Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 65627 

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 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, these actions do 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing these actions and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 31, 

2012. 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 15, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 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 EE—New Hampshire 

■ 2. Section 52.1534 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1534 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(g) Determination of Attainment. 

Effective November 29, 2012, EPA is 

determining that the Portsmouth-DoverRochester one-hour ozone 

nonattainment area met the one-hour 

ozone standard, by the area’s applicable 

attainment date of November 15, 1999, 

based on 1997–1999 complete, certified, 

quality-assured ozone monitoring data 

at all monitoring sites in the area. 

Separate from and independent of this 

determination, EPA is determining that 

the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester serious 

one-hour ozone nonattainment area has 

attained the one-hour ozone standard 

since 1999 and continues to attain based 

on complete, quality-assured data ozone 

monitoring data through 2011. 

(h) Determination of Attainment. 

Effective November 29, 2012, EPA is 

determining that the Manchester onehour ozone nonattainment area met the 

one-hour ozone standard, by the area’s 

applicable attainment date of November 

15, 1993, based on 1991–1993 complete, 

certified, quality-assured ozone 

monitoring data at all monitoring sites 

in the area. Separate from and 

independent of this determination, EPA 

is determining that the Manchester 

marginal one-hour ozone nonattainment 

area has attained the one-hour ozone 

standard, since 1993, and that it 

continues to attain based on complete 

quality-assured ozone monitoring data 

through 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26524 Filed 10–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0169; FRL–9745–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Deferral for CO2 Emissions From 

Bioenergy and other Biogenic Sources 

Under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on 

December 14, 2011. This revision defers 

until July 21, 2014 the application of the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permitting requirements to 

biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 

from bioenergy and other biogenic 

stationary sources in the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. This action 

is being taken under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0169. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
65628 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On April 18, 2012, (77 FR 23178), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR 

proposed approval of a revision to the 

Virginia SIP which would defer until 

July 21, 2014 the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to biogenic CO2

emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic stationary sources in the 

commonwealth of Virginia. Other 

specific requirements of Virginia’s SIP 

revision and the rationale for EPA’s 

proposed action are explained in the 

NPR and will not be restated here. The 

formal SIP revision was submitted by 

VADEQ on December 14, 2011. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

EPA incorporated the biomass 

deferral into the regulations governing 

state programs and into the Federal PSD 

program by amending the definition of 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ under 40 CFR 

51.166 and 52.21 respectively. Virginia 

has adopted this same approach. The 

SIP revision incorporates the Biomass 

Deferral into Virginia’s PSD program by 

amending the definition of ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ under 9VAC5–85–50C. The 

language adopted by Virginia mirrors 

the language in the Federal regulations. 

EPA last took action on these provisions 

on May 13, 2011 (76 FR 27898). In 

addition to the incorporation of the 

Biomass Deferral, the SIP revision 

makes a minor, clarifying revision to 

9VAC5–85–50B. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. On January 12, 

1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia 

Office of the Attorney General provided 

a legal opinion that states that the 

Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, 

precludes granting a privilege to 

documents and information ‘‘required 

by law,’’ including documents and 

information ‘‘required by Federal law to 

maintain program delegation, 

authorization or approval,’’ since 

Virginia must ‘‘enforce Federally 

authorized environmental programs in a 

manner that is no less stringent than 

their Federal counterparts * * *.’’ The 

opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding 

§ 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or 

other information needed for civil or 

criminal enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ Therefore, EPA 

has determined that Virginia’s Privilege 

and Immunity statutes will not preclude 

the Commonwealth from enforcing its 

PSD program consistent with the 

Federal requirements. In any event, 

because EPA has also determined that a 

state audit privilege and immunity law 

can affect only state enforcement and 

cannot have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Received on the Proposed Action 

EPA received two sets of timely 

public comments. Both sets were 

supportive of our proposed action, and 

are included in the docket. While it is 

not generally our practice to respond to 

specific comments when those 

comments are in support of a proposed 

action, one of the submitted comments 

contained some factual inaccuracies 

which we feel should be addressed and 

corrected for the record. One commenter 

wrote in closing: ‘‘Because the PSD 

provisions of the Biomass Deferral have 

already been incorporated into 

Virginia’s SIP and approved by EPA in 

2011, the current 2012 proposed SIP 

revisions incorporate the Title V 

provisions of the Biomass Deferral 

through (sic) amendments to 9VAC5 

Chapter 85, Permits For Stationary 

Sources of Pollutants Subject to 

Regulation, Part II—Federal (Title V) 

Operating Permit Actions. We agree 

with EPA’s conclusion that the 

proposed Title V amendments to 

Virginia’s SIP are consistent with 

federal requirements and should 

therefore be approved as proposed.’’ 

