[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14835-14839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6418]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#670c15060a021549020b0e1d060502130f2702170649000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d263f2c20283f63282124372c2f2839250d283d2c632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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

[[Page 14836]]

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.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2011-0215. 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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9df6effcf0f8efb3f8f1f4e7fcfff8e9f5ddf8edfcb3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96fde4f7fbf3e4b8f3faffecf7f4f3e2fed6f3e6f7b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 
requires states to submit infrastructure SIPs to address a new or 
revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of such standards, or 
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule for the revised PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS was signed 
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21, 
2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP 
submittals, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS were due on 
September 21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006 
signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new infrastructure 
SIPs must address, as applicable, including Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 
which pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. 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 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 14837]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 (D.C. 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 (D.C. 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by other states. The modeling performed for the 
proposed Transport Rule shows that Missouri significantly contributes 
to nonattainment and interferes with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in downwind areas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75 
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
    \3\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 28, 2009, EPA received a SIP revision from the State of 
Missouri intended to address the requirements of Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
Missouri from emitting pollutants that will significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in other states. In its submission, Missouri 
indicated that several actions have been implemented to address the 
transport of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and also PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors of Nitrogen Oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and Sulfur Dioxide 
(SO<INF>2</INF>) over time. The submission included a description of 
and references to the relevant state rules intended to address the 
interstate transport of emissions.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of the State's submittal?

    Missouri's December 28, 2009, submittal included a description of 
how the state has implemented rules or is developing rules to meet 
various requirements to address the long-range transport of pollution. 
Missouri has a number of rules included in the SIP for the control of 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. For example, Missouri's 
SIP includes rules that control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Electric 
Generating Units (10 CSR 10-6.360), from Cement Kilns (10 CSR 10-6.680) 
and from Large Stationary Internal Combustion Engines (10 CSR 10-
6.390). EPA's preliminary photochemical modeling for the proposed 
Transport Rule considered these rules and still indicates that 
emissions from the State of Missouri significantly contribute to 
nonattainment and interfere with maintenance in other states with 
respect to the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Missouri submitted a description of state rules that 
have been implemented to reduce PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 Missouri's air pollutant 
emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or 
interfering with maintenance in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, 
Regions I-X, (September 25, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the state's submittal also indicates that it is 
meeting its 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect to the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in part by virtue of its approved CAIR SIP. 
However, CAIR was promulgated before the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
were revised in 2006 and does not address interstate transport with 
respect to the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\6\ Thus, reliance on CAIR 
cannot be used to comply with Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 
respective 2006

[[Page 14838]]

NAAQS. Several states recognize that some of the controls planned for 
or already installed on sources within the state (to meet CAIR 
provisions) satisfied the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. However, states will not be 
able to permanently rely upon the emissions reductions predicted by 
CAIR, because CAIR was remanded to EPA and EPA is in the process of 
developing a Transport Rule (which it has proposed as a replacement for 
the remanded CAIR) to address the concerns outlined in its decision 
remanding CAIR. For these reasons, EPA would not be able to approve 
Missouri's SIP submission pertaining to the requirements under Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because it relies, in part, on CAIR for emission 
reduction measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule 
proposal, the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA found that EPA's 
quantification of states' significant contribution and interference 
with maintenance in CAIR was improper and remanded the rule to EPA. 
CAIR remains in effect only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Missouri's 
Infrastructure SIP relating to Interstate Transport, Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The submitted 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. 
Sec. Sec.  7501-7515), or is required in response to a finding of 
substantial inadequacy as described in section 7410(k)(5) (SIP call), 
starts a sanctions clock. 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 Missouri.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    We are proposing to disapprove a submission from the State of 
Missouri intended to demonstrate that Missouri 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in any other state. We are proposing to 
determine that the Missouri 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 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 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

[[Page 14839]]

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 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 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 
disapproves 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. 2011-6418 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>