Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36443 

make it consistent with the Federal 

requirements for PSD in Class I Areas. 

Additionally, Michigan submitted 

amendments to modify Michigan’s Air 

Pollution Control Rules R. 336.2801 and 

R. 336.2910 to add a significance 

threshold of 10 tons per year for 

particulate matter less than 2.5 microns 

in size (PM2.5). However, EPA is not 

proposing action on the particulate 

matter amendments in this rulemaking 

action; we will propose action at a later 

date, when Michigan submits additional 

rules pertaining to its definitions for 

PM2.5. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Michigan’s request to revise its SIP to 

add rule R. 336.2816 to be consistent 

with Federal PSD regulations in 40 CFR 

51.166(p), that require state PSD 

programs to have a mechanism in place 

to coordinate and consult with Federal 

land managers of Class I PSD Areas. On 

September 16, 2008, EPA proposed to 

disapprove R 336.2816 from Michigan’s 

SIP submittal because it did not provide 

for such a mechanism. Michigan has 

now revised R. 336.2816 to be 

consistent with the Federal requirement. 

With this change, EPA is proposing to 

fully approve the revised R. 336.2816 

for its PSD program. On March 25, 2010, 

EPA published a direct final approval to 

convert a conditional approval of the 

Michigan PSD SIP to full approval 

under section 110 of the CAA. In that 

notice, EPA stated that we would be 

taking a separate action on rule R. 

336.2816(2) through (4)(requirements 

relating to Class I Areas). 

EPA is not proposing to approve 

Michigan’s request to revise its SIP by 

adding requirements for a significance 

level for PM2.5. EPA has established a 

significance threshold to limit the 

applicability of PSD regulations to 

sources with emissions above the 

significance level. To be consistent with 

the Federal requirements, Michigan 

amended R. 336.2801 and R. 336.2901 

to add the significance threshold for 

PM2.5. Because Michigan is planning to 

submit additional state rules as 

revisions to its SIP for precursors of 

PM2.5, EPA will defer action on this 

matter. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

removal of R. 336.2830 and R. 336.2910 

from the Michigan SIP. Appeals of state 

permit actions will be handled through 

the state’s appeal process. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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 Clean Air Act; 

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. 

In May 2011, EPA issued its policy on 

consultation and coordination with 

Indian tribes. EPA explained that its 

policy is to consult on a government to 

government basis with Federally 

recognized tribal governments when 

EPA actions and decisions may affect 

tribal interests. Accordingly, EPA sent 

an invitation to consult with potentially 

interested tribes, and subsequently 

engaged in consultation with 

representatives of the Forest County 

Potawatomi Community regarding the 

Michigan proposed SIP revisions. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 11, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14937 Filed 6–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1034; FRL–9689–1] 

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Revisions To Open Burning 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove 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 proposing to 

disapprove 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: Comments must be received on 

or before July 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2007–1034, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: freeman.crystal@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36444 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, U.S. 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–2007– 

1034. 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, U.S. 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: 

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 NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

(vi) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers 

(fine particulate matter). 

(vii) The initials PSD mean or refer to 

prevention of significant deterioration. 

(viii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(ix) The words Utah or State mean the 

State of Utah. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What is the State process to submit these 

materials to EPA? 

IV. EPA’s Review and Technical Information 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

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 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36445 

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. 

III. What is the State process to submit 

these materials to EPA? 

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses 

EPA’s rulemaking action on SIP 

submissions by states. The CAA 

requires states to observe certain 

procedural requirements in developing 

SIP revisions for submittal to EPA. 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires 

that each SIP revision be adopted after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

This must occur prior to the revision 

being submitted by a state to EPA. 

The State of Utah’s Department of 

Environmental Quality, Air Quality 

Board held public hearings to amend 

Rule R307–202 Emission Standards: 

General Burning on June 3, 1999, and 

also on June 30, 1999, when the revision 

was adopted. On December 10, 1999, 

Utah submitted a SIP revision to R307– 

202–5 to extend the burning period. 

EPA has reviewed the submittal from 

the State of Utah and has determined 

that the State met the requirements for 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The 

SIP submittal from Utah became 

complete by operation of law six 

months after the submission date. 

IV. EPA’s Review and Technical 

Information 

EPA is proposing to disapprove 

Utah’s SIP revision submitted on 

December 10, 1999. Any submittal for a 

SIP revision must meet section 110(l) of 

the CAA. Section 110(l) of the Act states 

that EPA shall not approve a revision of 

a plan if the revision would interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress (as defined in Section 

171 of the CAA), or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. An analysis 

should have been conducted by the 

State and included in the submittal 

showing what effect the relaxation 

would have on emissions of criteria 

pollutants. Since Utah did not provide 

a section 110(l) analysis, EPA lacks 

sufficient information to determine 

whether the proposed SIP relaxation 

would not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

maintenance of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) increment, or any other 

requirement of the Act. 

EPA reviewed data from the Air 

Quality System (AQS) Raw Data Reports 

for PM2.5 violations in the entire State of 

Utah for the month of March from 1999 

to present. These reports can be found 

in the docket as supporting and related 

materials. The PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS is 

35 mg/m3 for which the counties of Salt 

Lake, Utah, Davis and parts of Box 

Elder, Weber, Tooele and Cache are 

designated nonattainment (74 FR 58688, 

November 13, 2009). Based on our 

review, Cache County, specifically the 

City of Logan, showed a total of fifteen 

violations of the PM2.5 standard over the 

years: 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2007. The 

AQS site ID that showed the violations 

in the years above was 49–005–0004. 

For the year 2001, the PM2.5 violation 

was recorded on March 2 with a 

concentration of 37.5 mg/m3. In 2004 

there were five violations on March 8, 

9, 10, 12, and 13, with concentrations of 

35.5 mg/m3, 53.4 mg/m3, 52.9 mg/m3, 41.9 

mg/m3, and 52.3 mg/m3, respectively. For 

the following year of 2005, there were 

seven violations on the dates of March 

1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11, with 

concentrations of 54.5 mg/m3, 36.6 mg/ 

m3, 68.4 mg/m3, 49.6 mg/m3, 71.0 mg/m3, 

62.0 mg/m3, and 44.6 mg/m3, 

respectively. The last year that this 

monitor showed violations was in 2007, 

on March 6 and 7, with concentrations 

of 46 mg/m3 and 43 mg/m3, respectively. 

In Salt Lake County, the North Salt Lake 

City monitor also showed an 

exceedance in 2007, on March 6, with 

a concentration of 38 mg/m3. On March 

30, 2010, there were ten exceedances 

that occurred in four counties: Davis, 

Salt Lake, Utah, and Tooele, which the 

State has flagged as exceptional events. 

The Bountiful monitor in Davis County 

and the Tooele City monitor in Tooele 

County recorded a concentration of 42 

mg/m3 and 57 mg/m3, respectively. Four 

monitors in Salt Lake County: 

Cottonwood, Magna, Hawthorne, and 

Rose Park, showed concentrations of: 56 

mg/m3, 67 mg/m3, 50 mg/m3, and 65 mg/ 

m3, respectively. Additionally, four 

monitors in Utah County: North Provo, 

Lindon, Highland, and Spanish Fork, 

showed concentrations of 53 mg/m3, 56 

mg/m3, 61 mg/m3, and 48 mg/m3, 

respectively. 

Based on our analysis of the AQS data 

above, EPA finds that the relaxation of 

the open burning rule could contribute 

to further degradation of air quality 

within the State of Utah and especially 

in the PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

because violations of the PM2.5 standard 

have been recorded during periods 

covered by the 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. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove this revision to R307–202 

Emission Standards: General Burning. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to disapprove 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. EPA’s review of the AQS 

data for Cache, Salt Lake, Davis, Utah, 

and Tooele Counties have shown 

violations of the PM2.5 standard during 

the proposed extension of the open 

burning period. 

VI. 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 proposed 

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 the proposed disapproval 

only applies to a date change for Utah’s 

General Burning window, 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. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

The proposed 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36446 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposal consists of a proposed 

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 proposing 

disapproval. The proposed disapproval 

of the SIP, if finalized, merely 

disapproves the state law as not meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 

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. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and State and local governments, 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

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 proposed 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 proposed 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 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 36447 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

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 

proposed rule, if finalized, will not have 

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 proposed 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 August 20, 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: June 6, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14943 Filed 6–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2012–0138; FRL–9685–6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

petition submitted by ExxonMobil 

Refining and Supply Company 

(ExxonMobil) Baytown Refinery (BTRF) 

to exclude (or delist) the underflow 

water generated at the North Landfarm 

(NLF) in Baytown, Texas from the lists 

of hazardous wastes. EPA used the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of 

the impact of the petitioned waste on 

human health and the environment. 

DATES: We will accept comments until 

July 19, 2012. Your requests for a 

hearing must reach EPA by July 5, 2012. 

See the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section for details. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

RCRA–2012–0138 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: jacques.wendy@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Wendy Jacques, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–F, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Wendy Jacques, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 

6PD–F, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2012– 

0138. 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 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1