81874 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–32664 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0107; FRL–9244–7] 

Action To Ensure Authority To Issue 

Permits Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program to 

Sources of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: Finding of Failure To 

Submit State Implementation Plan 

Revisions Required for Greenhouse 

Gases 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is making a finding 

that seven states have failed to submit 

revisions to their EPA-approved state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to satisfy 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

to apply Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements to 

greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting sources. 

By notice dated December 13, 2010, 

EPA issued a ‘‘SIP call’’ for these seven, 

and six other, states, requiring each state 

to revise its SIP as necessary to correct 

the SIP’s failure to apply PSD to such 

sources and establishing a SIP submittal 

deadline for each state. EPA established 

December 22, 2010, as the deadline for 

these seven states. By this action, EPA 

is making a finding that the seven states 

failed to submit the required SIP 

revisions by that date. This finding 

requires EPA to promulgate a Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) for these 

seven states applying PSD to GHGemitting sources, and EPA is taking a 

separate action to promulgate the FIP 

immediately. The seven states are 

Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, 

Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

December 29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0107. 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 U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lisa Sutton, Air Quality Policy Division, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (C504–03), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–3450; fax number: (919) 541– 

5509; e-mail address: 

sutton.lisa@epa.gov. 

For information related to a specific 

state, local, or tribal permitting 

authority, please contact the appropriate 

EPA regional office: 

EPA regional office Contact for regional office (person, mailing address, 

telephone number) Permitting authority 

I ............................................ Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 

1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912, (617) 918–1661.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, 

Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

II ........................................... Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866, (212) 637–3706.

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands. 

III .......................................... Kathleen Cox, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment Branch, EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, (215) 814–2173.

District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

IV .......................................... Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, EPA Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303–3104, (404) 

562–9033.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. 

V ........................................... J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604–3507, (312) 886–1430.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

VI .......................................... Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 

6, Fountain Place 12th Floor, Suite 1200, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202–2733, (214) 665–6435.

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 

Texas. 

VII ......................................... Mark Smith, Chief, Air Permitting and Compliance 

Branch, EPA Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, KS 66101, (913) 551–7876.

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. 

VIII ........................................ Carl Daly, Unit Leader, Air Permitting, Monitoring & 

Modeling Unit, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129, (303) 312–6416.

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 

and Wyoming. 

IX .......................................... Gerardo Rios, Chief, Permits Office, EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 

972–3974.

Arizona; California; Hawaii and the Pacific Islands; Indian Country within Region 9 and Navajo Nation; and 

Nevada. 

X ........................................... Nancy Helm, Manager, Federal and Delegated Air Programs Unit, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–6908.

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81875 

1For convenience, we refer to ‘‘states’’ in this 

rulemaking to collectively mean states and local 

permitting authorities. 

2 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call— 

Final Rule,’’ 75 FR at 77698, 77700–04 (December 

13, 2010) (final SIP call); ‘‘Action to Ensure 

Authority to Issue Permits under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial 

Inadequacy and SIP Call—Proposed Rule,’’ 75 FR 

53892, 53896–98 (September 2, 2010) (proposed SIP 

call). 

3Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title 

V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule. 75 FR 

31514, 31518–21 (June 3, 2010). 

4 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

5 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

6 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities affected by this rule include 

state and local permitting authorities.1

By this action, EPA is making a finding 

of failure to submit the required SIPs for 

seven states (comprising eight state and 

local programs) because their EPAapproved SIP PSD programs do not 

apply to GHG-emitting sources. The 

seven states are Arizona, Arkansas, 

Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, and 

Wyoming. In Arizona, the finding of 

failure applies to two EPA-approved 

PSD permit programs—‘‘Pinal County’’ 

and ‘‘Rest of State (Excludes Maricopa 

County, Pima County, and Indian 

Country).’’ 

B. How is the preamble organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. How is the preamble organized? 

II. Background 

A. CAA and Regulatory Context 

1. SIP PSD Requirements 

2. SIP Inadequacy and Corrective Action 

B. Recent EPA Regulatory Action 

Concerning PSD Requirements for GHGEmitting Sources 

III. Final Action: Finding of Failure of Certain 

States To Submit Corrective SIP 

Revisions 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Notice and Comment Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

B. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform 

F. Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045—Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211—Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

K. Executive Order 12898—Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations 

L. Congressional Review Act 

V. Judicial Review 

VI. Statutory Authority 

II. Background 

A. CAA and Regulatory Context 

EPA described the relevant 

background information in the proposed 

and final rulemaking for what we call 

the GHG PSD SIP call or, simply, the 

SIP call,2 as well as in what we call the 

Tailoring Rule.3 75 FR at 31518–21. 

Knowledge of this background 

information is presumed and will be 

only briefly summarized here. 

1. SIP PSD Requirements 

In general, under the CAA PSD 

program, a stationary source must 

obtain a permit prior to undertaking 

construction or modification projects 

that would result in specified amounts 

of new or increased emissions of air 

pollutants that are subject to regulation 

under other provisions of the CAA. CAA 

sections 165(a)(1), 169(1). As we 

described in the SIP call and elsewhere, 

several CAA provisions, taken together, 

mandate that SIPs include PSD 

programs that are applicable to any air 

pollutant that is subject to regulation 

under the CAA, including, as discussed 

later in this preamble, GHGs on and 

after January 2, 2011. CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(J), 161. 

2. SIP Inadequacy and Corrective Action 

The CAA provides a mechanism for 

the correction of SIPs with certain types 

of inadequacies. CAA section 110(k)(5) 

authorizes the Administrator to ‘‘find[ ] 

that [a SIP] * * * is substantially 

inadequate to * * * comply with any 

requirement of this Act,’’ and, based on 

that finding, to ‘‘require the State to 

revise the [SIP] * * * to correct such 

inadequacies.’’ This latter action is 

commonly referred to as a ‘‘SIP call.’’ In 

addition, this provision provides that 

EPA must notify the state of the 

substantial inadequacy and authorizes 

EPA to establish a ‘‘reasonable deadline[

] (not to exceed 18 months after the date 

of such notice)’’ for the submission of 

the corrective SIP revision. 

If EPA does not receive the corrective 

SIP revision by the deadline, CAA 

section 110(c)(1)(A) authorizes EPA to 

‘‘find[ ] that [the] State has failed to 

make a required submission.’’ Once EPA 

makes that finding, CAA section 

110(c)(1) requires EPA to ‘‘promulgate a 

Federal implementation plan at any 

time within 2 years after the [finding] 

* * * unless the State corrects the 

deficiency, and [EPA] approves the plan 

or plan revision, before [EPA] 

promulgates such [FIP].’’ 

B. Recent EPA Regulatory Action 

Concerning PSD Requirements for GHGEmitting Sources 

In recent months, EPA has taken 

several distinct actions related to GHGs 

under the CAA. Some of these, in 

conjunction with the operation of the 

CAA, trigger PSD applicability for GHGemitting sources on and after January 2, 

2011, but focus the scope of PSD on the 

largest GHG-emitting sources. These 

actions include what we call the 

Endangerment Finding,4 the Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,5 the Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,6 and the Tailoring 

Rule. 

Closely related to this action, EPA 

promulgated the PSD GHG SIP call, 

under authority of CAA section 

110(k)(5). In that action, applicable to 13 

states, the Administrator issued a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as 

well as a SIP call and established a 

deadline for submission of the 

corrective SIP revision. The deadline 

was 12 months after the date of the SIP 

call, unless the state indicated to EPA 

that it did not object to an earlier 

deadline, as early as 3 weeks after the 

date of the SIP call. Twelve of the states 

so indicated and therefore received an 

earlier deadline. 75 FR at 77705. 

All 13 states and their deadlines are 

listed in table II–1, ‘‘SIP Call States and 

SIP Submittal Deadlines’’: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
81876 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

7More detailed discussion about these seven 

states is included in the Supplemental Information 

Document prepared by EPA in support of the final 

SIP call. The Supplemental Information Document 

can be found in the docket for this rulemaking, at 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0107–0129. 

8Proposed rule, ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To 

Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan.’’ 75 

FR 53883 (September 2, 2010). The notice can be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking, at 

Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0107–0045. 

TABLE II–1—SIP CALL STATES AND SIP SUBMITTAL DEADLINES

State (or area) SIP submittal 

deadline 

Arizona: Pinal County ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12/22/10 

Arizona: Rest of State (Excludes Maricopa County, Pima County, and Indian Country) ............................................................... 12/22/10 

Arkansas .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 12/22/10 

California: Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD ................................................................................................................................... 01/31/11 

Connecticut ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 03/01/11 

Florida .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12/22/10 

Idaho ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12/22/10 

Kansas ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12/22/10 

Kentucky (Jefferson County): Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District .................................................................................. 01/01/11 

Kentucky: Rest of State (Excludes Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (Jefferson County)) .......................................... 03/31/11 

Nebraska .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 03/01/11 

Nevada: Clark County ..................................................................................................................................................................... 07/01/11 

Oregon ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12/22/10 

Texas ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 12/01/11 

Wyoming .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 12/22/10 

The SIP submittal deadlines that the 

final SIP call rule established for the 

states reflect, in almost all instances, a 

recognition by EPA and the states of the 

need to move expeditiously to assure 

the availability of a permitting 

authority. In the SIP call, EPA made 

clear that the purpose of establishing the 

shorter period as the deadline—for any 

state that advised us that it did not 

object to that shorter period—is to 

accommodate states that wish to ensure 

that a FIP is in effect as a backstop to 

avoid any gap in PSD permitting. 75 FR 

at 77710. 

Seven of the 13 SIP-called states 

(including 8 of the 15 affected PSD 

programs) stated that they did not object 

to a SIP submittal deadline of December 

22, 2010 (the earliest possible deadline), 

75 FR at 77705,7 and those states are the 

subject of this final rule. 

Also closely related to this action, 

EPA proposed a FIP 8 action related to 

GHGs. We stated in the proposed FIP 

that if any of the states for which we 

issued the SIP call did not meet its SIP 

submittal deadline, we would 

immediately issue a finding of failure to 

submit a required SIP revision, under 

CAA section 110(c)(1)(A), and 

immediately thereafter promulgate a FIP 

for the state. We explained that we 

would take these actions immediately in 

order to minimize any period of time 

during which larger-emitting sources 

may be under an obligation to obtain 

PSD permits for their GHGs when they 

construct or modify, but no permitting 

authority is authorized to issue those 

permits. 75 FR at 53889. 

III. Final Action: Finding of Failure of 

Certain States To Submit Corrective SIP 

Revisions 

By this final rule, EPA is making a 

finding under CAA section 110(c) that 

seven states failed to submit a corrective 

SIP by December 22, 2010, which was 

their SIP submittal deadline, as 

established under our SIP call. These 

seven states are Arizona, Arkansas, 

Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, and 

Wyoming. In Arizona, the finding of 

failure applies to two EPA-approved 

PSD permit programs—‘‘Pinal County’’ 

and ‘‘Rest of State (Excludes Maricopa 

County, Pima County, and Indian 

Country).’’ These seven states were 

included in the SIP call because their 

EPA-approved SIP PSD programs do not 

apply to GHG-emitting sources. 

As we stated in our proposed FIP 

rulemaking (see 75 FR at 53889), if a 

state for which we issue the SIP call 

does not meet its SIP submittal 

deadline, we would immediately issue a 

finding of failure to submit a required 

SIP revision under CAA section 

110(c)(1)(A). Once we make that 

finding, we are required under CAA 

section 110(c) to promulgate a FIP 

(unless first the state corrects the 

deficiency and EPA approves the plan 

or plan revision). By a separate action 

today, we are promulgating the FIP 

immediately. 

The making of a finding of failure in 

this final rule is important because it is 

the prerequisite for the FIP, and the FIP, 

in turn, establishes EPA as the 

permitting authority for GHG-emitting 

sources. Without our acting as that 

authority, large GHG-emitting sources in 

the affected states may be unable to 

obtain a PSD permit for their GHG 

emissions and therefore may face delays 

in undertaking construction or 

modification projects. Sources that emit 

or plan to emit large amounts of GHGs 

will, starting January 2, 2011, be 

required to obtain PSD permits before 

undertaking new construction or 

modification projects, but neither the 

states nor, absent the FIP, EPA would be 

authorized to issue the permits. With 

the FIP, EPA will have the authority to 

issue PSD permits by January 2, 2011. 

This rule is effective immediately 

upon publication in the Federal 

Register. Section 553(d) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553(d), generally provides that 

rules may not take effect earlier than 30 

days after they are published in the 

Federal Register. However, APA section 

553(d)(3) provides an exception when 

the agency finds good cause exists for a 

rule to take effect in less than 30 days. 

We find good cause exists here to 

make this rule effective upon 

publication because implementing a 30- 

day delayed effective date would 

interfere with the Agency’s ability to 

ensure that, as of January 2, 2011, there 

is a permitting authority authorized to 

issue certain major stationary sources in 

the affected states the required PSD 

permits for GHG emissions. A 30-day 

delay in the effective date of this rule 

will impede implementation of this rule 

and create regulatory confusion. This 

rule, establishing that certain states 

failed to submit corrective SIP revisions 

by their December 22, 2010, deadline, is 

necessary so that EPA can promulgate a 

FIP for those same states on December 

23, 2010. This timing will allow the FIP 

to be published and become effective by 

the January 2, 2011, date that PSD will 

first apply to GHG-emitting sources 

under the CAA. If EPA could not meet 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81877 

those dates, for whatever reason, then, 

as of January 2, 2011, certain major 

stationary sources in the affected states 

would be required to obtain PSD 

permits for GHG emissions that no 

permitting authority would be 

authorized to issue. Thus, it would be 

impractical to wait 30 days for this rule 

to take effect. Moreover, EPA finds that 

it is necessary to make this rule effective 

upon publication to avoid any economic 

harm that the public and the regulated 

industry might incur if there is no 

permitting authority able to issue PSD 

permits for GHG emissions on January 

2, 2011. 

The purpose of the APA’s 30-day 

effective date provision is to give 

affected parties time to adjust their 

behavior before the final rule takes 

effect. Each of the states to which this 

rule applies indicated in comment 

letters to EPA that they do not object to 

those deadlines. Both the states and the 

public have been aware that we would 

take this approach to this rule for some 

time, that is, that we would establish a 

SIP submittal deadline as early as 

December 22, 2010, so that we could 

make a finding of failure to submit and 

promulgate a FIP as early as December 

23, 2010, in order that the FIP could 

take effect by the January 2, 2011, date 

that PSD begins to apply to GHGemitting sources. We described this 

approach in the proposed SIP call that 

was signed and made available to the 

public on August 12, 2010, even before 

its September 2, 2010, publication date 

in the Federal Register. Moreover, the 

public was afforded the opportunity to 

comment on this approach in the SIP 

call proposal. See 75 FR 53892, 53896. 

In addition, this rule is not a major 

rule under the Congressional Review 

Act (CRA). Thus, the 60-day delay in 

effective date required for major rules 

under the CRA does not apply. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Notice and Comment Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

This is a final EPA action but is not 

subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

EPA believes that because of the limited 

time provided to make findings of 

failure to submit regarding SIP 

submissions, Congress did not intend 

such findings to be subject to noticeand-comment rulemaking. 

However, to the extent such findings 

are subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, EPA invokes the good cause 

exception pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B), which excuses the noticeand-comment obligation ‘‘when the 

agency for good cause finds (and 

incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons therefor in the 

rules issued) that notice and public 

procedure thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ While the good cause 

exception is to be narrowly construed, 

Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 236 

F.3d 749, 754 (DC Cir. 2001), it is also 

‘‘an important safety valve to be used 

where delay would do real harm.’’ U.S. 

