29314 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: May 6, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11868 Filed 5–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0350; FRL–9815–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of Utah; 

Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a portion of a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 

from the State of Utah that is intended 

to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain 

interstate transport requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘CAA’’) for the 

2006 fine particulate matter (‘‘PM2.5’’) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). This SIP submission 

addresses the requirement that Utah’s 

SIP contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit air emissions from adversely 

affecting another state’s air quality 

through interstate transport. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the portion of the Utah SIP 

submission that addresses the CAA 

requirement prohibiting emissions from 

Utah sources from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by any other state. 

Under a recent court decision, this 

disapproval does not trigger an 

obligation for EPA to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address these interstate transport 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0350, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0350. 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 email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

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, 

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 Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–7104, 

clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer 

to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(iv) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The initials UDEQ mean or refer 

to the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(vii) The words Utah and State mean 

the State of Utah. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29315 

1This proposed action does not address the two 

elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 

interference with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility in another state. We will act on these 

elements in a separate rulemaking. 

2See NOx SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 

1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 

25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011). 

3CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport 

B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate 

Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the Eastern Portion of the United States 

C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions To 

Address Interstate Transport for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS 

III. Utah’s Submittal 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

identifies four distinct elements related 

to the evaluation of impacts of interstate 

transport of air pollutants. In this action 

for the state of Utah, EPA is addressing 

the first two elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)—the two elements 

contained in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)— 

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.1

The first element requires that each SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute 

significantly to nonattainment’’ of the 

NAAQS in another state. The second 

element requires that each SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity in the 

state from emitting pollutants that will 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the 

applicable NAAQS in any other state. 

B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate 

Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the Eastern Portion of the United States 

EPA has addressed the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for many 

states in the eastern portion of the 

country in three regulatory actions.2

Most recently, EPA published the final 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(‘‘CSAPR’’ or ‘‘Transport Rule’’) to 

address the two elements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the Eastern 

United States with respect to the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 

48208). CSAPR was intended to replace 

the earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) which was judicially 

remanded.3 See North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On 

August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 

decision to vacate CSAPR. See EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 

696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The court 

also ordered EPA to continue 

implementing CAIR in the interim. On 

March 29, 2013, the United States and 

other parties asked the Supreme Court 

to review the EME Homer City decision. 

In the meantime, and unless the EME 

Homer City decision is reversed or 

otherwise modified, EPA intends to act 

in accordance with the opinion in EME 

Homer City. 

Certain aspects of the EME Homer 

City opinion are potentially relevant to 

this proposed disapproval. First, the 

opinion concludes that a section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission cannot 

be considered a ‘‘required’’ SIP 

submission until EPA has defined a 

state’s obligations pursuant to that 

section. See EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 

at 32 (‘‘A SIP logically cannot be 

deemed to lack a ‘required submission’ 

or deemed to be deficient for failure to 

meet the good neighbor obligation 

before EPA quantifies the good neighbor 

obligation.’’) EPA historically has 

interpreted section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

as establishing the required submittal 

date for SIPs addressing all of the 

‘‘interstate transport’’ requirements in 

section 110(a)(2)(D), including the 

provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

regarding significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance. However, at this time in 

light of the EME Homer City opinion, 

EPA is not treating the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from 

Utah as a required SIP submission. 

Second, the EME Homer City opinion 

provides that EPA does not have 

authority to promulgate a FIP to address 

the requirements of section 

110(a)(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA has 

identified emissions in a state that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state and given the state an opportunity 

to submit a SIP to address those 

emissions. EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 

28. Therefore, unless the EME Homer 

City decision is reversed or otherwise 

modified, any final disapproval would 

not obligate Utah to take any action or 

make a new SIP submission. Nor would 

it trigger an obligation for EPA to 

promulgate a FIP to address these 

interstate transport requirements. 

C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions 

To Address Interstate Transport for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a 

guidance memorandum that provides 

recommendations to states for making 

SIP submissions to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5

standards (‘‘2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance’’ or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29316 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

4See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ September 25, 2009, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/

memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_

110a12.pdf. 