EPA did not ‘‘incorporate the PSD 

provisions of the Biomass Deferral into 

Virginia’s SIP in 2011.’’ Indeed, as we 

stated in our notice of proposed 

rulemaking and reiterated earlier, the 

purpose of the present rulemaking 

action is to incorporate the Biomass 

Deferral provisions into the Virginia 

SIP. It is not clear to which 2011 action 

the commenter is referring. On May 13, 

2011, EPA took final action to approve 

the Tailoring Rule provisions into the 

Virginia SIP (76 FR 27898). However, 

the Biomass Deferral is a separate 

rulemaking action and was not 

addressed at that time. Furthermore, as 

we stated in our notice of proposed 

rulemaking, the present rulemaking 

action does not address the title V 

provisions of the Biomass Deferral, and 

addresses only Virginia’s PSD program 

(See, 77 FR 23179, Footnote No. 1). 

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving the revisions to 

9VAC5–85–50 into the Virginia SIP. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 65629 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

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, 

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 

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 the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 December 31, 2012. 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 

pertaining to GHG permitting under 

Virginia’s PSD program may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 10, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry for 

Chapter 85, Section 5–85–50 to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] 

*******

9 VAC 5, Chapter 85 ............... Permits for Stationary Sources of Pollutants Subject to Regulation 

*******

Part III ...................................... Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Actions 

*******

5–85–50 ................................... Definitions ............................... 11/9/11 10/30/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised definition of ‘‘subject 

to regulation.’’ 

*******


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
65630 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–26539 Filed 10–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0152; FRL–9746–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; The 2002 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory for the 

Washington DC–MD–VA 

Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) 2002 base year 

emissions inventory portion of the 

District of Columbia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the District of Columbia, 

through the District Department of the 

Environment (DDOE), on April 2, 2008. 

The emissions inventory is part of the 

April 2, 2008 SIP revision that was 

submitted to meet nonattainment 

requirements related to the District of 

Columbia’s portion of the Washington 

DC–MD–VA nonattainment area 

(hereafter referred to as DC Area or 

Area) for the 1997 PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

SIP. EPA is approving the 2002 base 

year PM2.5 emissions inventory in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0152. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the District of Columbia 

Department of the Environment, Air 

Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 

5th floor, Washington, DC 20002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Asrah Khadr, (215) 814–2071, or by 

email at khadr.asrah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50964), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the District of 

Columbia. The NPR proposed approval 

of the 2002 base year emissions 

inventory portion of the District of 

Columbia SIP revision. The formal SIP 

revision was submitted by the District of 

Columbia on April 2, 2008. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The 2002 base year emissions 

inventory submitted by DDOE on April 

2, 2008 includes emissions estimates 

that cover the general source categories 

of point sources, non-road mobile 

sources, area sources, on-road mobile 

sources, and biogenic sources. The 

pollutants that comprise the inventory 

are nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), PM2.5, 

coarse particles (PM10), ammonia (NH3), 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2). EPA has 

reviewed the results, procedures and 

methodologies for the base year 

emissions inventory submitted by 

DDOE. The year 2002 was selected by 

DDOE as the base year for the emissions 

inventory per 40 CFR 51.1008(b). A 

discussion of the emissions inventory 

development as well as the emissions 

inventory can be found in Appendix B 

of the April 2, 2008 SIP submittal and 

in the NPR. Specific requirements of the 

base year inventory and the rationale for 

EPA’s action are explained in the NPR 

and will not be restated here. No public 

comments were received on the NPR. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the 2002 base year 

PM2.5 emissions inventory as a revision 

to the District of Columbia SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

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, 

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 

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 the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES