20602 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 30, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8951 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 

(PM2.5) 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: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by e-mail to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• 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 

young.carl@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 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20603 

1The rule for the revised PM2.5 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. 

2See ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

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

2010). 

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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 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 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

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 (PM2.5) 

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 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, 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 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 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 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

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

NAAQS in other states. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
20604 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3On July 30, 2007, we approved as an abbreviated 

SIP revision for the allowance allocation 

methodologies for Phase 1 of the CAIR NOX 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 NOX annual trading 

program. EPA has not acted on this subsequent SIP 

revision submittal and is not taking action on it at 

this time. 

4Further, 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. 

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 PM2.5. 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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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. §§ 7501–7515) or is 

required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

§ 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 PM2.5 (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-andof 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-andof 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 inand-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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9291–5] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan National 

Priorities List: Deletion of the 

Spiegelberg Landfill Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule: notice of intent. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS