[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10826-10827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03252]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0643; FRL-10018-17-Region 8]


Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation 
of Implementation Plans; Utah; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published a rulemaking proposing to approve multiple elements of the 
infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the State 
of Utah, while taking no action on three infrastructure elements (85 FR 
33052). On September 16, 2020, we published a rulemaking taking final 
action on the proposal. The final rulemaking incorrectly stated that 
there were no comments received during the public comment period for 
the proposed rulemaking (85 FR 57731). One comment, submitted 
electronically on July 1, 2020, had been received but was inadvertently 
overlooked in the preparation of the September 16 final rule. In this 
correction document we will respond to the comment received.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0643. All documents in the docket are 
listed at http://www.regulations.gov. 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, is not placed on the internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or you may contact the person identified in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, (303) 312-6175, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#670015020008151e490c0613022702170649000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a3b6a1a3abb6bdeaafa5b0a184a1b4a5eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>. Mail can be directed to the Air and Radiation 
Division, U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mail-code 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Response to Comments

Comment

    We received one anonymous comment on the proposed rulemaking. The 
commenter asserts that in stating that hard copy comments would not be 
accepted,\1\ the EPA was attempting to preclude submission of comments 
by ``post mail,'' without prior public notification or rulemaking, in 
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The commenter 
cited in particular 5 U.S.C. 553(c): ``After notice required by this 
section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to 
participate in the rule making through submission of written data, 
views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral 
presentation.'' The commenter stated that the EPA must re-propose the 
rule without excluding comments submitted by mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the ``addresses'' section, the proposed rulemaking 
stated: ``To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for this 
action we will not be accepting comments submitted by mail or hand 
delivery'' (85 FR 33052).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also stated that they submitted a separate comment by 
postal mail.

Response

    The EPA does not agree that the comment method offered was in 
violation of the APA, or that the comment period was otherwise legally 
insufficient in any way. The agency did not eliminate the opportunity 
for public comment, but rather temporarily eliminated one method of 
transmission of public comment, in light of public health concerns 
related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We provided notice of that temporary 
change in the proposed rule published at 85 FR 57731, in full 
compliance with the APA's ``prior public notification'' requirement. 
Additionally, the proposed rule describes CAA comment submission 
requirements:
    ``The written comment is considered the official comment and should 
include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.'' (This site directs 
commenters to regulations.gov as our preferred method for submitting 
comments.)
    The APA requires agencies to provide an opportunity for public 
comment, but it does not dictate the form in which comments may be 
submitted, nor does it preclude agencies from imposing reasonable 
limitations or structures on comment submissions. Accordingly, the 
commenter's assertion that the APA required the Agency here to accept 
comments on this proposal by postal mail is incorrect. In addition, the 
e-Government Act of 2002 requires agencies to create electronic dockets 
for rulemakings and make those e-dockets available to the public; the 
EPA satisfied that requirement in this case by employing the Federal 
Rulemaking Portal at regulations.gov as an option for submitting 
comments on the proposed rulemaking. Further, the fact that the 
commenter was successfully able to submit a written comment by 
electronic means demonstrates that the notice and comment method used 
did not interfere with the commenter's ability to comment on this 
action.
    As noted, the EPA was not required to accept comments by postal 
mail in this matter and did not do so. Even if we had chosen to accept 
a comment submitted by postal mail, the comment that the commenter 
claimed was submitted by postal mail was not found at the address 
listed in the proposed rule, or at any of the other agency

[[Page 10827]]

addresses that we checked after receiving the electronically submitted 
comment. Because the commenter anonymously submitted the electronically 
submitted comment, contacting the commenter to inquire about location 
of the comment submitted by mail was not possible.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
    <bullet> Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
    <bullet> 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 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation 
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 26, 2021. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Dated: February 11, 2021.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2021-03252 Filed 2-22-21; 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>