58966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 November 26, 

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, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 24, 2012. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(150) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(150) The following plan was 

submitted on August 24, 2012, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) ‘‘Final 2012 State Implementation 

Plan Nogales PM10 Nonattainment 

Area,’’ dated August 24, 2012, including 

Appendices A–K, adopted on August 

24, 2012. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–23118 Filed 9–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1034; FRL–9732–1] 

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Revisions To Open Burning 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is disapproving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Utah on 

December 10, 1999. This revision to 

R307–202 Emission Standards: General 

Burning authorizes the State to extend 

the time period for open burning. EPA 

is disapproving the submitted revision 

because it does not meet the 

requirements of section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1034. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, 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: 

Crystal Freeman, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6602, 

freeman.crystal@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The initials AQS mean or refer to 

Air Quality System. 

(ii) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

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

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iv) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The words Utah or State mean the 

State of Utah. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Section 110(l) of the CAA 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On December 10, 1999, the State of 

Utah submitted a SIP revision to Rule 

R307–202 Emission Standards: General 

Burning. This rule contains the 

following provisions: definitions and 

exclusions, community waste disposal, 

general prohibitions, permissible 

burning—without permit, permissible 

burning with permit, and special 

conditions. 

The proposed revision is found 

within the ‘permissible burning with 

permit’ in section R307–202–5(3)(e)(i). 

The revision extends the time period 

during which open burning could be 

authorized. The current burning period 

in the rule is from March 30 to May 30, 

the revision would extend the beginning 

of the burning period to March 1. This 

would allow an additional 30 days to 

the open burning period. The revision to 

the rule is based on a request from the 

Washington County Mayors Association 

to change the beginning date to 

accommodate areas of the State that 

were dry enough to burn earlier in the 

year. 

In our analysis of ambient air quality 

monitoring data, as described in our 

June 19, 2012 (77 FR 36443) proposed 

rule, EPA found that the relaxation of 

the open burning rule could contribute 

to further degradation of air quality 

within the State of Utah. Specifically, 

the analysis demonstrates that further 

degradation of air quality could occur in 

Utah’s PM2.5 nonattainment areas where 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58967 

violations of the PM2.5 standard have 

been recorded during periods covered 

by the State’s proposed extension of the 

open burning period. In the absence of 

a section 110(l) analysis or 

demonstration by the State of Utah 

showing that extending the burning 

period would not cause a PM2.5

violation, EPA cannot determine that 

this revision would not interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA did not receive comments on our 

June 19, 2012 Federal Register proposed 

action regarding the disapproval of 

Utah’s SIP revision to their R307–202 

Emission Standards: General Burning 

rule. 

III. Section 110(l) of the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) or any other applicable 

requirements of the Act. The revision to 

Utah’s R307–202 Emission Standards: 

General Burning could relax the existing 

SIP requirements by extending the open 

burn window. Because the State has not 

analyzed the effect of the extension of 

the open burn window, EPA cannot 

conclude that the revision would or 

would not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. As a result, 

EPA is disapproving the proposed 

revision pursuant to section 110(l). 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is disapproving the SIP revision 

to R307–202 Emission Standards: 

General Burning submitted by the State 

on December 10, 1999. Without a 

section 110(l) analysis or demonstration, 

EPA finds that the revision relaxes the 

control on open burning and could 

potentially interfere with the attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 or 

disapprove state choices, depending on 

whether they meet the criteria of the 

Clean Air Act. With this final action 

EPA is merely disapproving a state law 

as not meeting Federal requirements, 

and is not imposing additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Because this disapproval only applies 

to a date change for Utah’s General 

Burning window, the action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The 

disapproval only applies to a date 

change for Utah’s General Burning 

window. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s final rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

EPA’s final rule consists of a 

disapproval of Utah’s General Burning 

rule submission. The revision would 

extend the General Burning window an 

extra month, which requires a CAA 

section 110(l) analysis to show no 

relaxation of the rule. Since Utah did 

not submit a section 110(l) analysis for 

this revision EPA is disapproving the 

submittal. The disapproval of the SIP, 

merely disapproves the state law as not 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not imposes any additional 

requirements. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action 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). 

Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has 

determined that this final rule does not 

contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures that exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of 

$100 million by State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

one year. In addition, this final rule 

does not contain a significant federal 

intergovernmental mandate as described 

by section 203 of UMRA nor does it 

contain any regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
58968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the State, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the State, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely addresses the State not fully 

meeting its obligation under section 

110(l) of the CAA. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. EPA 

interprets EO 13045 as applying only to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it implements 

specific standards established by 

Congress in statutes. However, to the 

extent this final rule is disapproving a 

possible relaxation to Utah’s General 

Burning rule, it will have a beneficial 

effect on children’s health by not 

allowing additional air pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This action does not involved 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this final 

rule will not have a disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

disapproves a possible relaxation of 

Utah’s rule where increases in 

emissions are possible. 

In addition, this final action does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

being disapproved would not apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

it would 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 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 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 November 26, 

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) of the CAA.) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 10, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23516 Filed 9–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES