28444 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 

6901 et seq.; 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 

2601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.; Public 

Law 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321–299 

(1996); Public Law 105–65, 111 Stat. 1344, 

1373 (1997); 5. 105–276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 

(1988). 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 35.101 by adding 

paragraph (a)(20) to read as follows: 

§ 35.101 Environmental programs covered 

by the subpart. 

(a) * * * 

(20) State Response Program Grants 

(section 128(a) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA)). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 35.133 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 35.133 Programs eligible for inclusion. 

(a) Eligible programs. Except as 

provided in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the environmental programs 

eligible, in accordance with 

appropriation acts, for inclusion in a 

Performance Partnership Grant are 

listed in § 35.101(a)(2) through (17) and 

(20). (Funds available from the section 

205(g) State Administration Grants 

program (§ 35.100(b)(18)) and the Water 

Quality Management Planning Grant 

program (§ 35.100(b)(19)) and funds 

awarded to states under State Response 

Program Grants (§ 35.100(b)(20)) to 

capitalize a revolving loan fund for 

Brownfield remediation or purchase 

insurance or develop a risk sharing 

pool, an indemnity pool, or insurance 

mechanism to provide financing for 

response actions may not be included in 

Performance Partnership Grants.) 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Subpart A is amended by adding an 

undesignated center heading and 

§§ 35.419, 35.420 and 35.421 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

State Response Program Grants 

(CERCLA Section 128(A)) 

§ 35.419 Purpose. 

(a) Purpose of section. Sections 35.419 

through 35.421 govern State Response 

Program Grants (as defined in section 

128(a) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA)). 

(b) Purpose of program. State 

Response Program Grants are awarded 

to States to establish or enhance the 

response program of the State; capitalize 

a revolving loan fund for Brownfield 

remediation under section 104(k)(3) of 

CERCLA; or purchase insurance or 

develop a risk sharing pool, an 

indemnity pool, or insurance 

mechanism to provide financing for 

response actions under a State response 

program. 

§ 35.420 Basis for allotment. 

The Administrator allots response 

program funds to each EPA regional 

office. Regional Administrators award 

funds to States based on their 

programmatic needs and applicable EPA 

guidance. 

§ 35.421 Maximum federal share. 

The Regional Administrator may 

provide up to 100 percent of the 

approved work plan costs with the 

exception of the cost shares required by 

CERCLA 104(k)(9)(B)(iii) for 

capitalization of revolving loan funds 

under CERCLA 104(k)(3). 

■ 5. Amend § 35.501 by adding 

paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows: 

§ 35.501 Environmental programs covered 

by the subpart. 

(a) * * * 

(10) Tribal Response Program Grants 

(section 128(a) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA)). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 35.533 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 35.533 Programs eligible for inclusion. 

(a) Eligible programs. Except as 

provided in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the environmental programs 

eligible for inclusion in a Performance 

Partnership Grant are listed in 

§ 35.101(a)(2) through (10) of this 

subpart. Funds awarded to tribes under 

Tribal Response Program Grants 

(§ 35.101(a)(10)) to capitalize a revolving 

loan fund for Brownfield remediation or 

purchase insurance or develop a risk 

sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or 

insurance mechanism to provide 

financing for response actions may not 

be included in Performance Partnership 

Grants. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Subpart B is amended by adding a 

new undesignated center heading and 

§§ 35.736, 35.737 and 35.738 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

Tribal Response Program Grants 

(CERCLA Section 128(A)) 

§ 35.736 Purpose. 

(a) Purpose of section. Sections 35.736 

through 35.738 govern Tribal Response 

Program Grants (as defined in section 

128(a) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA)). 

(b) Purpose of program. Tribal 

Response Program Grants are awarded 

to Tribes to establish or enhance the 

response program of the Tribe; 

capitalize a revolving loan fund for 

brownfield remediation under section 

104(k)(3) of CERCLA; or purchase 

insurance or develop a risk sharing 

pool, an indemnity pool, or insurance 

mechanism to provide financing for 

response actions under a Tribal 

response program. 

§ 35.737 Basis for allotment. 

The Administrator allots response 

program funds to each EPA regional 

office. Regional Administrators award 

funds to Tribes based on their 

programmatic needs and applicable EPA 

guidance. 

§ 35.738 Maximum federal share. 

The Regional Administrator may 

provide up to 100 percent of the 

approved work plan costs with the 

exception of the cost shares required by 

CERCLA 104(k)(9)(B)(iii) for 

capitalization of revolving loan funds 

under CERCLA 104(k)(3). 

[FR Doc. E9–14114 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0287; FRL–8918–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Northern Virginia Reasonably 

Available Control Technology Under 

the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. This SIP revision consists of a 

demonstration that the Virginia portion 

(Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls 

Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park; 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28445 

Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon, 

and Prince William) of the Washington, 

DC-MD-VA 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area meets the 

requirements of reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) for oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) set forth by the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). These 

requirements are based on: Certification 

that previously adopted RACT controls 

in Virginia’s SIP that were approved by 

EPA under the 1-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

are based on the currently available 

technically and economically feasible 

controls, and that they continue to 

represent RACT for the 8-hour 

implementation purposes; a negative 

declaration demonstrating that no 

facilities exist in the Virginia portion of 

the Washington, DC-MD-VA area for 

certain control technology guideline 

(CTG) categories; and a new RACT 

determination for a specific source. This 

action is being taken under the CAA. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on July 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2007–0287. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the electronic 

docket, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., 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 either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy for public inspection during 

normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 19, 2009 (74 FR 11702), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR 

proposed approval of the requirements 

of RACT under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA received no comments on 

the proposal to approve Virginia’s SIP 

revision. The formal SIP revision was 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia on October 23, 2006. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Virginia’s SIP revision contains the 

requirements of RACT set forth by the 

CAA under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Virginia’s SIP revision is consistent with 

the process in the Phase 2 Rule 

preamble, and satisfies the requirements 

of RACT set forth by the CAA under the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Virginia’s SIP 

revision satisfies the 8-hour RACT 

requirements through (1) certification 

that previously adopted RACT controls 

in Virginia’s SIP that were approved by 

EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

are based on the currently available 

technically and economically feasible 

controls, and continues to represent 

RACT for the 8-hour implementation 

purposes; (2) a negative declaration 

demonstrating that no facilities exist in 

the Virginia portion of the Washington, 

DC-MD-VA area for the applicable CTG 

categories; and (3) a new RACT 

determination for a single source. Other 

requirements of Virginia’s 8-hour RACT 

and the rationale for EPA’s proposed 

action are explained in the NPR and 

will not be restated here. No public 

comments were received on the NPR. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal counterparts 

* * *.’’ The opinion concludes that 

‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, 

documents or other information needed 

for civil or criminal enforcement under 

one of these programs could not be 

privileged because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
28446 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the 8-hour RACT as 

a revision to the Commonwealth of 

Virginia’s SIP. Virginia’s SIP revision 

contains the requirements of RACT set 

forth by the CAA under the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This SIP revision was 

submitted on October 23, 2006. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 17, 2009. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action, 

pertaining to the Commonwealth of 

Virginia’s RACT provisions under the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: June 5, 2009. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry for 

‘‘RACT under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS’’—Virginia portion of the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA area at the end 

of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

* * * * * * * 

RACT under the 8-Hour 

ozone NAAQS.

Virginia portion of the Washington, 

DC-MD-VA area.

10/23/06 06/16/09, [Insert page number where 

the document begins].


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 28447 

[FR Doc. E9–14018 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0595; FRL–8918–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Under the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the District of Columbia. 

This SIP revision consists of a 

demonstration that the District of 

Columbia meets the requirements of 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) set 

forth by the Clean Air Act (CAA). This 

SIP revision demonstrates that all 

requirements for RACT are met either 

through: Certification that previously 

adopted RACT controls in the District of 

Columbia’s SIP that were approved by 

EPA under the 1-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

are based on the currently available 

technically and economically feasible 

controls, and that they continue to 

represent RACT for the 8-hour 

implementation purposes; and a 

negative declaration demonstrating that 

no facilities exist in the District of 

Columbia for the applicable control 

technology guideline (CTG) categories. 

This action is being taken under the 

CAA. 

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is 

effective on July 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0595. All 

documents in the electronic docket are 

listed in the http://www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., 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 either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the District of Columbia 

Department of the Environment, 51 N 

Street, NE., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 

20002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick J. Egan, (215) 814–3167, or by 

e-mail at egan.patrick@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 25, 2009 (75 FR 12778), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the District of 

Columbia. The NPR proposed approval 

of the requirements of RACT under the 

8-hour Ozone NAAQS. EPA received no 

comments on the proposal to approve 

the District of Columbia SIP revision. 

The formal SIP revision was submitted 

by the District of Columbia on 

September 22, 2008. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On September 22, 2008, the District of 

Columbia Department of Environment 

(DDOE) submitted a revision to its SIP 

that addresses the requirements of 

RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

set forth by the CAA. The District of 

Columbia’s SIP revision is consistent 

with the process in the Phase 2 Rule 

preamble, and satisfies the requirements 

of RACT set forth by the CAA under the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The District of 

Columbia’s SIP revision satisfies the 8- 

hour RACT requirements through a 

certification that previously adopted 

RACT controls in the District of 

Columbia’s SIP that were approved by 

EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

are based on the currently available 

technically and economically feasible 

controls, and continues to represent 

RACT for the 8-hour implementation 

purposes and a negative declaration 

demonstrating that facilities exist in the 

District of Columbia for the applicable 

control technology guideline (CTG) 

categories. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the District of 

Columbia SIP revision that addresses 

the requirements of RACT under the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The District of 

Columbia’s SIP revision was submitted 

on September 22, 2008. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES