a)(2) ‘‘Infrastructure’’ State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

addressing significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another state with 

respect to the 2006 

24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). On December 18, 2009, 

Missouri submitted a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) intended to 

address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2) 

for ‘‘infrastructure.’’ In this action, EPA 

is proposing to disapprove the portion 

of the Missouri SIP revision intended to 

address Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements prohibiting a state’s 

emissions from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any other state. The rationale 

for the proposed action is described in 

this proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2011–0215, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: kramer.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, Air 

Planning & Development, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Ms. Elizabeth 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS