```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64065-64069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26763]

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

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.

[[Page 64066]]

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Previously 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 64067]]

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 ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/
m\3\. We retained the annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\. 
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On 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''.
    \4\ For more discussion on the court remand of CAIR please see 
our August 8, 2011, CSAPR (76 FR 48208).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ozone-
season 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

[[Page 64068]]

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-and-of 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-and-of 
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.

[[Page 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
```