```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29314-29317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11974]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0350; FRL-9815-2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of 
Utah; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Utah that is 
intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain interstate transport 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (``Act'' or ``CAA'') for the 2006 
fine particulate matter (``PM2.5'') National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS). This SIP submission addresses the 
requirement that Utah's SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit air 
emissions from adversely affecting another state's air quality through 
interstate transport. Specifically, EPA is proposing to disapprove the 
portion of the Utah SIP submission that addresses the CAA requirement 
prohibiting emissions from Utah sources from significantly contributing 
to nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state 
or interfering with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by 
any other state. Under a recent court decision, this disapproval does 
not trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address these interstate transport 
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0350, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: clark.adam@epa.gov.
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted 
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0350. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting 
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all 
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You 
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. 
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, 
clark.adam@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to the Clean Air Interstate 
Rule
    (iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer to the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule
    (iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (vi) The initials UDEQ mean or refer to the Utah Department of 
Environmental Quality.
    (vii) The words Utah and State mean the State of Utah.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background

[[Page 29315]]

    A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
    B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS in the Eastern Portion of the United States
    C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions To Address Interstate 
Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
III. Utah's Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

    What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. Background

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA identifies four distinct 
elements related to the evaluation of impacts of interstate transport 
of air pollutants. In this action for the state of Utah, EPA is 
addressing the first two elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--the two 
elements contained in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--with respect to the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ The first element requires that each 
SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit 
any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from 
emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to 
nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The second element 
requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate 
provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity 
in the state from emitting pollutants that will ``interfere with 
maintenance'' of the applicable NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures 
required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to 
protect visibility in another state. We will act on these elements 
in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Eastern Portion of the United States

    EPA has addressed the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
for many states in the eastern portion of the country in three 
regulatory actions.\2\ Most recently, EPA published the final Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (``CSAPR'' or ``Transport Rule'') to address 
the two elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the Eastern 
United States with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
(August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). CSAPR was intended to replace the 
earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially 
remanded.\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 
issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 
v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The court also ordered EPA to 
continue implementing CAIR in the interim. On March 29, 2013, the 
United States and other parties asked the Supreme Court to review the 
EME Homer City decision. In the meantime, and unless the EME Homer City 
decision is reversed or otherwise modified, EPA intends to act in 
accordance with the opinion in EME Homer City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See NOx SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport 
Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 
2011).
    \3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain aspects of the EME Homer City opinion are potentially 
relevant to this proposed disapproval. First, the opinion concludes 
that a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission cannot be considered a 
``required'' SIP submission until EPA has defined a state's obligations 
pursuant to that section. See EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 32 (``A SIP 
logically cannot be deemed to lack a `required submission' or deemed to 
be deficient for failure to meet the good neighbor obligation before 
EPA quantifies the good neighbor obligation.'') EPA historically has 
interpreted section 110(a)(1) of the CAA as establishing the required 
submittal date for SIPs addressing all of the ``interstate transport'' 
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D), including the provisions in 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding significant contribution to 
nonattainment and interference with maintenance. However, at this time 
in light of the EME Homer City opinion, EPA is not treating the section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Utah as a required SIP 
submission. Second, the EME Homer City opinion provides that EPA does 
not have authority to promulgate a FIP to address the requirements of 
section 110(a)(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA has identified emissions in a 
state that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state and given the state an 
opportunity to submit a SIP to address those emissions. EME Homer City, 
696 F.3d at 28. Therefore, unless the EME Homer City decision is 
reversed or otherwise modified, any final disapproval would not 
obligate Utah to take any action or make a new SIP submission. Nor 
would it trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address 
these interstate transport requirements.

C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions To Address Interstate Transport for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance memorandum that 
provides recommendations to states for making SIP submissions to meet 
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 
PM2.5 standards (``2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 
Infrastructure Guidance'' or

[[Page 29316]]

``Guidance'').\4\ With respect to the requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions that would contribute 
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state, the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance essentially 
reiterated the recommendations for western states made by EPA in 
previous guidance addressing the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 
1997 8-hour Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ The 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance advised states outside 
of the CAIR region to include in their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 
submissions an adequate technical analysis to support their conclusions 
regarding interstate pollution transport, e.g., information concerning 
emissions in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and in 
potentially impacted states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations 
in the state and in potentially impacted states, distances to the 
nearest areas not attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality 
modeling.\6\ With respect to the requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions that would interfere with 
maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state, the Guidance stated that 
SIP submissions must address this independent and distinct requirement 
of the statute and provide technical information appropriate to support 
the state's conclusions, such as information concerning emissions in 
the state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially 
impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the state and in 
potentially impacted states, and air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance 
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
    \5\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance 
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current 
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour 
ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' 
August 15, 2006, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf.
    \6\ The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 
stated that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR that would 
address issues raised by the court in the North Carolina case and 
that would provide guidance to states in addressing the requirements 
related to interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. It also noted that states could 
not rely on the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions 
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule 
did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 
Infrastructure Guidance at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In assessing interstate transport of emissions from Utah, EPA 
continues to consider relevant the types of information that were 
suggested in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. 
Such information may include, but is not limited to, the amount of 
emissions in the state relevant to the NAAQS in question, the 
meteorological conditions in the area, the distance from the state to 
the nearest monitors in other states that are appropriate receptors, or 
such other information as may be probative to consider whether sources 
in the state may contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. 
Modeling can be relied on when acceptable modeling technical analyses 
are available, but EPA does not believe that modeling is required if 
other available information is sufficient to evaluate the presence or 
degree of interstate transport in a specific situation.

III. Utah's Submittal

    On September 21, 2010, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality 
(UDEQ) made a submission certifying that Utah's SIP is adequate to 
implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for all the 
``infrastructure'' requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), including 
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\7\ UDEQ points to 
the CSAPR proposal as evidence that the State does not contribute 
significantly to PM2.5 NAAQS violations in down-wind states. 
Specifically, the submission states;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ UDEQ's submission, dated September 21, 2010 is included in 
the docket for this action.

    On August 2, 2010, EPA proposed a new rule to replace the CAIR 
as a means to address interstate transport (see FR 75 No. 147, pp 
45210). Again, there are certain western states that were found not 
to contribute in a significant way to any NAAQS violation, for 
either PM2.5 or ozone, in the down-wind states. Utah is 
among those states. EPA's assessment regarding these western states 
is undoubtedly based on a regional scale technical analysis, and 
Utah will point to that analysis in order to conclude that there are 
no current or future emissions from within its boundaries that 
either cause or contribute in a significant way to NAAQS violations 
in any of the down-wind states.

IV. EPA's Evaluation

    If a state chooses to submit a SIP to address the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for a particular NAAQS, and the state 
believes that the existing SIP adequately meets those requirements, 
then the state should submit a technical demonstration, relying on 
information relevant to the particular NAAQS, in support of the state's 
conclusion. EPA may supplement the state's demonstration with 
information and analyses that EPA determines are relevant and 
consistent with EPA's interpretation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    In this case, Utah's submittal attempted to rely on statements in 
the CSAPR proposal to show that the state's current SIP was adequate 
for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 
submittal stated that in CSAPR, ``certain western states . . . were 
found not to contribute in a significant way to any NAAQS violation, 
for either PM2.5 or ozone, in the down-wind states. Utah is 
among those states.'' This statement does not accurately characterize 
the analysis done during the development of CSAPR. EPA decided to 
conduct modeling to analyze interstate transport of emissions for only 
the eastern portion of the country. That decision, however, in no way 
constituted a determination about significant contribution or 
interference with maintenance for western states such as Utah that were 
outside the modeling domain. On the contrary, in the final CSAPR rule, 
EPA explained that ``EPA is making no specific finding for states that 
are not fully contained within the eastern 12 km modeling domain.'' \8\ 
(76 FR 48220). As a result, the State's submittal is inadequate to 
demonstrate that the Utah SIP meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittal does not correctly 
characterize the conclusions made during the CSAPR rulemaking process. 
In addition, it does not include any technical analysis or any 
demonstration that the existing SIP is adequate to prohibit emissions 
from Utah from significantly contributing to nonattainment or 
interfering with maintenance in another state. In particular, the 
Logan, Utah-Idaho multistate nonattainment area, which consists of one 
airshed in the Cache Valley, is located partially in Utah and partially 
in Idaho. Utah's submission provided no relevant information regarding 
the potential for interstate transport of emissions from sources in the 
Utah portion of the Logan, Utah-Idaho nonattainment area to the Idaho 
portion of the nonattainment area. In addition, considering the close 
proximity and shared topography between the Utah portion of Cache

[[Page 29317]]

Valley and the Franklin, Idaho portion, as well as other factors 
suggested in the 2009 Guidance (see section III.C), EPA cannot 
determine based on the weight of evidence that emissions from Utah do 
not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Utah was not fully contained within the CSAPR 12km modeling 
domain. See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document (June 2011), at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As neither EPA's nor Utah's analysis has led to a factual finding 
that significant contribution does not exist, there is no basis for EPA 
to conclude that the existing SIP is adequate to satisfy the 
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with 
maintenance elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). For these reasons, 
the SIP does not meet the requirements for approval and EPA thus 
proposes to disapprove the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the SIP 
submittal.
    This disapproval, however, neither constitutes a determination that 
Utah is significantly contributing to nonattainment in or interfering 
with maintenance in another state, nor quantifies Utah's obligations 
pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Further, unless the D.C. 
Circuit's recent opinion in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 
696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) is reversed or otherwise modified,\9\ the 
disapproval proposed herein by itself would not require Utah to take 
any additional action related to the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time and would not obligate 
EPA to promulgate a FIP to address those requirements. As explained 
above, in EME Homer City, the D.C. Circuit concluded that a 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP cannot be ``required'' until sometime after EPA 
quantifies the state's obligations pursuant to that section, and that 
EPA therefore cannot promulgate a FIP to address the requirements of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until after EPA has both quantified the state's 
obligation and given the state an initial opportunity to implement the 
obligations through a SIP. See EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 28, 30-31. 
EPA has not yet determined whether Utah has any additional obligations 
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or quantified any such obligations. 
Therefore, pursuant to the EME Homer City decision, this 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Utah was not a required SIP 
submission and thus Utah has no obligation at this time to resubmit a 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP or take any other action related to the 
requirements of this section with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS. In addition, unless the EME Homer City opinion is reversed or 
modified, final action on the disapproval proposed herein would also 
not trigger any FIP obligation under CAA section 110(c), because 
pursuant to EME Homer City, at this time EPA lacks authority to 
promulgate a FIP to address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements. See 
id. at 28-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On March 29, 2013 the United States and other parties filed 
petitions for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the DC 
Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (DC Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of 
Utah's September 21, 2010 submission. We propose to disapprove this 
portion of the submission because it fails to demonstrate that the Utah 
SIP is adequate for the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As 
explained in detail above, unless the EME Homer City decision is 
reversed or modified, this disapproval will not trigger an obligation 
for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address these interstate transport 
requirements, nor will it require Utah to submit a revised interstate 
transport SIP to meet the requirements.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely disapproves some state law because it does not 
meet federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that 
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an 
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety 
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 8, 2013.
Howard M. Cantor,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-11974 Filed 5-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```