Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0211-0059
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Approvals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans: California; Interstate Transport of Pollution; Interference With Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirement
Posted Date: 2011-08-08T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48002-48006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19898]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0211; FRL-9446-6]

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 SIP-
approved permit programs meeting the approval criteria and 
simultaneously disapproving California's SIP revision with 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 September 7, 2011.

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.

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 NAAQS. For nine 
Districts \1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For three Districts \2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For two Districts \4\ with ``former subpart 1'' nonattainment areas 
that implement SIP-approved NNSR programs meeting the approval 
criteria,

[[Page 48003]]

we proposed to approve the 2007 Transport SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Eastern Kern APCD and San Diego County APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For seven Districts \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 (DC 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    For two Districts \7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \8\ See fn. 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 Districts \9\ that are designated nonattainment, we proposed to 
approve the 2007 Transport SIP based on a determination that 
implementation of The Interpretative Rule during the SIP-development 
period adequately addresses the requirements of element (3) of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ San Joaquin Valley APCD and the South Coast Air Basin 
portion of South Coast AQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For five Districts \10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, North 
Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento 
Metropolitan AQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 actions. For three Districts 
\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 
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 Districts \12\ that implement SIP-approved NNSR or 
PSD programs

[[Page 48004]]

meeting the approval criteria for the 1997 8-hour ozone 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Three Districts \13\ 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);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Two Districts \14\ 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));
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Five Districts \15\ that implement SIP-approved PSD 
programs meeting the approval criteria for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified AQMD, North 
Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento 
Metropolitan AQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Four Districts \16\ that implement SIP-approved PSD 
programs meeting the approval criteria for greenhouse gases (GHGs); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, North 
Coast Unified AQMD, and Northern Sonoma County APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 Districts \17\ 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;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD, Calaveras County 
APCD, Feather River AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Mariposa County 
APCD, and Tuolumne County APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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, 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to the five Districts \19\ 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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, Sacramento 
Metropolitan AQMD, Mendocino County AQMD, and Northern Sonoma County 
APCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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

[[Page 48005]]

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 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 
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

    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

    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 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. 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

[[Page 48006]]

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).

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 October 7, 2011. 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, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Dated: July 25, 2011.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by paragraph (c)(386)(ii)(A)(4) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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'').
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.283 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 
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 ths 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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-19898 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P