Steel Corp. v. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 595 F.2d 207, 214 

(5th Cir. 1979). Notice and comment is 

impracticable where ‘‘an agency finds 

that due and timely execution of its 

functions would be impeded by the 

notice otherwise required.’’ Utility Solid 

Waste Activities Group, 236 F.3d at 754. 

Notice and comment is contrary to the 

public interest where ‘‘the interest of the 

public would be defeated by any 

requirement of advance notice.’’ Id. at 

755. 

Here, notice and comment are 

unnecessary because no EPA judgment 

is involved in making a nonsubstantive 

finding of failure to submit elements of 

SIP submissions required by the CAA. 

Furthermore, providing notice and 

comment would be impracticable 

because of the limited time provided 

under the statute for making such 

determinations. Finally, notice and 

comment would be contrary to the 

public interest because it would divert 

agency resources from the critical 

substantive review of complete SIPs. 

See 58 FR 51270, 51272, n.17 (October 

1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853 (August 4, 

1994). In addition, in this case, notice 

and comment would be impracticable 

and contrary to the public interest for 

the same reasons, discussed earlier in 

this preamble, why a 30-day effective 

date would be impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest. 

B. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993). This action 

issues a finding that certain states failed 

to submit corrective SIPs by the 

deadline established in EPA’s recently 

promulgated SIP call for the same states. 

This type of action is exempt from 

review under EO 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. 

However, OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations for 

PSD (see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21) and title 

V (see 40 CFR parts 70 and 71) under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0003 and OMB control number 

2060–0336, respectively. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or 

any other statute. This rule is not 

subject to the notice-and-comment 

requirement of the APA, because the 

Agency has invoked the ‘‘good cause’’ 

exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Thus, 

this rule is not subject to the RFA. 

E. 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. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action does not impose any new 

obligations or enforceable duties on any 

small governments. 

F. Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

merely prescribes EPA’s action for states 

that do not meet their existing 

obligation for PSD SIP submittal. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicited comment on this 

action, as part of the FIP proposal, from 

state and local officials. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
81878 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

G. Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). In this action, EPA is not 

addressing any tribal implementation 

plans. This action is limited to states 

that do not meet their existing 

obligation for PSD SIP submittal. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this final rule, EPA 

specifically solicited additional 

comment on the proposal for this action 

from tribal officials and we received one 

comment from a tribal agency. 

Additionally, EPA participated in a 

conference call on July 29, 2010, with 

the National Tribal Air Association 

(NTAA). 

H. Executive Order 13045—Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets E.O. 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 E.O. has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to E.O. 13045 because it merely 

prescribes EPA’s action for states that do 

not meet their existing obligation for 

PSD SIP submittal. 

I. Executive Order 13211—Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), 

because it is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

This action merely prescribes EPA’s 

action for states that do not meet their 

existing obligation for PSD SIP 

submittal. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 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. 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898—Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 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 U.S. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This rule merely 

prescribes EPA’s action for states that do 

not meet their existing obligation for 

PSD SIP submittal. 

L. Congressional Review Act 

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. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties. 5 U.S. 804(3). EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding this action under section 801 

because this is a rule of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice that 

does not substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties. 

V. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 

judicial review of this final action is 

available by filing of a petition for 

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by 

February 28, 2011. Any such judicial 

review is limited to only those 

objections that are raised with 

reasonable specificity in timely 

comments. Under section 307(b)(2) of 

the Act, the requirements of this final 

action may not be challenged later in 

civil or criminal proceedings brought by 

us to enforce these requirements. 

VI. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 101, 111, 114, 

116, and 301 of the CAA as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, and 

7601). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, 

Carbon dioxide equivalents, Carbon 

monoxide, Environmental protection, 

Greenhouse gases, Hydrofluorocarbons, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Methane, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrous 

oxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Perfluorocarbons, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

hexafluoride, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 23, 2010. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32762 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0205; FRL–8857–4] 

Imazosulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of imazosulfuron 

in or on pepper, bell; pepper, non-bell; 

rice, grain; and tomato. Valent USA 

Corporation requested these tolerances 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

December 29, 2010. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before February 28, 2011, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES