40332 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect 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. We have 

analyzed this rule under that order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, 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. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated 

implementing instructions, and 

Environmental Planning COMDTINST 

5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone lasting only one hour that will 

prohibit entry within 250-yard radius of 

where the fireworks display will be 

conducted. It is categorically excluded 

from further review under paragraph 

L[60] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS 

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, 

Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental 

Consideration supporting this 

determination is available in the docket. 

For instructions on locating the docket, 

see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0576 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0576 Safety Zone; Maumee 

River; Toledo, OH. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All U.S. navigable waters of 

the Maumee River within a within a 

250-yard radius of the fireworks launch 

site located at position 41°38′54′′ N 

83°31′54′′ W. All geographic coordinates 

are North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD 83). 

(b) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 

10:30 p.m. on September 3, 2021. The 

Captain of the Port Detroit, or a 

designated representative may suspend 

enforcement of the safety zone at any 

time. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23, entry 

into, transiting or anchoring within this 

safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Detroit, or his designated representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Detroit or his designated representative. 

(3) The ‘‘designated representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port Detroit is any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or 

petty officer who has been designated 

by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act 

on their behalf. The designated 

representative of the Captain of the Port 

Detroit will be aboard either a Coast 

Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. 

The Captain of the Port Detroit or a 

designated representative may be 

contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Detroit 

or a designated representative to obtain 

permission to do so. Vessel operators 

given permission to enter or operate in 

the safety zone must comply with all 

directions given to them by the Captain 

of the Port Detroit or a designated 

representative. 

Dated: July 22, 2021. 

Brad W. Kelly, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Detroit. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16031 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 31 and 32 

[Docket ID ED–2021–OFO–0083] 

RIN 1880–AA90 

Permissibility of Administrative Law 

Judges Presiding Over Salary PreOffset Hearings 

AGENCY: Office of Finance and 

Operations (OFO), Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) amends its regulations 

regarding salary pre-offset hearings to 

expressly permit administrative law 

judges (ALJs) to act as the presiding 

officers. 

DATES: These final regulations are 

effective July 28, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Cummings, 550 12th Street 

SW, Room 10089, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40333 

(202) 245–7185. Email: 

Anthony.Cummings@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

explained more fully below, the 

Department is revising its regulations in 

34 CFR parts 31 and 32 to permit ALJs 

to preside over salary pre-offset 

hearings. 

Statute: Under 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3, the 

Secretary is vested with broad authority 

to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and 

amend rules and regulations governing 

the manner and operation of, and 

governing the applicable programs 

administered by, the Department. This 

provision is mirrored in 20 U.S.C. 3474, 

providing the Secretary authority to 

prescribe such rules and regulations as 

the Secretary determines necessary or 

appropriate to administer and manage 

the functions of the Secretary or the 

Department. In particular, under 20 

U.S.C. 1234(f)(1), the Secretary shall 

prescribe by regulation the rules for 

conducting proceedings within its 

Office of Administrative Law Judges 

(OALJ). Such rules must conform to the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 

5 U.S.C. 554, 556, and 557. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1), the 

Secretary may collect debts owed to the 

United States by employees of the 

Federal Government. Such debts are 

commonly recoupment of overpayments 

made by the Department to an employee 

due to a miscalculation of the 

employee’s level of pay or a failure of 

the Department to correctly calculate a 

deduction to the employee’s pay. To 

collect these debts, the Secretary 

generally imposes deductions to the 

employee’s pay in regular installments. 

This process of debt collection is 

referred to as administrative offset. 31 

U.S.C. 3716. 

Prior to implementing an 

administrative offset, an employee is 

entitled to, among other things, a 

minimum of 30 days’ written notice, 

informing the employee of the nature 

and amount of the indebtedness and the 

agency’s intention to initiate an 

administrative offset. 5 U.S.C. 

5514(a)(2)(A). After receipt of the notice, 

the employee is entitled to request a 

hearing on the agency’s determination 

concerning the existence or the amount 

of the debt or to challenge the terms of 

any nonvoluntary repayment schedule 

the agency intends to implement. 5 

U.S.C. 5514(a)(2)(D). 

A hearing conducted under the 

authority of 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(2)(D) may 

not be conducted by an individual 

under the supervision or control of the 

head of the agency, except that nothing 

in this sentence shall be construed to 

prohibit the appointment of an ALJ. 5 

U.S.C. 5514(a)(2). 

The Secretary is required to establish 

regulations to carry out the statutory 

provisions for administrative offsets 

described above. 5 U.S.C. 5514(b)(1); 31 

U.S.C. 3716(b)(2). 

Current Regulations: Under 34 CFR 

31.7(a), a hearing conducted for a salary 

offset for a current or former Federal 

employee indebted to the United States 

under a program administered by the 

Secretary is conducted by a hearing 

official who is neither an employee of 

the Department nor otherwise under the 

supervision or control of the Secretary. 

Under 34 CFR 32.5(d), a salary preoffset hearing held to recover 

overpayments of pay or allowances paid 

to a current or former Department 

employee is conducted by a hearing 

official who is not an employee of the 

Department or under the supervision or 

control of the Secretary. 

New Regulations: Revised §§ 31.7(a) 

and 32.5(d) expressly provide that ALJs 

are not prohibited from presiding over 

hearings for the collection of debts owed 

to the United States by current or former 

employees of the Federal Government. 

Reasons: The Department employs 

ALJs within OALJ. Congress established 

OALJ to consider cases before the 

Department involving hearings for 

recovery of funds, withholding hearings, 

cease-and-desist hearings, and other 

proceedings designated by the 

Secretary. 20 U.S.C. 1234(a); 34 CFR 

81.3. The Secretary appoints ALJs to 

OALJ in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3105 

and 20 U.S.C. 1234(b). 

The statutory authority for salary preoffset hearings prohibits individuals 

under the supervision or control of an 

agency head from presiding but 

specifically excepts ALJs from that 

prohibition. 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(2). 

However, a review of the Department’s 

regulations revealed a disconnect 

between the regulations and the statute. 

Sections 31.7(a) and 32.5(d) mirror the 

statutory prohibition on individuals 

under the supervision or control of the 

Secretary presiding over hearings, but 

they do not include the statute’s 

exception, allowing ALJs to preside over 

such hearings. 

The omission in §§ 31.7(a) and 32.5(d) 

of the exception for ALJs was likely due 

to a drafting oversight. This amendment 

of the regulations harmonizes the 

regulations with the express statutory 

exception that ALJs are not prohibited 

from presiding over pre-offset hearings 

involving collection of indebtedness to 

the United States from Federal 

employees. 

As contemplated in the statutory 

exception, the Department’s ALJs are 

well-suited for the task of presiding over 

such hearings because they act with 

impartiality and independence. ALJs are 

subject to less supervision and control 

by the Secretary than ordinary 

Department employees. For example, 

pursuant to 5 CFR 930.206, ALJs may 

not be rated on their job performance 

and may not receive a monetary or 

honorary award or incentive. Similarly, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7521, ALJs may not 

be removed from their positions or have 

other specified actions taken against 

them except by the independent action 

of the Merit Systems Protection Board. 

Therefore, the Department is revising 

its regulations to correct the drafting 

oversight and expressly permit ALJs to 

preside over salary pre-offset hearings. 

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Delayed Effective Date 

Under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553), the 

Department generally offers interested 

parties the opportunity to comment on 

proposed regulations. These regulations 

only govern the procedures for 

conducting administrative offset 

hearings to which the parties are the 

Department and current or former 

employees. As such, these regulations 

make procedural changes only and do 

not establish substantive policy. The 

regulations are, therefore, rules of 

agency practice and procedure and 

exempt from notice and comment 

rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). 

Moreover, the APA provides that an 

agency is not required to conduct notice 

and comment rulemaking when the 

agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public comment thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 

Rulemaking is ‘‘unnecessary’’ when 

‘‘the administrative rule is a routine 

determination, insignificant in nature 

and impact, and inconsequential to the 

industry and to the public.’’ Utility 

Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA, 

236 F.3d 749, 755 (D.C. Cir. 2001), 

quoting U.S. Department of Justice, 

Attorney General’s Manual on the 

Administrative Procedure Act 31 (1947) 

and South Carolina v. Block, 558 F. 

Supp. 1004, 1016 (D.S.C. 1983). Because 

we are amending these procedural 

regulations to align them more closely 

with the applicable statutory provision, 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Secretary 

has determined that proposed 

regulations are unnecessary. 

The APA generally requires that 

regulations be published at least 30 days 

before their effective date, unless the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
40334 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

agency has good cause to implement its 

regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). 

As previously stated, because the final 

regulations merely reflect an applicable 

statutory provision and address agency 

procedure, there is good cause to waive 

the delayed effective date in the APA 

and make the final regulations effective 

upon publication. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency — 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that maximize net 

benefits. Based on the analysis that 

follows, the Department believes that 

these final regulations are consistent 

with the principles in Executive Order 

13563. We also have determined that 

this regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. Because this 

regulatory action does not implicate any 

new process or other financial 

commitment or burden, this regulatory 

action will not create any new costs. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

Because notice-and-comment 

rulemaking is not necessary for this 

procedural rule, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (96 Pub. L. 354, 5 U.S.C. 

601–612) does not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The final regulations do not create 

any new information collection 

requirements. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document and a copy of the 

application package in an accessible 

format. The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF, you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

List of Subjects 

34 CFR Part 31 

Claims, Government employees, Grant 

programs—education, Loan programs— 

education, Student aid, Wages. 

34 CFR Part 32 

Claims, Government employees, 

Wages. 

Denise L. Carter, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Finance and 

Operations. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary amends parts 31 

and 32 of title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 31—SALARY OFFSET FOR 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO ARE 

INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES 

UNDER PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED 

BY THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 31 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5514; 31 U.S.C. 3716. 

■ 2. Section 31.7 is amended by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 31.7 Hearing procedures. 

(a) Independence of hearing official. 

A hearing provided under this part is 

conducted by a hearing official who is 

not under the supervision or control of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40335 

the Secretary, except that this 

prohibition does not apply to the 

Department’s administrative law judges. 

* * * * * 

PART 32—SALARY OFFSET TO 

RECOVER OVERPAYMENTS OF PAY 

OR ALLOWANCES FROM 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

EMPLOYEES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 32 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5514; 31 U.S.C. 3716. 

■ 4. Section 32.5 is amended by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 32.5 Pre-offset hearing—general. 

* * * * * 

(d) The hearing is conducted by a 

hearing official who is not under the 

supervision or control of the Secretary, 

except that this prohibition does not 

apply to the Department’s 

administrative law judges. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–15897 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0222; FRL–8714–02– 

R9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; Mojave 

Desert Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the Mojave Desert 

Air Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD or ‘‘District’’) portion of the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from wood 

products coating operations. We are 

approving a local rule that regulates 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

August 27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0222. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure 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. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3286 or by 

email at schwartz.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On April 21, 2021 (86 FR 20643), the 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

rule into the California SIP. 

Local Agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

MDAQMD .......... 1114 Wood Products Coating Operations ............................................................ 08/24/2020 11/18/2020 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complies 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully 

approving this rule into the California 

SIP. The August 24, 2020 version of 

Rule 1114 will replace the previously 

approved version of this rule in the SIP. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

MDAQMD rules described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and at the EPA Region IX Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

V. 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, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES