Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66651 

modifications required to obtain PSD 

permits because of emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs for which 

either the time for filing an 

administrative appeal has not expired or 

all administrative and judicial appeals 

processes have not been completed by 

November 10, 2014. Except that the EPA 

will not retain authority over a permit 

if an applicant submits a written request 

to the EPA to withdraw the permit 

application while an administrative 

appeal is pending and the Regional 

Administrator then withdraws the 

permit under 40 CFR 124.19(j) or the 

Environmental Appeals Board grants a 

voluntary remand under 40 CFR 

124.19(j) or another appropriate remedy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26315 Filed 11–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0140, FRL–9918–97– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alaska: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the 

Alaska State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

as meeting specific infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 

18, 1997 and October 17, 2006, and for 

ozone on March 12, 2008. Whenever a 

new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, 

the CAA requires states to submit a plan 

for the implementation, maintenance 

and enforcement of such NAAQS. The 

plan is required to address basic 

program elements, including but not 

limited to regulatory structure, 

monitoring, modeling, legal authority, 

and adequate resources necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

standards. These elements are referred 

to as infrastructure requirements. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2014–0140. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which 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 either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, AWT–150, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at: (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comment 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Section 110 of the CAA specifies the 

general requirements for states to submit 

SIPs to implement, maintain and 

enforce the NAAQS and the EPA’s 

actions regarding approval of those SIPs. 

On July 9, 2012 and March 29, 2011, 

Alaska made SIP submissions to the 

EPA demonstrating that the Alaska SIP 

meets the infrastructure requirements of 

the CAA for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

and 2008 ozone NAAQS. On July 16, 

2014, we proposed approval of the 

Alaska SIP as meeting the following 

CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

and 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) 

(79 FR 41496). We also proposed 

approval of the Alaska SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, we 

proposed approval of the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

An explanation of the CAA 

requirements and implementing 

regulations that are met by these SIP 

submissions, a detailed explanation of 

the submissions, and the EPA’s reasons 

for the proposed action were provided 

in the notice of proposed rulemaking on 

July 16, 2014, and will not be restated 

here (79 FR 41496). Below we address 

a recent court decision related to the 

application of PSD permitting 

requirements to greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) and why we believe the decision 

does not impact this action. 

With respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the EPA interprets 

the CAA to require each state to make 

an infrastructure SIP submission for a 

new or revised NAAQS that 

demonstrates that the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied 

by demonstrating the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

correctly addressing all regulated NSR 

pollutants. Alaska has shown that it 

currently has a PSD program in place 

that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, 

including GHGs. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an 

air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also said that the EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). In order to 

act consistently with its understanding 

of the Court’s decision pending further 

judicial action to effectuate the decision, 

the EPA is not continuing to apply the 

EPA regulations that would require that 

SIPs include permitting requirements 

that the Supreme Court found 

impermissible. Specifically, the EPA is 

not applying the requirement that a 

state’s SIP-approved PSD program 

require that sources obtain PSD permits 

when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) 

that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the major source 

thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a 

significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). 

The EPA anticipates a need to revise 

federal PSD rules in light of the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66652 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Supreme Court opinion. In addition, the 

EPA anticipates that many states will 

revise their existing SIP-approved PSD 

programs in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. The timing and 

content of subsequent EPA actions with 

respect to EPA regulations and state 

PSD program approvals are expected to 

be informed by additional legal process 

before the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia Circuit. At 

this juncture, the EPA is not expecting 

states to have revised their PSD 

programs for purposes of infrastructure 

SIP submissions and is only evaluating 

such submissions to assure that the 

state’s program correctly addresses 

GHGs consistent with the Supreme 

Court’s decision. 