5See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding 

Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ August 15, 2006, available at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/section

110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf. 

6The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

stated that EPA was working on a new rule to 

replace CAIR that would address issues raised by 

the court in the North Carolina case and that would 

provide guidance to states in addressing the 

requirements related to interstate transport in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

It also noted that states could not rely on the CAIR 

rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule 

did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 3. 

7UDEQ’s submission, dated September 21, 2010 

is included in the docket for this action. 

8Utah was not fully contained within the CSAPR 

12km modeling domain. See Air Quality Modeling 

Final Rule Technical Support Document (June 

2011), at 5–6. 

‘‘Guidance’’).4 With respect to the 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

to prohibit emissions that would 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance essentially 

reiterated the recommendations for 

western states made by EPA in previous 

guidance addressing the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.5 The 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

advised states outside of the CAIR 

region to include in their section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions an 

adequate technical analysis to support 

their conclusions regarding interstate 

pollution transport, e.g., information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and in potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient pollutant 

concentrations in the state and in 

potentially impacted states, distances to 

the nearest areas not attaining the 

NAAQS in other states, and air quality 

modeling.6 With respect to the 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

to prohibit emissions that would 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS by any other state, the 

Guidance stated that SIP submissions 

must address this independent and 

distinct requirement of the statute and 

provide technical information 

appropriate to support the state’s 

conclusions, such as information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and in potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient concentrations in 

the state and in potentially impacted 

states, and air quality modeling. 

In assessing interstate transport of 

emissions from Utah, EPA continues to 

consider relevant the types of 

information that were suggested in the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure 

Guidance. Such information may 

include, but is not limited to, the 

amount of emissions in the state 

relevant to the NAAQS in question, the 

meteorological conditions in the area, 

the distance from the state to the nearest 

monitors in other states that are 

appropriate receptors, or such other 

information as may be probative to 

consider whether sources in the state 

may contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in other states. Modeling can be relied 

on when acceptable modeling technical 

analyses are available, but EPA does not 

believe that modeling is required if 

other available information is sufficient 

to evaluate the presence or degree of 

interstate transport in a specific 

situation. 

III. Utah’s Submittal 

On September 21, 2010, the Utah 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(UDEQ) made a submission certifying 

that Utah’s SIP is adequate to 

implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

all the ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), including the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).7 UDEQ points to the 

CSAPR proposal as evidence that the 

State does not contribute significantly to 

PM2.5 NAAQS violations in down-wind 

states. Specifically, the submission 

states; 

On August 2, 2010, EPA proposed a new 

rule to replace the CAIR as a means to 

address interstate transport (see FR 75 No. 

147, pp 45210). Again, there are certain 

western states that were found not to 

contribute in a significant way to any 

NAAQS violation, for either PM2.5 or ozone, 

in the down-wind states. Utah is among those 

states. EPA’s assessment regarding these 

western states is undoubtedly based on a 

regional scale technical analysis, and Utah 

will point to that analysis in order to 

conclude that there are no current or future 

emissions from within its boundaries that 

either cause or contribute in a significant way 

to NAAQS violations in any of the downwind states. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

If a state chooses to submit a SIP to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for a particular 

NAAQS, and the state believes that the 

existing SIP adequately meets those 

requirements, then the state should 

submit a technical demonstration, 

relying on information relevant to the 

particular NAAQS, in support of the 

state’s conclusion. EPA may supplement 

the state’s demonstration with 

information and analyses that EPA 

determines are relevant and consistent 

with EPA’s interpretation of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

In this case, Utah’s submittal 

attempted to rely on statements in the 

CSAPR proposal to show that the state’s 

current SIP was adequate for 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The submittal stated that in 

CSAPR, ‘‘certain western states . . . 

were found not to contribute in a 

significant way to any NAAQS 

violation, for either PM2.5 or ozone, in 

the down-wind states. Utah is among 

those states.’’ This statement does not 

accurately characterize the analysis 

done during the development of CSAPR. 

EPA decided to conduct modeling to 

analyze interstate transport of emissions 

for only the eastern portion of the 

country. That decision, however, in no 

way constituted a determination about 

significant contribution or interference 

with maintenance for western states 

such as Utah that were outside the 

modeling domain. On the contrary, in 

the final CSAPR rule, EPA explained 

that ‘‘EPA is making no specific finding 

for states that are not fully contained 

within the eastern 12 km modeling 

domain.’’ 8 (76 FR 48220). As a result, 

the State’s submittal is inadequate to 

demonstrate that the Utah SIP meets the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittal does 

not correctly characterize the 

conclusions made during the CSAPR 

rulemaking process. In addition, it does 

not include any technical analysis or 

any demonstration that the existing SIP 

is adequate to prohibit emissions from 

Utah from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance in another state. In 

particular, the Logan, Utah-Idaho 

multistate nonattainment area, which 

consists of one airshed in the Cache 

Valley, is located partially in Utah and 

partially in Idaho. Utah’s submission 

provided no relevant information 

regarding the potential for interstate 

transport of emissions from sources in 

the Utah portion of the Logan, UtahIdaho nonattainment area to the Idaho 

portion of the nonattainment area. In 

addition, considering the close 

proximity and shared topography 

between the Utah portion of Cache 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29317 

9On March 29, 2013 the United States and other 

parties filed petitions for certiorari asking the 

Supreme Court to review the DC Circuit decision 

in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (DC Cir. 2012). 

Valley and the Franklin, Idaho portion, 

as well as other factors suggested in the 

2009 Guidance (see section III.C), EPA 

cannot determine based on the weight of 

evidence that emissions from Utah do 

not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in another state. 

As neither EPA’s nor Utah’s analysis 

has led to a factual finding that 

significant contribution does not exist, 

there is no basis for EPA to conclude 

that the existing SIP is adequate to 

satisfy the significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). For these reasons, the 

SIP does not meet the requirements for 

approval and EPA thus proposes to 

disapprove the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion 

of the SIP submittal. 

This disapproval, however, neither 

constitutes a determination that Utah is 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment in or interfering with 

maintenance in another state, nor 

quantifies Utah’s obligations pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Further, unless 

the D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 

696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) is reversed 

or otherwise modified,9 the disapproval 

proposed herein by itself would not 

require Utah to take any additional 

action related to the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS at this time and would not 

obligate EPA to promulgate a FIP to 

address those requirements. As 

explained above, in EME Homer City, 

the D.C. Circuit concluded that a 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP cannot be 

‘‘required’’ until sometime after EPA 

quantifies the state’s obligations 

pursuant to that section, and that EPA 

therefore cannot promulgate a FIP to 

address the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until after EPA has 

both quantified the state’s obligation 

and given the state an initial 

opportunity to implement the 

obligations through a SIP. See EME 

Homer City, 696 F.3d at 28, 30–31. EPA 

has not yet determined whether Utah 

has any additional obligations under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or quantified 

any such obligations. Therefore, 

pursuant to the EME Homer City 

decision, this 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 

submission from Utah was not a 

required SIP submission and thus Utah 

has no obligation at this time to 

resubmit a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP or take 

any other action related to the 

requirements of this section with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

addition, unless the EME Homer City 

opinion is reversed or modified, final 

action on the disapproval proposed 

herein would also not trigger any FIP 

obligation under CAA section 110(c), 

because pursuant to EME Homer City, at 

this time EPA lacks authority to 

promulgate a FIP to address the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements. See id. at 

28–37. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Utah’s 

September 21, 2010 submission. We 

propose to disapprove this portion of 

the submission because it fails to 

demonstrate that the Utah SIP is 

adequate for the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As explained in detail 

above, unless the EME Homer City 

decision is reversed or modified, this 

disapproval will not trigger an 

obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP 

to address these interstate transport 

requirements, nor will it require Utah to 

submit a revised interstate transport SIP 

to meet the requirements. 

VI. 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 disapproves some state 

law because it does not meet federal 

requirements; this proposed action does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state 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 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, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: May 8, 2013. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11974 Filed 5–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS