70654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0013; FRL–9228– 

4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

System Cap Trading Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove severable portions of two 

revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Texas on May 1, 2001, and 

August 16, 2007, that create and amend 

the System Cap Trading (SCT) Program 

at Title 30 of the Texas Administrative 

Code, Chapter 101—General Air Quality 

Rules, Subchapter H—Emissions 

Banking and Trading, Division 5, 

sections 101.380, 101.382, 101.383, and 

101.385. EPA is proposing disapproval 

of the SCT program because the program 

lacks several necessary components for 

emissions trading programs as outlined 

in EPA’s Economic Incentive Program 

Guidance. This action is being taken 

under section 110 and parts C and D of 

the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or 

CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2005–TX–0013, by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) http://www.regulations.gov: 

Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. 

(2) E-mail: Mr. Jeff Robinson at 

robinson.jeffrey@epa.gov. Please also cc 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below. 

(3) U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’ 

(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

submitting comments. 

(4) Fax: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air 

Permits Section (6PD–R), at fax number 

214–665–6762. 

(5) Mail: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air 

Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

(6) Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Jeff 

Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2005– 

TX–0013. 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 the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, if you 

believe that it is CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that 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 along with any disk or CD– 

ROM submitted. 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 and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 the disclosure of which 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 Permits Section (6PD–R), 

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 to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. A 15 cent 

per page fee will be charged for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area on the seventh 

floor at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittals related to this 

SIP revision, and which are part of the 

EPA docket, are also available for public 

inspection at the State Air Agency listed 

below during official business hours by 

appointment: 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 

Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions concerning today’s 

proposed rule, please contact Ms. Adina 

Wiley (6PD–R), Air Permits Section, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue (6PD–R), 

Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202–2733. The 

telephone number is (214) 665–2115. 

Ms. Wiley can also be reached via 

electronic mail at wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever, 

any reference to ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is 

used, we mean EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What did Texas submit? 

III. What is the System Cap Trading Program? 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of the System 

Cap Trading Program? 

V. TCEQ’s Planned Withdrawal of the System 

Cap Trading Program 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to disapprove 

severable portions of two revisions to 

the Texas SIP submitted by the State of 

Texas on May 1, 2001, and August 16, 

2007, specific to the System Cap 

Trading (SCT) Program. Specifically, we 

are proposing to disapprove 30 TAC 

sections 101.380, 101.382, 101.383, and 

101.385 submitted on May 1, 2001; and 

the amendments to 30 TAC sections 

101.383 and 101.385 submitted on 

August 16, 2007. Our analysis as 

presented in this proposed rulemaking 

action finds the SCT Program to be 

inconsistent with EPA’s Economic 

Incentive Program Guidance, 

‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs’’ (EPA–452/R–01– 

001, January 2001) and our past 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70655 

approval actions on Texas trading 

programs. 

II. What did Texas submit? 

We are proposing to disapprove 

severable portions of two revisions to 

the Texas SIP specific to the SCT 

Program. The first SIP submission we 

are proposing to disapprove was 

adopted by the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on 

March 21, 2001, and submitted to EPA 

on May 1, 2001, at 30 TAC sections 

101.380, 101.382, 101.383, and 101.385. 

The second revision upon which we are 

proposing disapproval was adopted by 

the TCEQ on July 25, 2007, and 

submitted to EPA on August 16, 2007, 

at 30 TAC sections 101.383 and 101.385. 

The May 1, 2001, and August 16, 2007, 

SIP submittals create and amend the 

SCT Program. 

In addition to the sections identified 

above as the subject of today’s proposed 

disapproval, the TCEQ’s submissions on 

May 1, 2001, and August 16, 2007, also 

included other provisions for which we 

are not proposing action today. 

Specifically, on May 1, 2001, the TCEQ 

also adopted and submitted revisions to 

30 TAC Chapter 117, Control of Air 

Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds, 

sections 117.109, 117.110, and 117.139. 

We are not proposing action today on 

the revisions to Chapter 117 because 

these revisions are severable from the 

SCT Program and EPA has already taken 

a separate approval action (see 73 FR 

73562 on December 3, 2008). On August 

16, 2007, the TCEQ also adopted and 

submitted revisions to the general air 

quality definitions, the Emission Credit 

Banking and Trading Program (referred 

to as the Emission Reduction Credit 

(ERC) Program elsewhere in this 

document) and the Discrete Emission 

Credit Banking and Trading Program 

(referred to as the Discrete Emission 

Reduction Credit (DERC) Program 

elsewhere in this document). We are not 

proposing action today upon revisions 

to the general air quality definitions at 

30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter A, 

section 101.1 because the SCT Program 

does not rely upon them (therefore the 

revisions are severable from the SCT 

Program) and previous revisions to 

section 101.1 are still pending for 

review by EPA. We are not proposing 

action today upon the revisions to the 

ERC Program at 30 TAC Chapter 101, 

Subchapter H, Division 1, sections 

101.302 and 101.306 because these 

revisions are severable from the SCT 

Program and EPA has already taken a 

separate approval action (see 75 FR 

27647 on May 15, 2010). We are also not 

proposing action today upon the 

revisions to the DERC Program at 30 

TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, 

Division 4, sections 101.372 and 

101.376 because these revisions are 

severable from the SCT Program and 

EPA has already taken a separate 

approval action (see 75 FR 27644 on 

May 15, 2010). 

A copy of the May 1, 2001, and 

August 16, 2007, SIP submittals can be 

obtained from the Docket, as discussed 

in the ‘‘Docket’’ section above. A 

discussion of the specific Texas rule 

changes that we are proposing to 

disapprove is included below. 

III. What is the System Cap Trading 

Program? 

The SCT Program was designed by the 

TCEQ to provide additional compliance 

flexibility to source owners and 

operators subject to the system caps 

established in 30 TAC Chapter 117. 

Under this program, sources under 

common ownership or control may be 

voluntarily grouped together in a system 

with a system cap on total emissions 

from the sources in the system. The 

Chapter 117 system caps establish daily, 

rolling 30-day average, and annual 

average emission caps depending upon 

the source’s location. The Chapter 117 

system caps enable participating sources 

to transfer emission allowables (the 

amount greater than zero that a source 

owner or operator’s allowable emissions 

exceed the actual emissions over the 

applicable averaging time period) from 

source to source within the same 

system, provided the overall cap is not 

exceeded. The SCT Program at 30 TAC 

Chapter 101 provides an additional 

layer of compliance flexibility by 

allowing owners or operators of units 

subject to the Chapter 117 system caps 

to trade surplus emission allowables 

(the amount greater than zero that a 

source owner or operator’s allowable 

emissions in a system cap emission 

limit specified in Chapter 117 is greater 

than the actual emissions in that system 

over the applicable averaging time 

period) with other system caps within 

the same attainment or nonattainment 

area to exceed the applicable Chapter 

117 system cap limits. The SCT Program 

also streamlined the reporting 

requirements for the participating 

sources by only requiring notification to 

the TCEQ after the trades of surplus 

emission allowables between system 

caps were completed. The SCT Program 

has not been used by any source since 

the program was established in March 

2001. 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

System Cap Trading Program? 

We reviewed the SCT program with 

respect to EPA’s EIP Guidance 

‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs’’ (EPA–452/R–01– 

001, January 2001) (EIP Guidance) 

(available in the docket for this 

rulemaking) and for consistency with 

our past approval actions on the Texas 

SIP-approved trading programs. Our 

analysis finds that the SCT Program is 

not consistent with the EIP Guidance or 

with our past actions on Texas trading 

programs. Namely, the SCT Program 

fails to: 

• Satisfy the fundamental element of 

Surplus at 4.1(a) and (b) of the EIP 

Guidance because the participating 

sources are not clearly identified, and 

therefore EPA and the public are unable 

to determine that all emission 

reductions under the SCT program are 

surplus. It is essential that a trading 

program have a clearly identified group 

of participating sources to ensure that 

the reductions from these sources are 

surplus to all federal and state 

requirements, and to facilitate trading 

among participating sources to promote 

a robust market. Therefore, the SCT 

Program must clearly identify sources 

subject to the program. Currently, 30 

TAC section 101.380(2) includes an 

incorrect citation and 30 TAC section 

101.382 broadly references all of 30 

TAC Chapter 117 instead of identifying 

the subject sections. 

• Satisfy the fundamental element of 

Enforceability at 4.1(a) and (b) of the EIP 

Guidance because the SCT Program 

does not clearly identify violations and 

outline the penalties for the 

participating sources as described in 

Sections 5.1(c) and 6.1 of the EIP 

Guidance. Currently 30 TAC section 

101.385 requires a source owner or 

operator to notify the TCEQ when a 

Chapter 117 system cap emission limit 

is exceeded as a result of participating 

in the SCT Program. However, there are 

no penalty provisions or other 

mechanisms to provide a disincentive 

for violating the emission limits. 

• Provide an environmental benefit as 

described in Sections 5.1(a) and 6.5 of 

the EIP Guidance. 

• Provide a program evaluation as 

described in Section 5.3(b) of the EIP 

Guidance. Such a program evaluation 

must occur every 3 years and provide 

remedies if the trading program does not 

have the intended results, per Section 

5.3(c) of the EIP Guidance. A program 

evaluation or audit is an essential 

feature of a trading program because it 

provides the TCEQ the time and 

authority to review the functionality of 

the program and suggest remedies. 

Additionally, EPA has SIP-approved 

audit provisions in the ERC, Mass 

Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT), and 

DERC programs that specifically require 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1Section 110(k)(4) authorizes EPA to approve a 

plan revision based on a commitment by a state to 

adopt specific enforceable measures by a date 

certain, but not later than one year after the date 

of the conditional approval. 

the TCEQ to evaluate the impact of the 

program on the state’s ozone attainment 

demonstrations and authorizes the 

TCEQ to suspend trading in whole or in 

part if problems are identified. Because 

the SCT Program operates in attainment 

and nonattainment areas, we find that 

analysis of the program impacts on the 

state’s ozone attainment demonstrations 

is an essential feature that must be 

included. 

• Address requirements for 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting consistent with Section 5.3(a) 

of the EIP Guidance. 

• Provide TCEQ visibility of the 

trading process or establish reliable 

tracking mechanism for emissions 

trading consistent with Section 6.5(d) of 

the EIP Guidance. Participating sources 

in the SCT Program only notify the 

TCEQ after the trades between system 

caps occur. The TCEQ must have 

knowledge and visibility of the trading 

under this program to anticipate and 

respond to issues that result from 

trading between system caps. 

V. TCEQ’s Planned Withdrawal of the 

System Cap Trading Program 

During the preparation of this 

proposed rule notice, Region 6 staff had 

several discussions with TCEQ staff 

about the SCT program, EPA’s 

evaluation of it, and the possibility of 

EPA proposing a conditional approval 

of the program under section 110(k)(4) 

of the Clean Air Act.1 In response, Mr. 

Mark Vickery, the TCEQ Executive 

Director, submitted a letter to EPA 

Region 6 on November 2, 2010, 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. In this letter, the TCEQ 

stated that they are unable to address 

EPA’s concerns with the SCT Program 

through rulemaking action within the 

time period specified under section 

110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act. 

Moreover, TCEQ noted that its review of 

the SCT Program indicated no use of the 

program by affected companies. Finally, 

the TCEQ stated that it will seek 

approval from the Commissioners to 

withdraw the SCT Program SIP 

submittals from EPA’s consideration 

and complete rulemaking to repeal the 

rules. 

Notwithstanding TCEQ’s planned 

withdrawal, because that withdrawal 

may not occur before December 31, 2010 

(when EPA is scheduled to take final 

action on these submissions under the 

consent decree in BCCA Appeal Group 

v. EPA, No. 3–08CV1491 (N.D. Tex.)), 

EPA is proposing action on these 

submissions at this time. If the 

submissions are not withdrawn, and if 

the December 31, 2010 deadline remains 

in place, EPA will take final action in 

December 2010. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to disapprove 

severable revisions to the Texas SIP 

submitted on May 1, 2001, and August 

16, 2007. Specifically from the May 1, 

2001, submittal, EPA is disapproving 30 

TAC sections 101.380, 101.382, 101.383, 

and 101.385 that create the SCT 

Program. EPA is also proposing to 

disapprove provisions revisions to the 

SCT Program at 30 TAC sections 

101.383 and 101.385 as submitted on 

August 16, 2007. We note that if TCEQ 

formally withdraws these two SCT 

Program SIP submittals as discussed in 

the November 2, 2010, letter from 

TCEQ, before EPA takes final action we 

will not need to take final action on 

these submissions. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a mandatory requirement of 

the Act starts a sanctions clock and a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

clock. The provisions in May 1, 2001, 

and August 16, 2007, SIP submittals 

creating and amending the SCT Program 

were not submitted to meet a mandatory 

requirement of the Act. Therefore, if 

EPA takes final action to disapprove the 

submitted SCT Program SIP submittals, 

no sanctions and FIP clocks will be 

triggered. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. 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. 

B. 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). 

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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70657 

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 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 action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, 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 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. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule 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 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 disapprove certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act and will not 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. 

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. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: November 10, 2010. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29146 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2010–0932, FRL–9228–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kansas: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority 

and Tailoring Rule Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a draft revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment (KDHE) on October 4, 

2010 for parallel processing. The 

proposed SIP revision (Kansas 

Administrative Regulation 28–29–350) 

to Kansas’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program provides 

the state of Kansas with authority to 

regulate GHG emissions under the PSD 

program. The proposed SIP revision also 

establishes appropriate emission 

thresholds and time-frames for which 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to Kansas’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions, in accordance with the 

provisions of the ‘‘PSD and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Final Rule’’ 

published June 3, 2010, in the Federal 

Register at 75 FR 31514. EPA is 

proposing approval through a parallel 

processing action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 20, 2010. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS