ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0211; FRL- ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution; 

Interference with Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of California on November 17, 2007, to 

address the “transport SIP” provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the CAA requires that each SIP contain, among other things, 

adequate measures prohibiting emissions of air pollutants in 

amounts which will interfere with any other State’s measures 

required under title I, part C of the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality. EPA is approving California’s SIP 

revision with respect to those Districts that implement SIPapproved permit programs meeting the approval criteria and 

simultaneously disapproving California’s SIP revision with 
2

respect to those Districts that do not implement SIP-approved 

permit programs meeting the approval criteria, as discussed in 

our May 31, 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 31263). 

DATES: This final rule is effective [Insert date 30 days from 

the date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under 

EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0211. The index to the docket for this action 

is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in 

hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the 

index, some information may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material) and some may not 

be available in either location (e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy form.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 

972–3227, mays.rory@epa.gov.
3

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms 

“we”, “us”, and “our” refer to EPA. 

I. Summary of the Proposed Actions 

On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31263), EPA proposed a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a SIP revision submitted by 

the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 17, 2007, 

to address the “transport SIP” provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 Transport SIP). Specifically, EPA proposed a 

limited approval and limited disapproval of the 2007 Transport 

SIP with respect to the requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that each SIP contain adequate measures 

prohibiting emissions of air pollutants in amounts which will 

interfere with any other State’s measures required under title 

I, part C of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality. We refer to this requirement as “element (3)” of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

A. Proposed Action With Respect to 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS 

We proposed the following actions with respect to element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
4

NAAQS. For nine Districts1 that are designated nonattainment and 

classified under subpart 2 of part D, title I of the CAA and 

that have SIP-approved nonattainment area new source review 

(NNSR) programs meeting the approval criteria discussed in our 

May 31, 2011 proposed rule, we proposed to approve the 2007 

Transport SIP. 

For three Districts2 with nonattainment areas classified 

under subpart 2 for which NNSR SIP revisions were necessary to 

meet the approval criteria, we proposed to approve the 2007 

Transport SIP if we finalized approval of the required NNSR SIP 

revisions by our July 10, 2011 Consent Decree deadline for final 

action on element (3) of the 2007 Transport SIP.3 Alternatively, 

for any of these Districts for which we could not approve the 

required NNSR SIP revision by our July 10, 2011 deadline, we 

proposed to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to 

element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and to promulgate a limited NNSR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing the relevant requirements. 

 

1 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AQMD), Bay Area AQMD, El 

Dorado County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Imperial County APCD, 

Mojave Desert AQMD, San Joaquin Valley APCD, South Coast AQMD, Ventura County 

APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD. 

2 Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. 

3 See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA (Case No. 4:09–CV–02453–CW), Consent 

Decree dated November 10, 2009, as amended by Notice of Stipulated Extensions 

to Consent Decree Deadlines, dated April 28, 2011 (establishing July 10, 2011 

deadline for final action on element (3) of the 2007 Transport SIP). The 

July 10, 2011 deadline was further extended to July 29, 2011 by Notice of 

Stipulated Extension to Consent Decree Deadlines, dated July 7, 2011. 
5

For two Districts4 with “former subpart 1” nonattainment 

areas that implement SIP-approved NNSR programs meeting the 

approval criteria, we proposed to approve the 2007 Transport 

SIP. 

For seven Districts5 with “former subpart 1” nonattainment 

areas that do not yet have SIP-approved NNSR programs, we 

proposed to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but to determine 

that implementation of the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix S (“The Interpretative Rule”)6 during this interim 

period pending EPA’s final subpart 2 classifications of these 

areas adequately addresses the requirements of element (3) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and, therefore, discharges EPA’s 

obligation to promulgate a FIP for these limited purposes. 

For Monterey Bay Unified APCD (“Monterey”), which is 

designated unclassifiable/attainment and has a SIP-approved 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program meeting 

the approval criteria, we proposed to approve the 2007 Transport 

SIP. 

 

4 Eastern Kern APCD and San Diego County APCD. 

5 Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD, Calaveras County APCD, Feather River 

AQMD, Mariposa County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and Tuolumne County APCD. 

6 Note that the waiver provisions in section VI of 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S 

no longer apply. See Phase 2 Rule, 75 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) and NRDC 

v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (vacating EPA’s elimination of the 

18-month limitation in 40 CFR part 52.24(k) with respect to the waiver 

provisions in section VI of 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S). 
6

For two Districts7 with unclassifiable/attainment areas for 

which we recently approved PSD SIP revisions meeting the 

approval criteria by direct final rule, we proposed to approve 

the 2007 Transport SIP. Alternatively, we proposed to disapprove 

the 2007 Transport SIP if either of these direct final rules 

were withdrawn and would not become effective by our July 10, 

2011 Consent Decree deadline, in which case we would promulgate 

a limited PSD FIP for the relevant District based on the 

provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 identifying NOx as an ozone precursor. 

For North Coast Unified AQMD (“North Coast”), we proposed 

to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP and to promulgate a limited 

PSD FIP for NOx emission sources only, as discussed in our May 

31, 2011 proposed rule. By separate action published in today’s 

Federal Register, EPA finalized that limited PSD FIP for North 

Coast.8

For the rest of the State, which is designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

subject to the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, we proposed 

to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but to determine that no 

further action is required to address element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has already promulgated a PSD FIP 

for these areas. 

 

7 Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD. 

8 See fn. 3 above. 
7

B. Proposed Action With Respect to 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

We proposed the following actions with respect to element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For 

two Districts9 that are designated nonattainment, we proposed to 

approve the 2007 Transport SIP based on a determination that 

implementation of The Interpretative Rule during the SIPdevelopment period adequately addresses the requirements of 

element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

For five Districts10 that are designated 

unclassifiable/attainment and that have SIP-approved PSD 

programs meeting the approval criteria discussed above, we 

proposed to approve the 2007 Transport SIP. 

For the rest of the State, which is designated 

unclassifiable/attainment and subject to the Federal PSD program 

in 40 CFR 52.21, we proposed to disapprove the 2007 Transport 

SIP but to determine that no further action is required to 

address element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA 

has already promulgated a PSD FIP for these areas. 

C. Proposed Action With Respect to Greenhouse Gases 

Finally, with respect to PSD authority to regulate 

greenhouse gases (GHGs), we proposed to take the following 

 

9 San Joaquin Valley APCD and the South Coast Air Basin portion of South Coast 

AQMD. 

10 Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, North Coast Unified AQMD, 

Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. 
8

actions. For three Districts11 that were subject to the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule (75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010), we proposed to 

fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to element (3) 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) based on letters from each 

District. These letters clarified that the 2007 Transport SIP 

should be read, with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

to reflect each of their PSD programs as they are currently 

federally approved as a result of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. 

For Monterey, which has confirmed that its SIP provides GHG 

PSD permitting authority at thresholds consistent with the 

Tailoring Rule, we proposed to fully approve the 2007 Transport 

SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

For Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD (“Sacramento”), which was 

subject to the PSD GHG SIP Call (75 FR 77698, December 13, 

2010), we proposed to fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP with 

respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) if 

Sacramento’s corrective SIP revision to address GHG permitting 

requirements received EPA approval. 

For all other areas in California, which are subject to the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, we proposed to disapprove 

the 2007 Transport SIP but to determine that no further action 

 

11 Mendocino County AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD, and North Coast Unified 

AQMD. Note that footnote 24 of our proposed rule (76 FR 31263 at 31268) 

incorrectly identifies Monterey Bay Unified APCD instead of Northern Sonoma 

County APCD as one of the three Districts that were subject to the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule but that our Technical Support Document correctly identifies 

the relevant Districts. 
9

is required to address element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has already promulgated a PSD FIP 

for these areas. 

For a more detailed explanation of our evaluation of the 

2007 Transport SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and of the rationale for our proposed actions, 

please see our May 31, 2011 proposed rule and related Technical 

Support Document (76 FR 31263). 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

Our May 31, 2011 proposed rule provided for a 30-day 

comment period. We did not receive any public comments in 

response to the proposed rule. 

III. Final Action 

Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, EPA is 

finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the 

2007 Transport SIP submitted by CARB on November 17, 2007. We 

are finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval action 

because the 2007 Transport SIP is not separable with respect to 

individual California Districts, and because, although the 

submittal as a whole strengthens the SIP and meets the 

applicable CAA requirements for certain Districts, it does not 

meet the applicable requirements for certain other Districts, as 
10

discussed in Section I of this final rule and in our May 31, 

2011 proposed rule. 

Specifically, we are approving the 2007 Transport SIP as 

meeting the requirements of element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the following areas: 

• Twelve Districts12 that implement SIP-approved NNSR or PSD 

programs meeting the approval criteria for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS; 

• Three Districts13 for which we have recently approved the 

required NNSR SIP revisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

(see 76 FR 43183, July 20, 2011 (Final rule, Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD NNSR and PSD SIP revisions); and Final 

rule, “Revisions to the California State Implementation 

Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control District and 

Feather River Air Quality Management District,” signed June 

30, 2011); 

• Two Districts14 for which we have recently approved the 

required PSD SIP revisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

(see 76 FR 26192 (May 6, 2011)); 

• Five Districts15 that implement SIP-approved PSD programs 

meeting the approval criteria for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; 

 

12 Antelope Valley AQMD, Bay Area AQMD, El Dorado County APCD, Imperial County 

APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, San Joaquin Valley APCD, South Coast AQMD, Ventura 

County APCD, Yolo-Solano AQMD, Eastern Kern APCD, San Diego County APCD, and 

Monterey Bay Unified APCD. 

13 Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. 

14 Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD. 
11

• Four Districts16 that implement SIP-approved PSD programs 

meeting the approval criteria for greenhouse gases (GHGs); 

and 

• One District (Sacramento) for which we have recently 

approved the required PSD SIP revision for GHGs (see 76 FR 

43183, July 20, 2011 (Final rule, Sacramento Metropolitan 

AQMD NNSR and PSD SIP revisions)). 

We are simultaneously disapproving the 2007 Transport SIP 

for failure to meet the requirements of element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the following areas: 

• Seven Districts17 with “former subpart 1” ozone 

nonattainment areas that do not yet have SIP-approved NNSR 

programs meeting the approval criteria for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS; 

• One District (North Coast) for which EPA has not yet 

approved a PSD SIP revision meeting the approval criteria 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and 

• All areas in the State that are subject to the Federal PSD 

program in 40 CFR 52.21 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

 

15 Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified AQMD, North Coast Unified AQMD, 

Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. 

16 Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, North Coast Unified AQMD, 

and Northern Sonoma County APCD.

17 Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD, Calaveras County APCD, Feather River 

AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Mariposa County APCD, and Tuolumne County APCD. 
12

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and/or GHGs, where the California SIP 

remains deficient with respect to PSD requirements. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a 

submittal that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the 

CAA (CAA sections 171-193) or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 

110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanctions clock. The 2007 

Transport SIP was not submitted to meet either of these 

requirements. Therefore, this final limited disapproval does not 

trigger a sanctions clock. 

Disapproval of a required SIP revision also triggers the 

requirement under CAA section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP 

no later than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless 

the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator 

approves the plan or plan revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. For the seven Districts with “former 

subpart 1” ozone nonattainment areas for which we are 

disapproving the 2007 Transport SIP (because they do not yet 

have SIP-approved NNSR programs meeting the approval criteria 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS), we are finalizing our proposal 

to conclude that current implementation of The Interpretative 

Rule in these areas adequately addresses the requirements of 

element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour 
13

ozone NAAQS and, therefore, discharges EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate a FIP for these limited purposes. 

For all other Districts for which we are disapproving the 

2007 Transport SIP, with the exception of North Coast, EPA has 

already incorporated into the applicable SIP the provisions of 

the Federal PSD program contained in 40 CFR 52.21 and, 

therefore, has no further obligation to promulgate a FIP to 

address the requirements of element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

With respect to North Coast, which implements a PSD program 

that does not currently satisfy element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, by separate 

action published in today’s Federal Register, EPA finalized a 

limited PSD FIP, as discussed herein and in our May 31, 2011 

proposed rule. That limited PSD FIP will apply only until EPA 

approves the required PSD SIP revision for this area.18 

Finally, with respect to the five Districts19 for which NNSR 

or PSD SIP revisions were necessary to meet the transport SIP 

approval criteria for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, we are not 

finalizing the limited NNSR/PSD FIPs that we had proposed in the 

alternative to codify in 40 CFR sections 52.233, 

 

18 We note that CARB submitted a PSD SIP revision for North Coast Unified AQMD 

on February 28, 2011 to address, among other things, the requirement to 

identify NOx as an ozone precursor. 

19 Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, 

Mendocino County AQMD, and Northern Sonoma County APCD. 
14

52.270(b)(3)(iv), and 52.270(b)(4)(iv). We are approving the 

2007 Transport SIP for these Districts based on our final 

approval of the required SIP revisions, as discussed in Section 

I of this final rule and in our May 31, 2011 proposed rule. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled 

"Regulatory Planning and Review." 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

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. 

This rule will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals and 
15

limited approvals/limited disapprovals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is 

already imposing. Therefore, because this limited 

approval/limited disapproval action does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State 

relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to 

base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric 

Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 

1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany 

any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 

million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves 
16

the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited 

disapproval action promulgated today 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 Federal action 

approves 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

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 
17

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 

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 in part and 

disapproves in part a State plan implementing a Federal 

requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order do not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments
18

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 rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

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 rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, because it approves in part and disapproves in part 

a State plan implementing a Federal requirement.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
19

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions 

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use" (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 

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, 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 
20

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 rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 rule 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. section 804(2).

L. Petitions for Review of This Action

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 [FEDERAL 
21

REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication of 

this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 

judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds. 

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

___7/25/2011_____ ___/s/____________________ 

Date Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, 

 Region IX 
22

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 52 – [AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph 

(c)(386)(ii)(A)(4) to read as follows: 

Section 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(386) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(4) 2007 Transport SIP at pages 21-22 (Attachment A) 

(“Evaluation of interference with Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Measures of any other State”). 

* * * * * 

3. Section 52.283 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read 

as follows: 

Section 52.283 Interstate Transport. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 

interference with any other state’s measures required under 
23

title I, part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality, except that these requirements are 

not fully met in the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or 

Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in this 

paragraph. 

(i) Amador County APCD 

(ii) Butte County AQMD 

(iii) Calaveras County APCD 

(iv) Feather River AQMD 

(v) Northern Sierra AQMD 

(vi) Mariposa County APCD 

(vii) Tuolumne County APCD 

(viii) North Coast Unified AQMD 

(ix) All other areas in California that are subject to the 

Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. 

* * * * *