[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20602-20605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8995]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0335; FRL-9294-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; 
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 Texas 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 November 23, 2009, the State of Texas, through 
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), submitted a SIP 
to EPA intended to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 
for ``infrastructure.'' In this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove 
the portion of the Texas' SIP revision submittal that intended to 
address the 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 disapproval action of the SIP revision is described 
in this proposal. This action is being taken under section 110 of the 
CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2011-0335, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#34505b5a555850475b5a1a53414d745144551a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="42262d2c232e26312d2c6c25373b022732236c252d34">[email protected]</span></a>. Please 
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
    <bullet> Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
    <bullet> Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    <bullet> Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are 
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not 
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries 
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-
0335. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by 
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an 
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two 
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page 
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, 
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection during 
official business hours, by appointment, at the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, 
Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6645; fax number 
(214) 665-7263; e-mail address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a33253f242d64292b38260a2f3a2b642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6811071d060f460b091a04280d1809460f071e">[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 action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of Texas' submittal?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 20603]]

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?

    We are proposing to disapprove a submission from the State of Texas 
intended to demonstrate that Texas 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 Texas 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, 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 
for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. This action is being taken under 
section 110 of the CAA.

II. What is the background for this proposed action?

    On December 18, 2006, we 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule for the revised PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS was signed 
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21, 
2006. The rule was published in the Federal Register on October 17, 
2006 and became effective December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). 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, we issued our ``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). We 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, we 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. We 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. We stated that 
the state's conclusion should be supported by an adequate technical 
analysis. We 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, we 
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, we 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.
    We 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 
8-hour ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Many states adopted the CAIR 
provisions and submitted SIPs to us to demonstrate compliance with the 
CAIR requirements in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
obligations for those two pollutants.
    We were 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 our petition for rehearing, the Court issued an 
order remanding CAIR to us 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 we replace it with a rule 
consistent with the Court's opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court directed us 
to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 11, 2008, opinion, 
but declined to impose a schedule on us for completing that action. Id. 
In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, we have 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

III. What is EPA's evaluation of Texas' submittal?

    On November 23, 2009, the State of Texas, through TCEQ, provided a 
SIP revision to us 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, we are 
addressing only the requirements of Section 110(a)(2) that pertain to 
prohibiting sources in Texas 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.

[[Page 20604]]

    In its submission, Texas certified that the State is meeting its 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations by virtue of its CAIR SIP for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Texas specifically said that it submitted a SIP 
revision to implement CAIR and is currently in the process of revising 
the CAIR SIP and rule to account for federal rule revisions and state 
legislative changes.\3\ Irrespective, CAIR was promulgated before the 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS was revised in 2006, and as mentioned 
above neither CAIR nor any of the State's revisions to its CAIR program 
address interstate transport with respect to the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS.\4\ Thus, reliance on CAIR and the State's CAIR SIP provisions 
cannot be used to comply with Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 
respective 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On July 30, 2007, we approved as an abbreviated SIP revision 
for the allowance allocation methodologies for Phase 1 of the CAIR 
NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading program and the Compliance Supplement 
Pool; see 72 FR 41453. The subsequent SIP revision was submitted to 
EPA for review in March 4, 2010, and was submitted to address our 
timing concerns with the Texas allowance allocation methodology for 
Phase 2 of the CAIR NO<INF>X</INF> annual trading program. EPA has 
not acted on this subsequent SIP revision submittal and is not 
taking action on it at this time.
    \4\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule 
proposal, the DC Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA found that EPA's 
quantification of states' significant contribution and interference 
with maintenance in CAIR was improper and remanded the rule to EPA. 
CAIR remains in effect only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that several states in their submission claim that 
controls planned for or already installed on sources within the state 
to meet the 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 rely permanently upon the emissions 
reductions predicted by CAIR, because CAIR was remanded to us and will 
not remain in force permanently. Furthermore, we are in the process of 
developing a new Transport Rule to address the concerns of the Court as 
outlined in its decision remanding CAIR. For these reasons, we would 
not be able to approve Texas' SIP submission pertaining to the 
requirements under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because it relies on CAIR 
for emission reduction measures.
    Based upon our evaluation, we are proposing that this SIP revision 
does not meet the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the 
CAA. Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove the portion of the Texas 
Infrastructure SIP submission intended to demonstrate that its SIP 
meets the Interstate Transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of 
the CAA for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The portion of the Texas 
submission that addresses 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is severable from the 
remainder of the Texas submittal which addresses other elements of 
110(a)(2), meaning our disapproval of this element does not impact the 
other elements of the Texas submission which we will address in 
separate Federal Register actions. Therefore, we are proposing to 
disapprove only those provisions which relate to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
demonstration and to take no action on the remainder of the elements 
and their demonstrations at this time.
    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 Sec.  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 we take final action to disapprove this submittal, no 
sanctions will be triggered. The full or partial disapproval of a 
required 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. In our Transport Rule 
proposal we took comment on whether we should include Texas in a FIP 
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> (75 FR 45210, 45284). The finalized Transport Rule 
may serve as the FIP that EPA intends to implement for the State.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to act on state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by State law.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed 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 Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed 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).

C. 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.

[[Page 20605]]

    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.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to 
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed 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, because it merely disapproves 
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply in 
Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
proposed 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.

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

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    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 proposed 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.

J. 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.

K. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 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: April 5, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2011-8995 Filed 4-12-11; 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>