At present, the EPA has determined 

the Alaska SIP is sufficient to satisfy 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 

(J) with respect to GHGs because the 

PSD permitting program previouslyapproved by the EPA into the SIP 

continues to require that PSD permits 

(otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs) contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. Although the 

approved Alaska PSD permitting 

program may currently contain 

provisions that are no longer necessary 

in light of the Supreme Court decision, 

this does not render the infrastructure 

SIP submission inadequate to satisfy 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 

(J) for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The SIP 

contains the necessary PSD 

requirements at this time, and the 

application of those requirements is not 

impeded by the presence of other 

previously-approved provisions 

regarding the permitting of sources of 

GHGs that the EPA does not consider 

necessary at this time in light of the 

Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, 

the Supreme Court decision does not 

affect the EPA’s approval of Alaska’s 

infrastructure SIP as to the requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), 

and (J) for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

II. Response to Comment 

The public comment period for our 

proposed action ended on August 15, 

2014, and we received one comment via 

email from Robert Ukeiley of the Law 

Office of Robert Ukeiley. 

Comment: ‘‘EPA must disapprove all 

of the PSD related elements of all three 

of these proposed Infrastructure SIPs 

because Alaska does not have PM2.5

increments in its SIP approved PSD 

program. EPA can approve these PSD 

related elements if the PM2.5 increments 

are approved into the Alaska SIP prior 

to final action on these infrastructure 

SIPs. Also, the Alaska minor source 

permitting program does not prohibit 

minor sources from causing or 

contributing to PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS 

violations. Therefore, all SIP elements 

related to the minor source permitting 

program must be disapproved.’’ 

Response: With respect to the first 

part of the comment on Alaska’s PSD 

program, we agree with the commenter. 

In our proposal we stated that final 

action on the Alaska infrastructure SIP 

requirements would be contingent upon 

our first taking final action on revisions 

to the Alaska SIP to reflect changes to 

the NAAQS and federal PSD regulations 

that we proposed to approve on May 5, 

2014 (79 FR 25533). On September 19, 

2014, we finalized approval of the 

revisions, including updates to the PSD 

program for purposes of PM2.5 (79 FR 

56268). Because we approved the 

NAAQS and PSD revisions to the Alaska 

SIP on September 19, 2014, including 

the PM2.5 PSD increments, we are now 

finalizing our infrastructure approval. 

With respect to the second part of the 

comment on Alaska’s minor NSR 

program, we disagree with the 

commenter. Alaska’s minor NSR 

program was originally approved into 

the SIP by the EPA on July 5, 1983 (48 

FR 30623). We recently approved 

revisions to Alaska’s minor NSR rules 

on September 19, 2014 (79 FR 56268). 

In that action, we determined that the 

revisions to Alaska’s minor NSR 

program met the federal minor NSR 

regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 

51.160–164 ‘‘Review of New Sources 

and Modifications’’ which include the 

requirement at 40 CFR 51.160(a) that all 

SIPs contain legally enforceable 

procedures to ensure that construction 

or modification of a stationary source 

will not cause a violation of a NAAQS 

or any applicable portions of the control 

strategy. Alaska’s federally-approved 

minor NSR rules are located at 18 AAC 

50, Article 5 ‘‘Minor Permits.’’ 18 AAC 

50.542(f)(1)(B) (approval criteria) and 18 

AAC 50.544(c)(1) (screening ambient air 

quality analysis) specifically address the 

requirement at 40 CFR 51.160(a). 

In our September 19, 2014, action we 

determined that the Alaska minor NSR 

program meets federal requirements. We 

are now finalizing our approval of the 

Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect 

to minor NSR for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is approving the Alaska SIP 

as meeting the following CAA section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are also 

approving the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, we are 

approving the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the CAA. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 CAA. 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: 

• 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 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66653 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the 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 as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

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. The 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 9, 2015. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 27, 2014. 

Michelle Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—Alaska 

■ 2. In § 52.70, the table in paragraph (e) 

is amended by adding three entries at 

the end of the table for: ‘‘110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements—1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.’’; ‘‘110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements—2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.’’; and ‘‘110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements—2008 

Ozone NAAQS.’’ 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.70 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALASKA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or non-attainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA Approval date Comments 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

*******

110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements—1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ..................... 7/9/12 11/10/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].Approves SIP for purposes of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (H), (J), 

(K), (L), and (M) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements—2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ..................... 7/9/12, 3/29/11 11/10/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].Approves SIP for purposes of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), 

(F), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements—2008 

Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide ..................... 7/9/12, 3/29/11 11/10/14 .......................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

Approves SIP for purposes of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS 

[FR Doc. 2014–26523 Filed 11–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66654 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0765; FRL–9918–94– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 

Approval of Revisions to Inspection 

and Maintenance (I/M) Regulations 

Within the North Carolina State 

Implementation Plan; Correcting 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: On October 30, 2002, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a direct final rule in the 

Federal Register approving North 

Carolina State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions, submitted through the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (NC 

DENR), Division of Air Quality (DAQ), 

regarding the State’s enhanced 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program. This correcting amendment 

corrects inadvertent errors for two rule 

titles in the regulatory text of EPA’s 

October 30, 2002, direct final rule. 

DATES: This action is effective 

November 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the 

documentation used in the action being 

corrected are available for inspection 

during normal business hours at the 

following location: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can also be reached via 

electronic mail at ward.nacosta@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

action corrects the titles for two North 

Carolina regulations that appear in 

North Carolina’s Identification of Plan at 

section 40 CFR 52.1770(c) under Table 

1, at Subchapter 2D Air Pollution 

Control Requirements, Section .1000 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Control 

Standard. The two titles that appear in 

Table 1 as approved in EPA’s direct 

final rulemaking on October 30, 2002 

(67 FR 66056), are Sect .1004 

‘‘Emissions Standards’’ and Sect .1005 

‘‘Measurement and Enforcement.’’ 

However, the rule titles should read 

Sect .1004 ‘‘Tailpipe Emission 

Standards for CO and HC’’ and Sect 

.1005 ‘‘On-Board Diagnostic Standards’’ 

as provided in the red-line/

strikethrough portion of NC DENR’s 

August 7, 2002, SIP revision. EPA is 

correcting these inadvertent errors by 

replacing the current titles for Sect 

.1004 and Sect .1005 with the correct 

titles into North Carolina’s 

Identification of Plan section of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 

CFR 52.1770(c). 

EPA has determined that this action 

falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption 

in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

which, upon finding ‘‘good cause,’’ 

authorizes agencies to dispense with 

public participation where public notice 

and comment procedures are 

impracticable, unnecessary or contrary 

to the public interest. Public notice and 

comment for this action are unnecessary 

because this action to insert the correct 

titles in the CFR for Sect .1004 and Sect 

.1005 for North Carolina’s regulations 

has no substantive impact on EPA’s 

October 30, 2002, approval. The use of 

incorrect titles as printed for the two 

regulations in the regulatory text section 

of EPA’s direct final rule published on 

October 30, 2002, makes no substantive 

difference to EPA’s analysis as set out in 

the rule. In addition, EPA can identify 

no particular reason why the public 

would be interested in having the 

opportunity to comment on the 

corrections prior to this action being 

finalized, since this correcting 

amendment does not change the 

meaning of the regulations at issue or 

otherwise change EPA’s analysis of 

North Carolina’s enhanced I/M SIP 

revision. See 67 FR 66056. 

EPA also finds that there is good 

cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for 

these corrections to become effective on 

the date of publication of this action. 

Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an 

effective date less than 30 days after 

publication ‘‘as otherwise provided by 

the agency for good cause found and 

published with the rule.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day 

waiting period prescribed in APA 

section 553(d)(3) is to give affected 

parties a reasonable time to adjust their 

behavior and prepare before the final 

rule takes effect. This rule, however, 

does not create any new regulatory 

requirements such that affected parties 

would need time to prepare before the 

rule takes effect. Rather, this rule merely 

corrects inadvertent errors for the two 

aforementioned rule titles contained in 

the North Carolina regulations which 

EPA approved on October 30, 2002. For 

these reasons, EPA finds good cause 

under APA section 553(d)(3) for this 

correction to become effective on the 

date of publication of this action. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely corrects 

inadvertent errors for the two 

aforementioned rule titles contained in 

the North Carolina regulations which 

EPA approved on October 30, 2002, and 

it imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule merely 

corrects inadvertent errors for the two 

aforementioned rule titles contained in 

the North Carolina regulations which 

EPA approved on October 30, 2002, and 

does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it 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). 

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 as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

This rule also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES