Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0440-0013
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Stay of the Findings of Significant Contribution
and Rulemaking for Georgia for Purposes of Reducing Ozone Interstate Transport
Posted Date: 2005-01-04T05:00Z

DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
6560­
50­
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
51,
78,
and
97
[
Docket
No.
OAR­
2001­
0008;
FRL­
]

[
RIN
]

Stay
of
the
Findings
of
Significant
Contribution
and
Rulemaking
for
Georgia
for
Purposes
of
Reducing
Ozone
Interstate
Transport
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
In
this
action,
EPA
is
proposing
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
a
final
rule
we
issued
under
section
110
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
related
to
the
interstate
transport
of
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx).
On
April
21,
2004,
EPA
issued
a
final
rule
that
required
the
State
of
Georgia
to
submit
State
implementation
plan
(
SIP)
revisions
that
prohibit
specified
amounts
of
NOx
emissions­
one
of
the
precursors
to
ozone
(
smog)
pollution­
for
the
purposes
of
reducing
NOx
and
ozone
transport
across
State
boundaries
in
the
eastern
half
of
the
United
States.
This
rule
became
effective
on
June
21,
2004.

Subsequently,
the
Georgia
Coalition
for
Sound
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
2
Environmental
Policy
(
GCSEP
or
Petitioners)
filed
a
petition
for
reconsideration
requesting
that
EPA
reconsider
the
inclusion
of
the
State
of
Georgia
in
the
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule
and
also
requested
a
stay
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
rule
as
it
relates
to
the
State
of
Georgia
only.

In
response
to
this
petition,
EPA
is
proposing
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
the
April
21,
2004
rule
as
it
relates
to
the
State
of
Georgia
only,
while
EPA
conducts
notice­

andcomment
rulemaking
to
further
address
the
issues
raised
by
the
Petitioners.

DATES:
Comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
insert
30
days
from
publication].
A
public
hearing,
if
requested,

will
be
held
in
Washington,
D.
C.
on
December
1,
2004,

beginning
at
9:
00
a.
m.

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
No.

OAR­
2001­
0008,
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

°
Federal
eRulemaking
Portal:

http://
www.
regulations.
gov.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

°
Agency
Website:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.

EDOCKET,
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Follow
the
on­
line
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
3
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

°
E­
mail:
A­
and­
R­
Docket@
epa.
gov.

°
Fax:
(
202)
566­
1741
°
Mail:
Air
Docket,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,

Mailcode:
6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,

Washington,
DC
20460.
Please
include
a
total
of
2
copies.

°
Hand
Delivery:
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1301
Constitution
Avenue.
NW.,
Room
B108,
Washington,

DC
20004.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation,
and
special
arrangements
should
be
made
for
deliveries
of
boxed
information.

Instructions:
Direct
your
comments
to
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­

2001­
0008.
The
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.
epa.
gov/
edocket,

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
EDOCKET,
regulations.
gov,
or
e­
mail.
The
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
4
EPA
EDOCKET
and
the
Federal
regulations.
gov
websites
are
"
anonymous
access"
systems,
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
EDOCKET
or
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
EDOCKET
index
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
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
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
5
electronically
in
EDOCKET
or
in
hard
copy
at
the
Air
Docket,

EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,

Washington,
DC.
The
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.
This
Docket
Facility
is
open
from
8:
00
a.
m.
to
5:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
Docket
telephone
number
is
(
929)
566­

1742,
fax
(
202)
566­
1741.

Docket:
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
EDOCKET
index
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
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
EDOCKET
or
in
hard
copy
at
the
Air
Docket,

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,

1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
6
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
General
questions
concerning
today's
action
should
be
addressed
to
Jan
King,

Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Air
Quality
Strategies
and
Standards
Division,
C539­
02,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC,
27711,
telephone
(
919)
541­
5665,
e­
mail
king.
jan@
epa.
gov.
Legal
questions
should
be
directed
to
Winifred
Okoye,
Office
of
General
Counsel,
(
2344A),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460,
telephone
(
202)

564­
5446,
e­
mail
okoye.
winifred@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

PUBLIC
HEARING
A
public
hearing,
if
requested,
will
be
held
on
December
1,
2004
beginning
at
9:
00
a.
m.
The
location
of
the
hearing
will
be
announced
in
the
website
listed
below.
If
you
wish
to
request
a
hearing
and
present
testimony
or
attend
the
hearing,
you
should
notify,
on
or
before
November
24,
2004,
Jan
King,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Air
Quality
Strategies
and
Standards
Division,

C539­
02,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
(
919)

541­
5665,
e­
mail
king.
jan@
epa.
gov.
Oral
testimony
will
be
limited
to
5
minutes
each.
The
hearing
will
be
strictly
limited
to
the
subject
matter
of
the
proposal,
the
scope
of
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
7
which
is
discussed
below.
Any
member
of
the
public
may
file
a
written
statement
by
the
close
of
the
comment
period.

Written
statements
(
duplicate
copies
preferred)
should
be
submitted
to
Docket
OAR­
2001­
0008,
at
the
address
listed
above
for
submitted
comments.
The
hearing
schedule,

including
lists
of
speakers
will
be
posted
on
EPA's
webpage
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
rto/
whatsnew.
html.
A
verbatim
transcript
of
the
hearing
and
written
statements
will
be
made
available
for
copying
during
normal
working
hours
at
the
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
at
the
address
listed
for
inspection
for
documents.

If
no
requests
for
a
public
hearing
are
received
by
close
of
business
on
November
24,
2004,
the
hearing
will
be
cancelled.
The
cancellation
will
be
announced
on
the
webpage
at
the
address
shown
above.

Outline
I.
Background
II.
What
is
the
Scope
of
this
Proposal?

III.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
C.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
8
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
I.
BACKGROUND:

On
October
27,
1998,
EPA
found
that
emissions
of
NOx
from
22
States
and
the
District
of
Columbia
(
23
States)
were
significantly
contributing
to
downwind
areas'
nonattainment
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
(
NAAQS).
[
Finding
of
Significant
Contribution
and
Rulemaking
for
Certain
States
in
the
Ozone
Transport
Assessment
Group
Region
for
Purposes
of
Reducing
Regional
Transport
of
Ozone,
63
FR
57354
(
October
27,
1998)(
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule)].
More
specifically,
EPA
found
that
the
State
of
Georgia
was
significantly
contributing
to
1­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
in
Birmingham,
Alabama
and
Memphis,
Tennessee.

(
63
FR
57394).
The
EPA
set
forth
requirements
for
each
of
the
affected
upwind
States
to
submit
SIP
revisions
prohibiting
those
amounts
of
NOx
emissions
which
significantly
contribute
to
downwind
nonattainment.
The
EPA
further
required
that
each
State
SIP
provide
for
NOx
reductions
in
amounts
that
any
remaining
emissions
would
not
exceed
the
level
specified
in
EPA's
NOx
SIP
Call
regulations
for
that
State
in
2007.

A
number
of
parties,
including
certain
States
as
well
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
9
as
industry
and
labor
groups,
challenged
the
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule.
More
specifically,
Georgia
and
Missouri
industry
petitioners
citing
to
the
Ozone
Transport
Assessment
Group
(
OTAG),
modeling
and
recommendations,
maintained
that
EPA
had
record
support
only
for
the
inclusion
of
eastern
Missouri
and
northern
Georgia,
as
significantly
contributing
to
downwind
nonattainment.
And
in
Michigan
v.
EPA,
213
F.

3d
663
(
D.
C.
Cir.,
2000),
cert.
denied,
121
S.
Ct.
1225
(
2001)(
Michigan),
the
D.
C.
Circuit
Court
vacated
and
remanded
EPA's
inclusion
of
the
entire
States
of
Georgia
and
Missouri,
on
grounds
that
OTAG
had
recommended
NOx
controls
to
reduce
transport
for
areas
within
the
fine
grid
parts
of
its
modeling
but
recommended
no
additional
controls
for
areas
within
the
coarse
grid
of
its
modeling.
Eastern
Missouri
and
northern
Georgia
lie
within
the
fine
grid.
The
Court,
however,
did
not
question
EPA's
proposition
that
eastern
Missouri
and
northern
Georgia
should
be
considered
as
significantly
contributing
to
downwind
nonattainment.

On
February
22,
2002,
EPA
proposed
the
inclusion
of
only
the
fine
grid
parts
of
Georgia
and
Missouri
in
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
[
Response
to
Court
Decisions
on
the
NOx
SIP
Call,

NOx
SIP
Call
Technical
Amendments,
and
Section
126
Rules,
67
FR
8396
(
February
22,
2002)].
The
EPA
also
proposed
revised
NOx
budgets
for
Georgia
and
Missouri
that
included
only
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
10
these
portions
of
each
State.

On
April
21,
2004,
EPA
finalized,
as
proposed,
the
inclusion
of
eastern
Missouri
and
northern
Georgia
in
the
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule,
allocated
revised
NOx
budgets
that
reflected
the
inclusion
of
sources
located
in
only
these
areas
and
set
revised
SIP
submittal
and
full
compliance
dates
of
April
1,
2005
and
May
1,
2007,
respectively.
(
69
FR
21604).

On
June
16,
2004,
the
GCSEP
filed
a
petition
for
reconsideration
of
the
inclusion
of
the
State
of
Georgia
in
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
under
section
307(
d)
of
the
CAA.

Petitioners
maintained
that
grounds
that
were
of
central
relevance
had
occurred
after
the
close
of
notice­
and­
comment
period
for
the
February
22,
2002
proposal.
More
specifically,
Petitioners
cited
EPA's
March
12,
2004,
1­
hour
ozone
attainment
redesignation
of
Birmingham,
Alabama(
69
FR
11798).
Additionally,
GCSEP
cited
to
the
earlier
January
17,

1995
Memphis,
Tennessee,
1­
hour
ozone
attainment
redesignation
(
60
FR
3352),
and
maintained
that
the
State
of
Georgia
should
not
be
subject
to
the
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule
because
it
was
no
longer
significantly
contributing
to
1­

hour
nonattainment
in
any
downwind
areas.
Petitioners
also
raised
other
issues
such
as
the
effect
of
EPA's
approval
and
the
State
of
Georgia's
implementation
of
the
Atlanta,
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
11
Georgia
attainment
demonstration
SIP
since
May
1,
2003.

Petitioners
further
requested
a
stay
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
April
21,
2004
rule
as
it
relates
to
the
State
of
Georgia,
under
section
307(
d)(
7)(
B).
Finally,
GCSEP
filed
a
challenge
in
the
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
11th
Circuit,

which
has
since
been
transferred
to
the
D.
C.
Circuit.

II.
WHAT
IS
THE
SCOPE
OF
THIS
PROPOSAL?

The
EPA,
in
response
to
GCSEP's
request,
intends
to
initiate
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking
that
will
address
the
issues
raised
by
GCSEP.
In
the
upcoming
proposal,
EPA
expects
to
provide
notice­
and­
comment
opportunity
to
the
general
public
on
the
issues
raised
by
GCSEP
and
several
other
issues
as
they
relate
to
the
continued
applicability
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule
to
the
State
of
Georgia.

Accordingly,
in
this
action,
EPA
is
proposing
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
the
April
21,
2004
rule
with
respect
to
the
State
of
Georgia
only,
during
the
pendency
of
the
noticeand
comment
rulemaking
proceedings
that
will
address
the
petition
for
reconsideration.

III.
STATUTORY
AND
EXECUTIVE
ORDER
REVIEWS
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,

1993)
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and,
therefore,
subject
to
Office
of
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
12
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:

1.
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,

jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,

local,
or
Tribal
governments
or
communities;

2.
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

3.
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
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
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Under
Executive
Order
12866,
this
proposed
action
is
not
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
review
by
the
OMB
because
this
action
is
proposing
to
stay
its
finding
in
Phase
II
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call
related
to
Georgia
and
does
not
impose
any
additional
control
requirements
or
costs.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
13
Today's
action
does
not
add
any
information
collection
requirements
or
increase
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.),
and
therefore
is
not
subject
to
these
requirements.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)

The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act
or
any
other
statute
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
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:

(
1)
a
small
business
as
defined
in
the
Small
Business
Administration's
(
SBA)
regulations
at
13
CFR
12.201;
(
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.
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
14
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
proposed
rule
will
not
impose
any
requirements
on
small
entities.

The
regulatory
impact
analysis(
RIA)
for
the
original
final
NOx
SIP
Call
included
impacts
to
small
entities
presuming
the
application
of
the
control
strategies
we
modeled
as
surrogates
for
what
the
States
would
actually
employ
in
their
NOx
SIPs.
We
also
prepared
an
analysis
of
impacts
to
small
entities
affected
by
the
Section
126
Rule.

This
analysis
is
summarized
in
the
RIA
for
the
final
Section
126
Rule
and
included
in
the
docket
for
that
rule.
This
action
neither
imposes
requirements
on
small
entities
nor
will
there
be
impacts
on
small
entities
beyond
those,
if
any,
required
by
or
resulting
from
the
NOx
SIP
Call
and
the
Section
126
Rules.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
15
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
any
proposed
or
final
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
the
expenditure
to
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.

Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,

including
Tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
16
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

Today's
rule
contains
no
Federal
mandates
(
under
the
regulatory
provisions
of
Title
II
of
the
UMRA)
for
State,

local,
or
Tribal
governments
or
the
private
sector.
The
EPA
prepared
a
statement
for
the
final
NOx
SIP
Call
that
would
be
required
by
UMRA
if
its
statutory
provisions
applied.

Today's
action
does
not
create
any
additional
requirements
beyond
those
of
the
final
NOx
SIP
Call,
therefore,
no
further
UMRA
analysis
is
needed.
This
proposed
rule
stays
the
portion
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call
that
would
require
the
State
of
Georgia
to
implement
NOx
emissions
controls
requirements.

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
rule
does
not
have
federalism
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
17
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.
Today's
action
does
not
impose
an
enforceable
duty
on
these
entities.
This
action
proposes
to
stay
the
NOx
SIP
Call
requirements
as
they
relate
to
Georgia
and
therefore,
imposes
no
additional
burdens
beyond
those
imposed
by
the
final
NOx
SIP
Call.

Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
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
proposed
rule
does
not
have
Tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.

It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
Tribal
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
18
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,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.

Today's
action
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
Tribal
governments.
The
EPA
stated
in
the
final
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule
that
Executive
Order
13084
did
not
apply
because
that
final
rule
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
Tribal
governments
or
call
on
States
to
regulate
NOx
sources
located
on
Tribal
lands.
The
same
is
true
of
today's
action.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045:
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks"
(
62
FR
19885,

April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
19
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5­
501
of
the
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
based
on
technology
performance
and
not
on
health
or
safety
risks.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
Use
template
A
if
not
significant,
template
B
if
it
is.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
No.
104­
113,

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.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
DRAFT­­
do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
11/
1/
04
20
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

This
proposed
rulemaking
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
This
action
does
not
involve
special
consideration
of
environmental
justice
related
issues
as
required
by
Executive
Order
12898
(
59
FR
7629,
February
16,
1994).
For
the
final
NOx
SIP
Call,
the
Agency
conducted
a
general
analysis
of
the
potential
changes
in
ozone
and
particulate
matter
levels
that
may
be
experienced
by
minority
and
low­

NOx
SIP
Call:
Stay
of
NOx
SIP
Call
in
Relation
to
GA­­
Page
21
of
21
income
populations
as
a
result
of
the
requirements
of
that
rule.
These
findings
were
presented
in
the
RIA
for
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
Today's
action
does
not
affect
this
analysis.

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
51
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Environmental
protection,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Ozone,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
78
21
Air
pollution
control,
Nitrogen
oxides,
Ozone,
Acid
Rain
Program,
Trading
budget,
Compliance
supplement
pool.

40
CFR
Part
97
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Nitrogen
oxides,

Ozone,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

__________________

Dated:

______________________________

Michael
O.
Leavitt
Administrator