75658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—2007–2009 FOURTH-HIGH 8-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AND 2007–2009 DESIGN VALUES

(PARTS PER MILLION) IN THE BOSTON-MANCHESTER-PORTSMOUTH (SE), NEW HAMPSHIRE AREA—Continued 

Location AQS site ID 4th high 2007 4th high 2008 4th high 2009 Design value 

(07–09) 

Nashua ................................................................................. 330111011 0.081 0.067 0.066 0.071 

Portsmouth ........................................................................... 330150014 0.078 0.069 0.070 0.072 

Rye ....................................................................................... 330150016 0.086 0.075 0.068 0.076 

EPA’s review of these data indicates 

that the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth 

(SE), New Hampshire ozone 

nonattainment area has met the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, based on 2007– 

2009 data. EPA believes these data, 

coupled with preliminary data available 

through June 15, 2010, indicate that the 

Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), 

New Hampshire area has also attained 

the standard as of its applicable 

attainment date of June 15, 2010. Thus, 

in accordance with CAA section 

181(b)(2), EPA is also proposing to 

determine that the Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth (SE), New Hampshire area 

has attained the standard by its 

applicable attainment date. 

EPA is soliciting public comment on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters pertaining to this 

rulemaking action. These comments 

will be considered before EPA takes 

final action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA New England 

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

V. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (SE), 

New Hampshire 1997 8-hour ozone 

moderate nonattainment area continues 

to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, based on complete, qualityassured data from 2007 through 2009. 

Data for 2010 that are available in AQS 

through June 30, 2010 are consistent 

with continued attainment. As provided 

in 40 CFR Section 51.918, if EPA 

finalizes this determination, the 

requirements for New Hampshire to 

submit planning SIPs related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for this area remain suspended, 

for so long as the area continues to 

attain the standard. In addition, under 

section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act 

and the provisions of EPA’s ozone 

implementation rule (see 40 CFR 

51.902(a)), EPA is proposing to 

determine that this area has attained the 

1997 ozone NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date of June 15, 2010. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

These actions propose to make 

determinations of attainment based on 

air quality, and would, if finalized, 

result in the continued suspension of 

certain Federal requirements, and 

would not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. For that reason, these 

proposed actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are 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.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not subject to the 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Do 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, 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. 

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

Dated: November 24, 2010. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30493 Filed 12–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0921, FRL–9235–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alaska: 

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 Commissioner of the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) to EPA on October 

25, 2010, for parallel processing. The 

proposed SIP revision updates Alaska’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program to reflect changes to the 

Federal PSD program relating to the 

permitting of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions. EPA is proposing in this 

action to approve those revisions if the 

final SIP revision submitted by Alaska 

to EPA is consistent with the draft SIP 

revision. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 5, 2011. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 75659 

1The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V 

program, which requires operating permits for 

existing sources. However, today’s action does not 

affect Alaska’s title V program. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2010–0921, by any of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Scott Hedges, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Scott 

Hedges, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

AWT–107. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010– 

0921. 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, 

is not placed on the Internet and 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 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Hedges at telephone number: (206) 

553–0296, e-mail address: 

hedges.scott@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing today? 

II. What is the background for the action that 

EPA is proposing today? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Alaska’s 

proposed SIP revision? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing today? 

On October 25, 2010, ADEC submitted 

a draft revision to EPA for approval into 

the Alaska’s SIP to update Alaska’s PSD 

program to reflect changes to the 

Federal PSD program that would 

authorize the State of Alaska to regulate 

GHGs under its PSD program and 

establish appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

or modified stationary sources become 

subject to Alaska’s PSD permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions. ADEC 

subsequently clarified in an e-mail 

dated November 16, 2010, that its 

request is limited to updating the 

incorporation by reference date of 40 

CFR 52.21 in 18 AAC 50.040(h) in order 

to incorporate the new definition of 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ in 40 CFR 

52.21(49) to clarify the meaning of the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

in the Alaska SIP so as to make the 

Alaska SIP consistent with Federal PSD 

requirements for the regulation of GHGs. 

Because this draft SIP revision is not 

yet State-effective, Alaska requested that 

EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ the SIP revision. 

Under this procedure, the EPA Regional 

Office works closely with the State 

while developing new or revised 

regulations. Generally, the State submits 

a copy of the proposed regulation or 

other revisions before final 

promulgation by the State. EPA reviews 

this proposed State action and prepares 

a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA 

publishes this notice of proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register and 

solicits public comment in 

approximately the same time frame 

during which the State is completing its 

rulemaking action. 

In this case, the regulatory revisions 

submitted in Alaska’s October 25, 2010, 

proposed SIP revision have already gone 

through public review and were 

adopted by the Commissioner of ADEC 

on September 27, 2010. On November 8, 

2010, ADEC provided EPA with a 

revised draft submittal following review 

by the Alaska Department of Law. On 

November 16, 2010, ADEC advised EPA 

that the revisions that were filed by the 

Alaska Lieutenant Governor on 

November 9, 2010, will become effective 

as a matter of State law on December 8, 

2010, and will be submitted as a final 

SIP revision before December 1, 2010. 

Therefore, EPA is processing this 

proposed rulemaking prior to Alaska’s 

submission of the final SIP revision. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

update to 18 AAC 50.040(h) with 

respect to the definition of ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ as a revision to the Alaska 

SIP if the final SIP revision relating to 

the PSD permitting of GHGs submitted 

by Alaska to EPA is consistent with the 

proposed SIP revision. Final approval of 

Alaska’s SIP revision will make Alaska’s 

SIP for GHG-emitting sources consistent 

with Federal PSD requirements for GHG 

emissions, including the GHG emission 

thresholds for PSD applicability. If 

changes are made to the SIP revision 

after this proposal, such changes will be 

acknowledged in EPA’s final 

rulemaking action and, if such changes 

are significant, may require a reproposal 

and an additional public comment 

period. 

II. What is the background for the 

action that EPA is proposing today? 

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 

2010), EPA promulgated a final 

rulemaking tailoring the applicability 

criteria that determine which stationary 

sources and modification projects 

become subject to permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under 

the PSD and title V permitting 

programs. See ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule,’’ (the 

Tailoring Rule), 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 

2010).1 In particular, by amending the 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation,’’ 

EPA established thresholds for GHGs 

with a phase-in approach for PSD 

applicability and established the first 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
75660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2See ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 

7, 2010). 

3As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 

FR 53892, 53896), EPA intends to finalize its 

finding of substantial inadequacy and the SIP call 

for the 13 listed States by December 1,2010. EPA 

requested that the States for which EPA is 

proposing a SIP call identify the deadline—between 

3 weeks and 12 months from the date of signature 

of the final SIP Call—that they would accept for 

submitting their corrective SIP revision. 

4 18 AAC 50.040(h)(4)(C)(i) states that the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50) is not adopted and that that term shall 

have the meaning assigned to it in 18 AAC 50.990. 

The SIP-approved version of 18 AAC 50.990(92) 

states that ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ has the 

meaning given in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49), which is 

the same definition as in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50). 

two steps of the phase-in for the largest 

GHG-emitters. As EPA explained in the 

Tailoring Rule, the threshold limitations 

are necessary because without it, PSD 

would apply to all stationary sources 

that emit or have the potential to emit 

more than 100 or 250 tons of GHGs per 

year beginning on January 2, 2011. This 

is the date when EPA’s recently 

promulgated Light Duty Vehicle Rule 

takes effect,2 imposing control 

requirements for the first time on GHGs. 

If this January 2, 2011, date were to pass 

without the Tailoring Rule being in 

effect, PSD requirements would apply to 

GHG emissions at the 100/250 tons per 

year applicability levels provided under 

a literal reading of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) as of that date. From 

that point forward, a source owner 

proposing to construct any new major 

source that emits at or higher than the 

applicability levels (and which therefore 

may be referred to as a ‘‘major’’ source) 

or modify any existing major source in 

a way that would increase GHG 

emissions would need to obtain a 

permit under the PSD program that 

addresses these emissions before 

construction or modification could 

begin. See 75 FR 31514. 

As explained in the Tailoring Rule, 

many State, local and Tribal area 

programs will likely be able to 

immediately implement the approach in 

the Tailoring Rule without rule or 

statutory changes by, for example, 

interpreting the term ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ that is part of the 

applicability provisions for PSD 

permitting. EPA has requested 

permitting authorities to confirm that 

they will follow this implementation 

approach for their programs, and if they 

cannot, then EPA has requested that 

they notify the Agency so that we can 

take appropriate follow-up action to 

narrow Federal approval of their 

programs before GHGs become subject 

to PSD permitting on January 2, 2011. 

Narrowing EPA’s approval will ensure 

that for Federal purposes, sources with 

GHG emissions that are less than the 

Tailoring Rule’s emission thresholds 

will not be obligated under Federal law 

to obtain PSD permits during the gap 

between when GHG PSD requirements 

go into effect on January 2, 2011 and 

when either (1) EPA approves a SIP 

revision adopting EPA’s tailoring 

approach, or (2) if a State opts to 

regulate smaller GHG-emitting sources, 

the State demonstrates to EPA that it has 

adequate resources to handle permitting 

for such sources. EPA expects to finalize 

the narrowing action prior to the 

January 2, 2011 deadline with respect to 

those States for which EPA will not 

have approved the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds in their SIPs by that time. 

On August 2, 2010, Alaska provided 

a letter to EPA explaining that its PSD 

rules only apply to pollutants ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ at the time of adoption in 

July 1, 2004, and that Alaska thus did 

not have authority to issue PSD permits 

that address GHG emissions. By notice 

dated September 2, 2010, EPA issued a 

proposed ‘‘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 

(September 2, 2010) (GHG SIP Call). In 

that action, along with a companion 

proposal published at the same time, 

EPA took steps to ensure that in States 

that do not appear to have authority to 

issue PSD permits to GHG-emitting 

sources at present, either the State or 

EPA will have the authority to issue 

such permits by January 2, 2011. EPA 

explained in the GHG SIP Call that, 

although for most States, either the State 

or EPA is already authorized to issue 

PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources 

as of that date, our preliminary 

information showed that 13 States, 

including Alaska, have EPA-approved 

PSD programs that do not appear to 

include GHG-emitting sources and 

therefore do not appear to authorize 

these States to issue PSD permits to 

such sources. Therefore, EPA proposed 

to find that these 13 States’ SIPs are 

substantially inadequate to comply with 

CAA requirements and, accordingly, 

proposed to issue a SIP Call to require 

a SIP revision that applies their SIP PSD 

programs to GHG-emitting sources.3

In a companion rulemaking issued on 

the same date, EPA proposed a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) that would 

give EPA authority to apply EPA’s PSD 

program to GHG-emitting sources in any 

State that is unable to submit a 

corrective SIP revision by its deadline. 

See ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue 

Permits Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program to 

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Federal Implementation Plan, Proposed 

Rule,’’ 75 FR 53883 (September 2, 2010) 

(GHG FIP). Alaska was one of the States 

for which EPA proposed a SIP Call and 

a FIP because, as discussed above, 

Alaska advised EPA that it did not 

interpret its then current PSD 

regulations as providing it with the 

authority to regulate GHGs. 

Alaska’s proposed SIP revision that is 

the subject of this rulemaking, however, 

addresses this authority. Therefore, if 

the State submits its final SIP revision 

to EPA prior to the final rulemaking for 

the GHG SIP Call, EPA will not take 

final action on the GHG SIP Call for 

Alaska. Additionally, Alaska would not 

be subject to the FIP if EPA finalizes 

today’s proposed approval of the 

Alaska’s SIP revision. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Alaska’s 

proposed SIP revision? 

The State of Alaska is currently a SIPapproved State for the PSD program, 

and has incorporated EPA’s 2002 New 

Source Review (NSR) reform revisions 

for PSD into its SIP. See 72 FR 45378 

(August 14, 2007). However, Alaska 

does not interpret its PSD rules that are 

currently in the SIP, which generally 

incorporate the Federal rules by 

reference, to be automatically updating 

to include newly designated regulated 

air pollutants such as GHGs. As 

discussed above, in a letter provided to 

EPA on August 2, 2010, Alaska notified 

EPA that the State did not then have the 

authority to regulate GHGs under the 

PSD program and thus was in the 

process of revising its regulations (the 

subject of this proposed action) to 

provide this authority. 

The proposed rules submitted by 

ADEC to EPA with the proposed SIP 

revision updates its incorporation by 

reference of the Federal PSD 

requirements at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 

CFR 52.21–40 CFR 52.22 (Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality) 

to include all revisions to these Federal 

requirements as of August 2, 2010, the 

effective date of the Tailoring Rule. See 

18 AAC 50.040(h). ADEC has requested 

that EPA approve this update only with 

respect to the definition of ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49) 

promulgated in the Tailoring Rule 

(effective August 2, 2010), which in turn 

clarifies the meaning of the State 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant.’’ 4 As discussed below, ADEC 

intends to request that EPA approve 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 75661 

these rule revisions with respect to all 

other changes in a subsequent and 

separate SIP revision request. 

As discussed above, unless EPA either 

approves the Alaska SIP revision 

authorizing the PSD permitting of GHG 

emissions by January 2, 2010, or unless 

EPA promulgates a FIP to do so, such 

sources will be unable to receive 

preconstruction permits and therefore 

may not be able to construct or modify 

in the State of Alaska after that date. 

Alaska’s incorporation by reference of 

the new definition of ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49) is 

consistent with EPA’s regulation of GHG 

emissions under the Federal PSD 

program. Therefore, if the final SIP 

submitted by ADEC to EPA is consistent 

with the proposed SIP revision, EPA is 

proposing to approve this revision 

because Alaska’s regulation is consistent 

with the CAA PSD requirements and its 

implementing regulations regarding 

GHGs. 

IV. Proposed Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is proposing to approve the State 

of Alaska’s draft SIP revision that 

reflects changes to the Federal PSD 

program as of August 2, 2010, relating 

to the permitting of GHGs if the final 

SIP revision submitted by Alaska to EPA 

is consistent with the proposed SIP 

revision. This proposed SIP revision 

provides Alaska with the authority to 

regulate GHGs under its PSD program 

and establishes appropriate emissions 

thresholds for determining PSD 

applicability to new and modified GHGemitting sources in accordance with 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that this SIP 

revision is approvable because it is in 

accordance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding PSD permitting for 

GHGs. 

Note that ADEC has made other 

changes to its rules for PSD permitting 

and other air regulations that it has not 

submitted as part of this draft SIP 

revision (subject to this action) and does 

not intend to submit as part of its final 

SIP submission. However, ADEC does 

intend to submit these other rules and 

regulations as a subsequent SIP revision 

in the near future. Because of the need 

to approve as a SIP revision the changes 

relating to the PSD permitting of GHGs 

by January 2, 2011 or as soon thereafter 

as possible to ensure the State has 

adequate authority to issue PSD permits 

to subject sources emitting GHGs, once 

the requirements go into effect as a 

matter of Federal law, EPA believes it is 

appropriate to approve Alaska’s 

revisions that update the Alaska PSD 

program to address GHG emissions as a 

SIP strengthening measure. 

V. 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 approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves the State’s law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the State’s law. For that reason, this 

proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• 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.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• 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 

• 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, 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 Alaska, 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, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: November 19, 2010. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30479 Filed 12–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1