[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71009-71014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-31471]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-7601-4]
RIN 2060-AL80


Revisions to the Regional Haze Rule To Correct Mobile Source 
Provisions in Optional Program for Nine Western States and Eligible 
Indian Tribes Within That Geographic Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action to approve a correction to the 
mobile source provisions of EPA's regional haze rule. This correction 
is consistent with recommendations of the Western Regional Air 
Partnership (WRAP). The amendments to the rule are intended to address 
an emissions projection scenario for mobile sources which was not 
addressed when EPA published the regional haze rule in 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective February 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket No. OAR-2002-0076. The official public docket 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any 
public comments received, and other information related to this action. 
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not 
include confidential business information or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the 
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air 
Docket in the EPA Docket Center, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, 
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
    Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the 
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and 
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing 
of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those 
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you 
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through 
the docket facility identified above. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' then key in the docket identification number, OAR-2002-
0076.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like further information 
about this rule, contact Kathy Kaufman, Integrated Policies and 
Strategies Group, (919) 541-0102 or by e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are nine States in 
the Western United States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming) and Indian tribes within 
that same geographic area. This final action, and an earlier action 
taken by EPA in 1999, provides these States and tribes with an optional 
program to protect visibility in federally protected scenic areas. The 
portion of the program addressed by today's final rule is a program for 
tracking of mobile source emissions under the 1999 rule.

Outline

    The contents of today's preamble are listed in the following 
outline.

I. Background
    A. What Is the Regional Haze Rule?
    B. What Are the Special Provisions for Western States and 
Eligible Indian Tribes in 40 CFR 51.309 of the Regional Haze Rule?
II. Changes to the Mobile Source Provisions of Section 309
    A. Why Are We Changing the Mobile Source Provisions of 40 CFR 
51.309?
    B. What Are the Specific Changes to the Mobile Source Provisions 
of 40 CFR 51.309?
    C. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Rule and What Is 
Our Response?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    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 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
    K. Congressional Review Act
IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Background

A. What Is the Regional Haze Rule?

    Section 169(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a national 
goal for protecting visibility in federally-protected scenic areas. 
These ``Class I'' areas include national parks and

[[Page 71010]]

wilderness areas. The national visibility goal is to remedy existing 
impairment and prevent future impairment in these Class I areas, 
consistent with the requirements of sections 169A and 169B of the CAA.
    Regional haze is a type of visibility impairment caused by air 
pollutants emitted by numerous sources across a broad region. The EPA 
uses the term regional haze to distinguish this type of visibility 
problem from those which are more local in nature. In 1999, EPA issued 
a regional haze rule requiring States to develop implementation plans 
that will make ``reasonable progress'' toward the national visibility 
goal (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999). The first State plans for regional 
haze are due between 2003 and 2008. The regional haze rule provisions 
appear at 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309.

B. What Are the Special Provisions for Western States and Eligible 
Indian Tribes in 40 CFR 51.309 of the Regional Haze Rule?

    The regional haze rule at 40 CFR 51.308 sets forth the requirements 
for State implementation plans (SIPs) under the regional haze program. 
The rule requires State plans to include visibility progress goals for 
each Class I area, as well as emissions reductions strategies and other 
measures needed to meet these goals. The rule also provides an optional 
approach, described in 40 CFR 51.309, that may be followed by the nine 
western States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New 
Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming) that comprise the transport region 
analyzed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) 
during the 1990's. This optional approach is also available to eligible 
Indian Tribes within this geographic region. The regulatory provisions 
at 40 CFR 51.309 are based on the final report issued by the GCVTC in 
1996,\1\ which included a number of recommended emissions reductions 
strategies designed to improve visibility in the 16 Class I areas on 
the Colorado Plateau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas. GCVTC, June 
10, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the regional haze rule, EPA received a number of 
comments on the proposed rule encouraging the Agency to recognize 
explicitly the work of the GCVTC. In addition, in June 1998, Governor 
Leavitt of Utah provided comments to EPA on behalf of the Western 
Governors Association (WGA), further emphasizing the commitment of 
western States to implementing the GCVTC recommendations. The WGA's 
comments also suggested the translation of the GCVTC's recommendations 
into specific regulatory language. The EPA issued a Notice of 
Availability during the fall of 1998 requesting further comment on the 
WGA's proposal and a draft set of regulatory language based upon the 
WGA's recommendations. Based on the comments received on this Federal 
Register action, EPA developed the provisions set forth in 40 CFR 
51.309 that allow the nine Transport Region States and eligible tribes 
within that geographic area to implement many of the GCVTC 
recommendations within the framework of the national regional haze 
rule.
    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.309 comprise a comprehensive long-term 
strategy for addressing sources that contribute to visibility 
impairment within this geographic region. The strategy addresses the 
time period between the year 2003, when the implementation plans are 
due,\2\ and the year 2018. The provisions address emissions from 
stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources such as emissions 
from fires and windblown dust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Indian tribes are given the flexibility under EPA 
regulations to submit implementation plans and opt into the program 
after the 2003 deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Changes to the Mobile Source Provisions of Section 309

A. Why Are We Changing the Mobile Source Provisions of 40 CFR 51.309?

1. What Is the Basis for the Old Provisions?
    The GCVTC determined that mobile source emissions need to be an 
essential part of a strategy to reduce haze on the Colorado Plateau. 
Therefore, one element of the GCVTC's strategy, as reflected in 40 CFR 
51.309(d)(5), was to address mobile sources emissions. Section 309 also 
requires States to establish a mobile source emissions budget for each 
area that significantly contributes to visibility impairment in any of 
the 16 Class I areas covered by this section of the regulations. At the 
time the GCVTC made its recommendations (in 1996), mobile source 
emissions were projected to be lowest in 2005, and to subsequently rise 
over the course of the first regional haze planning period (i.e., until 
2018). Accordingly, section 309 required mobile source emissions 
budgets to be set using the lowest projected level as a planning 
objective and performance indicator for each area.
2. What Is the Basis for the New Provisions?
    Since the GCVTC made its recommendations, new developments have 
caused mobile source emissions projections to change significantly. 
Over the past few years, we have promulgated a series of new emissions 
standards for several different engine types, as well as new standards 
for diesel fuel content.\3\ As a result of these new standards, the 
WRAP, using EPA's latest models,\4\ now projects a significant decline 
in mobile source emissions throughout the region during the 2003-2018 
time period covered by the section 309 plans, particularly from on-road 
mobile sources. Rather than emissions being lowest in 2005, and 
subsequently rising, mobile source emissions for all pollutants except 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) are expected to decline continuously 
over the course of the first regional haze planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 62 FR 25355, (May 8, 1997); 63 FR 18978, (April 16, 
1998); 63 FR 56968, (October 23, 1998); 64 FR 73300, (December 29, 
1999); 65 FR 59895, (October 6, 2000); 66 FR 5001, (January 18, 
2001); 67 FR 68241, (November 8, 2002); and 68 FR 9745, (February 
28, 2003).
    \4\ MOBILE6 and MOBILE6.2 for on-highway vehicles and the NON-
ROAD model for nonroad vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projected trends for mobile source emissions of SO2 
differ from those of other pollutants. Emissions reductions from 
pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate 
matter (PM) are dependent on technological changes to the onroad fleet 
and to nonroad engines which are implemented gradually. In contrast, 
SO2 emissions reductions are immediately realized when the 
sulfur content of the fuel changes, because emissions from both new and 
existing engines immediately drop sharply. We have already published 
stringent fuel sulfur limits for onroad engines and have proposed 
stringent fuel sulfur limits for nonroad engines.\5\ These Federal fuel 
sulfur regulations, fully implemented, would together result in a 
substantial reduction in SO2 emissions over the 2003--2018 
planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 68 FR 28327, (May 23, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Are the Specific Changes to the Mobile Source Provisions of 40 
CFR 51.309?

