Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 64065 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866. While this 

proposed rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order, the EPA has reason to 

believe that ozone has a 

disproportionate effect on active 

children who play outdoors (62 FR 

38856; 38859, July 18, 1997). The EPA 

has not identified any specific studies 

on whether or to what extent these 

chemical compounds may affect 

children’s health. The EPA has placed 

the available data regarding the health 

effects of HFO–1234yf in Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0032 which is the 

docket for the SNUR for this compound. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data, of which the EPA may 

not be aware, that assess results of early 

life exposure to the chemical 

compounds herein. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. This action proposes to revise 

the EPA’s definition of VOCs for 

purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the 

NAAQS for ozone under title I of the 

CAA. 

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, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the 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. The NTTAA directs 

the EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. This rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

the EPA is not considering 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 (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, Feb. 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. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it will not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: October 11, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

1. The authority citation for Part 51, 

Subpart F, continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 

7413, 7414, 7470–7479, 7501–7508, 7601, 

and 7602. 

§ 51.100 [Amended] 

2. Section 51.100 is amended at the 

end of paragraph (s)(1) introductory text 

by removing the words ‘‘and 

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 

into these classes:’’ and adding in their 

place a semi-colon and the words 

‘‘trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene; 

2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and 

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 

into these classes:’’. 

[FR Doc. 2011–26768 Filed 10–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0314; FRL–9479–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; 

Interstate Transport of Pollution 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take 

action on portions of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Oklahoma to 

address Clean Air Act requirements that 

prohibit air emissions which will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other State for the 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or 

standards), the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) NAAQS and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is basing these 

proposed actions on the final 

determinations concluded within the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR 

or Transport Rule) and proposed 

determination within the Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR). 

EPA is proposing to disapprove, or in 

the alternative, approve the portion of 

the submittal demonstrating Oklahoma 

does not interfere with maintenance of 

the ozone NAAQS in other states. EPA 

intends to finalize approval or 

disapproval based on its final 

determination for the SNPR regarding 

Oklahoma for the ozone NAAQS. EPA is 

also proposing to approve the portion of 

the submittal demonstrating Oklahoma 

does not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS in 

other states. Finally, EPA is proposing 

to approve the portions of the submittals 

addressing Oklahoma’s impacts for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 16, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2007–0314, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by e-mail to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
64066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Previously we took the following actions on the 

May 1, 2007, Oklahoma submittal for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) We approved the 

portion demonstrating Oklahoma emissions do not 

interfere with prevention of significant 

deterioration measures in any other state 

(November 26, 2010, 75 FR 72695); (2) we proposed 

to partially approve and partially disapprove the 

portion demonstrating that Oklahoma emissions do 

not interfere with visibility protection measures 

required in any other state (March 22, 2011, 76 FR 

16168). 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, 

and not on legal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0314. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

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 Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The state submittal is also available 

for public inspection during official 

business hours, by appointment, at the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality, 707 North Robinson, P.O. Box 

1677, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101– 

1677. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–6645; e-mail address 

young.carl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

Outline 

I. Background 

A. Clean Air Act Background 

B. Oklahoma’s Submittals 

C. EPA’s Analysis and Actions for the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

II. Proposed Action 

A. Disapproval or Approval of the 

Submittal for the Interference With 

Maintenance Requirement for the 1997 

Ozone NAAQS 

B. Approval of the Submittal for the 

Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment Requirement for the 1997 

Ozone NAAQS 

C. Approval of the Submittals for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Clean Air Act Background 

Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires each state to develop a 

state implementation plan (SIP) that 

provides for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). We establish NAAQS under 

section 109 of the CAA. Currently, the 

NAAQS address six criteria pollutants: 

Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, 

ozone, lead, particulate matter, and 

sulfur dioxide. 

SIPs can be extensive, containing state 

regulations or other enforceable 

measures and various types of 

supporting information, such as 

emissions inventories, monitoring 

networks, and modeling 

demonstrations. The ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

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

require each SIP to prohibit emissions 

that adversely affect another State in the 

ways contemplated in the statute. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four 

distinct requirements related to the 

impacts of interstate transport. The SIP 

must prevent sources in the State from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will: (1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 

States; (2) interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other States; (3) interfere 

with provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

States; or (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other States. It 

should be noted that this proposed 

rulemaking action addresses only those 

portions of Oklahoma’s May 1, 2007, 

and April 5, 2011, submittals, which 

address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements relating to significant 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in 

another State with respect to the 1997 

ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. At this time, EPA is not taking 

action on any additional requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) or on any other 

portions of Oklahoma’s May 1, 2007, 

and April 5, 2011, submittals.1

Within 3 years of our promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, States are 

required to update or revise the SIP and 

submit the revisions to us for approval 

and incorporation into the Federally 

enforceable SIP (CAA 110(a)(1)). These 

plans should address, among other 

things the requirements of Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). In 1997, we revised the 

NAAQS for ozone and particulate 

matter. For ozone we established new 8- 

hour standards of 0.08 parts per million 

(62 FR 38856). For particulate matter we 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 64067 

2The supplemental information provided an 

assessment of Oklahoma’s impact on Kenosha 

County, Wisconsin, and Cook County, Illinois. 

Kenosha County, Wisconsin is designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Cook 

County, Illinois is designated as nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

3On August 15, 2006, we issued our ‘‘Guidance 

for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions 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’’. 

4For more discussion on the court remand of 

CAIR please see our August 8, 2011, CSAPR (76 FR 

48208). 

established new annual average and 24- 

hour standards for fine particles, using 

particulate matter less than 2.5 microns 

(PM2.5) as the indicator (62 FR 38652). 

In 2006, we revised the PM2.5 NAAQS 

by decreasing the level of the 24-hour 

standard from 65 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3. We retained 

the annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/m3. 

This action is being taken in response to 

the promulgation of these NAAQS. 

B. Oklahoma’s Submittals 

On May 1, 2007, the State of 

Oklahoma submitted a SIP revision to 

address the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On December 

5, 2007, the State submitted 

supplemental information.2 On April 5, 

2011, the State submitted a letter 

certifying that their SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), 

including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittals 

document the State’s assessments that 

Oklahoma emissions will not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfere with maintenance, in any other 

State for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittals are 

available electronically through the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

(Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2007– 

0314). 

Consistent with EPA guidance at the 

time and EPA’s approach in the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the State’s 

May 1, 2007, submittal focused 

primarily on whether emissions from 

Oklahoma sources significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in other 

states.3 The State did not evaluate 

whether Oklahoma emissions interfere 

with maintenance of these NAAQS in 

other states separately from significant 

contribution to nonattainment in other 

states. Instead, the state presumed that 

if Oklahoma sources were not 

significantly contributing to violations 

of the NAAQS in other states, then no 

further specific evaluation was 

necessary for purposes of the interfere 

with maintenance element of section 

110(a)(2)(D). However, CAIR was 

remanded to EPA, in part because the 

court found that EPA had not correctly 

addressed whether emissions from 

sources in a state interfere with 

maintenance of the standards in other 

states.4 Therefore, EPA must evaluate 

the May 1, 2007, Oklahoma submittal in 

light of the decision of the court. 

C. EPA Analyses and Actions for the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

On August 2, 2010, we proposed the 

‘‘Cross State Air Pollution Rule’’ 

(CSAPR or Transport Rule) for State 

emissions that contribute significantly 

to nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, downwind states for 

the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 45210). The 

proposal responded to the court remand 

of CAIR in part by independently 

analyzing whether a state’s emissions 

interfere with maintenance of the 1997 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. We proposed to include 

Oklahoma in the CSAPR for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. Our analysis for the 

proposal identified Oklahoma emissions 

as significantly contributing to 

nonattainment and interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas area. 

Furthermore, our analysis in the 

proposed CSAPR also found that 

Oklahoma emissions did not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The comment period for this 

proposed rule closed on October 1, 

2010. 

In the final CSAPR, published in the 

Federal Register on August 8, 2011, 

EPA made a final determination that 

Oklahoma does not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment and 

interfere with maintenance with respect 

to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

other states (76 FR 48208). However, 

EPA’s analysis in the final CSAPR also 

demonstrated that six states, including 

Oklahoma, should be required to reduce 

ozone-season NOx emissions to reduce 

ozone impacts at certain locations 

identified as maintenance receptors that 

were not identified in the modeling 

conducted for the proposal. This 

analysis conducted for the final CSAPR 

found Oklahoma emissions interfering 

with maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in Allegan County, Michigan, 

but not significantly contributing to 

nonattainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. In the 

proposed and final CSAPR, EPA 

explicitly gave independent meaning to 

the ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ prong 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by evaluating 

contributions to identified maintenance 

receptors that may have difficulty 

maintaining the NAAQS in the future. 

EPA found in the final CSAPR analysis 

that Oklahoma emissions contribute to 

maintenance problems at the Allegan 

County, Michigan maintenance 

receptor, and absent the Allegan County 

maintenance receptor Oklahoma would 

not be covered by the CSAPR ozoneseason program. Based on this analysis, 

we published a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPR) to 

implement the ozone-season NOx 

program in the final CSAPR as the FIP 

for Oklahoma to address emissions 

identified as interfering with 

maintenance with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS (July 11, 2011, 76 FR 

40662). In the SNPR, EPA took comment 

on whether there were errors in the 

Agency’s application of the CSAPR 

methodologies with respect to 

Oklahoma and the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

and did not take comment on any aspect 

of the final CSAPR. The comment 

period for this rule closed on August 22, 

2011. 

The methodology used to analyze the 

impact of Oklahoma emissions with 

respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS is 

described in detail in the preamble to 

the final CSAPR and in the Technical 

Support Documents entitled ‘‘Air 

Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD’’ and 

‘‘Significant Contribution and State 

Emission Budgets Final Rule TSD’’. 

These documents can be found in the 

electronic docket for the CSAPR and are 

available through the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491). 

In this notice, EPA is proposing to 

take action on the basis of 

determinations that have been or will be 

made in other final agency actions that 

were taken after providing a full 

opportunity for notice and comment. 

Therefore, in this notice, EPA is taking 

comment only on its conclusions that 

the determinations with respect to 

Oklahoma made in the final CSAPR and 

the determination with respect to 

Oklahoma that will be made in final 

action on the SNPR provide a basis for 

the actions proposed in this notice. EPA 

provided an opportunity for public 

comment, in the SNPR, on its proposed 

determination that Oklahoma interferes 

with maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS because it is linked to an ozone 

maintenance receptor identified in the 

modeling for the final CSAPR. EPA is 

not taking additional comment on that 

proposed determination. EPA also 

provided an ample opportunity to 

comment, during the CSAPR 

rulemaking, on the determinations made 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
64068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

in the final CSAPR on Oklahoma’s 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance with respect to the 1997 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not 

taking comment on these or any other 

determinations made in the final 

CSAPR, or reopening any aspect of 

CSAPR or the SNPR for public 

comment. EPA is also not taking 

comment on any aspect of the final 

CSAPR, including the methodology 

used to identify maintenance receptors 

or the methodology used to identify 

Oklahoma’s specific contribution or 

interference with maintenance. EPA 

received numerous comments on the 

proposed CSAPR and on the associated 

Notices of Data Availability, and the 

SNPR, and considered, (or, in the case 

of the SNPR, is considering), all 

comments received during the comment 

periods for these actions. 

II. Proposed Action 

In this action, EPA is taking comment 

only on its conclusions that the final 

CSAPR and the SNPR provide a basis 

for proposing: (1) Disapproval, and in 

the alternative proposing approval, for 

the portion of the Oklahoma SIP 

revision addressing the interference 

with maintenance requirement for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS; (2) approval of the 

portion of the Oklahoma SIP revision 

addressing the significant contribution 

to nonattainment requirements for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS; and (3) approval of 

the portion of the Oklahoma SIP 

revision that addresses the significant 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

A. Disapproval or Approval of the 

Submittal for the Interference With 

Maintenance Requirement for the 1997 

Ozone NAAQS 

We are proposing to disapprove and, 

in the alternative, proposing to approve 

the portion of the SIP revision 

submitted on May 1, 2007, to address 

the interference with maintenance 

requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. We intend that our final action 

(disapproval or approval) will be based 

on final action for Oklahoma in the 

supplemental Cross State Air Pollution 

rule discussed above. We intend to 

disapprove this portion of the SIP 

revision if, in the final supplemental 

CASPR rule, we finalize our 

determination that Oklahoma emissions 

are interfering with maintenance of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is in the 

course of reviewing and preparing 

responses to the comments submitted 

on the SNPR regarding EPA’s modeling 

and the adjustments made to its 

technical analyses for the final CSAPR. 

If this review alternatively indicates that 

Oklahoma should not be subject to and 

covered by the final supplemental rule, 

EPA will take final action to approve 

this portion of Oklahoma’s SIP revision 

for the transport element of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that Oklahoma 

emissions are not interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

As discussed previously, we are not 

reopening for comment the analyses 

done for the final CSAPR nor the SNPR. 

B. Approval of the Submittal for the 

Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment Requirement for the 

1997 Ozone NAAQS 

We are proposing to approve the 

portion of the SIP revision submitted on 

May 1, 2007, to address the significant 

contribution to nonattainment 

requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Our proposal is based on our 

determination concluded within the 

final CSAPR that Oklahoma emissions 

do not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. As discussed previously, we 

are not reopening for comment the 

analyses done for the final CSAPR nor 

the SNPR. 

C. Approval of the Submittals for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

We are proposing to approve the 

portions of the SIP revisions submitted 

on May 1, 2007, and April 5, 2011, to 

address the significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Our proposal is based on our 

determination concluded within the 

final Cross State Air Pollution rule that 

Oklahoma emissions do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfere with maintenance for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. As discussed previously, we 

are not reopening for comment the 

analyses done for the final CSAPR nor 

the SNPR. 

III. 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 

and disapprove. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 

CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to act on state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed 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 proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, 

because this proposed SIP action under 

section 110 of the CAA will not in-andof itself create any new information 

collection burdens but simply approves 

or disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s 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-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP action under 

section 110 of the CAA will not in-andof itself create any new requirements 

but simply approves or disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no 

opportunity for EPA to fashion for small 

entities less burdensome compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 64069 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., emission 

limitations) may or will flow from this 

action does not mean that EPA either 

can or must conduct a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for this action. 

Therefore, this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

approve or disapprove pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), 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.’’ 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will 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 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves or disapproves certain 

State requirements for inclusion into the 

SIP and does not alter the relationship 

or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

submittals EPA is proposing to approve 

or disapprove would not 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. Consistent with 

EPA policy, EPA nonetheless is offering 

consultation to Tribes regarding this 

rulemaking action. EPA will respond to 

relevant comments in the final 

rulemaking action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP 

action under section 110 of the CAA 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply approves or 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed 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, section 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. 

The EPA believes that this proposed 

action is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 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. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to approve or 

disapprove certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP under section 

110 of the CAA and will not in-and-of 

itself create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur dioxide. 

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

Dated: October 6, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2011–26763 Filed 10–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1