    These revisions would change 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i) to eliminate 
the requirement for setting mobile source emissions budgets using the 
lowest projected level as a planning objective and performance 
indicator for each area. Instead, the new 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i) would 
substitute, as the new planning objective and performance indicator, a

[[Page 71011]]

requirement for statewide inventories to show a continuous decline in 
emissions of each pollutant of concern over the planning period. Should 
mobile source emissions not decline as expected, States would have to 
revise their SIPs to include any feasible additional strategies. This 
new requirement conforms to trends that are currently projected.
    In addition, in light of the continuous decline in mobile source 
emissions expected over the entire region, these revisions also 
eliminate the unneeded requirement in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii) and (iii) 
to determine whether mobile sources emissions constitute a significant 
contributor to haze in a given State. The revisions retain the 
requirements for statewide inventories and performance demonstrations.
    Finally, the revisions contain a backstop provision, requested by 
the WRAP, to address any potential concerns regarding SO2 
from nonroad sources in the event that recently proposed Federal 
standards, referenced above, are not finalized. The backstop provision, 
contained in the new 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), requires States to 
assess the need for any long-term strategies to address SO2 
from nonroad mobile sources by no later than December 31, 2008. In 
determining whether to revise their SIPs to address SO2 from 
mobile sources, States may consider the emissions reductions achieved--
or anticipated--by any Federal standards that are in place addressing 
fuel sulfur content for nonroad engines.

C. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Rule and What Is Our 
Response?

    We received one comment letter on the proposed rule, from the 
Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED). We also received 
three comments at the public hearing--one from CEED, reiterating 
comments provided in its letter, one from the WRAP in support of this 
rule, and one from the Colorado Mining Association.
    The CEED commented (1) that EPA should fix other flaws in section 
309 before making this change; (2) that making this change now may 
constrain state authority in making ``reasonable progress'' 
determinations; (3) that it is not clear that all WRAP states and 
tribes have authorized the request for this change; and (4) that this 
action circumvents the recent statutory process enacted by Arizona for 
determining which regional haze path to implement.
    In regard to comment (1), EPA believes that we would be remiss in 
awaiting the outcome of CEED's current lawsuit before bringing the 
requirements of section 309 in line with the most recent data on mobile 
sources emission trends. Section 309 is currently in effect, and, as 
explained earlier in this preamble, this change is needed by States and 
tribes who must submit section 309 SIPs to EPA by the December 31, 
2003, deadline. Without this change, those section 309 SIPs would have 
to contain extra work by States to determine significance, work that 
the current data shows is unnecessary.
    In regard to comment (2), EPA does not agree that making this 
change would constrain state authority in making ``reasonable 
progress'' determinations. We do not agree with CEED that greater 
public input is needed from western States on this point; we believe by 
specifically requesting this change, the WRAP has made it quite clear 
that western States (and tribes) need it. We believe that CEED's claim 
in comment (3), that it is not ``clear that all WRAP States and tribes 
authorized such a request'', is disingenuous at best. Representatives 
of the WRAP have assured us that the WRAP discussed this request at 
length. The WRAP requested this change, in writing, on behalf of its 
member States and tribes, and we have not heard of any member State or 
tribe objecting in any way.
    In regard to comment (4), we do not believe that removing an 
unneeded requirement from a voluntary program circumvents the Arizona 
legislature in any way.
    The Colorado Mining Association asserted that we should make 
available for public reivew the assumptions and model inputs that 
support our projections. In regard to this comment, as noted in 
footnote 4 of the proposed rule, the WRAP used EPA's MOBILE6 and 
MOBILE6.2 models for on-highway vehicles and the NONROAD model for 
nonroad vehicles. The assumptions and model inputs for these models 
have undergone numerous public workshops and reviews, as described in 
detail on our Web site, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/mobile6/m6wkshop.htm.

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 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.

    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined 
that this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not add any new requirements involving the 
collection of information as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The OMB has approved the information collection 
requirements contained in the final Regional Haze regulations (64 FR 
35714, July 1, 1999) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0421 (EPA 
ICR No. 1813.04). A copy of this ICR may be obtained from Susan Auby, 
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by 
calling (202) 566-1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are 
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

[[Page 71012]]

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 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 rulemaking on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that 
is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards (as discussed on the SBA Web site 
at http://www.sba.gov/size/indextableofsize.html); (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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule 
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 
sections 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a 
positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the 
rule.
    This rule eliminates certain comprehensive requirements to address 
mobile source emissions that EPA now considers to be unnecessary. 
Specifically, as discussed above, this rule eliminates the requirements 
in 51.309(5)(ii) and (iii) to determine whether mobile sources 
emissions constitute a significant contributor to haze in a given 
State, and for those States with areas that meet this significance 
criterion, to establish mobile source emissions budgets. The rule 
requires emissions reductions consistent with the downward trend in 
mobile source emission inventories that is currently projected, based 
on regulations that have already been promulgated. We have therefore 
concluded that today's rule will relieve regulatory burden for all 
small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 
104-4) (UMRA), 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, 2 
U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including 
a cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule that ``includes 
any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, 
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more * * * in any one year.'' A ``Federal mandate'' is 
defined under section 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' and a ``Federal private sector mandate.'' A 
``Federal intergovernmental mandate,'' in turn, is defined to include a 
regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, 
or tribal governments,'' section 421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i), 
except for, among other things, a duty that is ``a condition of Federal 
assistance,'' section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A ``Federal private sector 
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty 
upon the private sector,'' with certain exceptions, section 421(7)(A), 
2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A).
    Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed under section 202 of the UMRA, section 205, 2 U.S.C. 1535, 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.
    Because the entire program under 40 CFR 51.309, including today's 
amendments, is an option that each of the States may choose to 
exercise, these revisions to section 309 do not establish any 
regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments. The program is not required 
and, thus is clearly not a ``mandate.'' Moreover, as explained above, 
today's rule eliminates certain requirements and will overall reduce 
any regulatory burdens. Accordingly, this rule will not result in 
expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any given year. Thus 
EPA is not obligated, under section 203 of UMRA, to develop a small 
government agency plan.
    We believe that this rulemaking is not subject to the requirements 
of UMRA. For regional haze SIPs overall, it is questionable whether a 
requirement to submit a SIP revision constitutes a Federal mandate, as 
discussed in the preamble to the regional haze rule (64 FR 35761, July 
1, 1999). However, today's direct final 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. In addition, 
the program contained in 40 CFR 51.309, including today's revisions, is 
an optional program.

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.''
    Under section 6(b) of 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 a regulation. Under section 6(c) of Executive Order 13132, 
EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and 
that preempts State law, unless EPA consults with State and local 
officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
    This rule does not have federalism 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

[[Page 71013]]

Executive Order 13132. As described above, this rule contains minor 
revisions to section 309 of the regional haze rule which will reduce 
any regulatory burden on the States. In addition, section 309 is an 
optional program for States. The minor revisions to section 309, 
accordingly, do not directly impose significant new requirements on 
State and local governments. Moreover, even if today's revisions did 
have federalism implications, these revisions would not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, nor 
would they preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this rule.
    Consistent with EPA policy, we nonetheless did consult with 
representatives of State and local governments in developing this rule. 
This rule directly implements specific recommendations from the WRAP, 
which includes representatives from all the affected States.

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 6, 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This rule eliminates certain requirements and will overall reduce 
any regulatory burden on the tribes. Moreover, the section 309 program 
is an optional program for tribes within the same geographic region as 
the WRAP states. Accordingly, this rule will not have tribal 
implications. In addition, this rule directly implements specific 
recommendations from the WRAP, which includes representatives of tribal 
governments. Thus, although the rule does not have tribal implications, 
representatives of Tribal governments have had the opportunity to 
provide input into development of the recommendations forming its 
basis.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health 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 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 rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental 
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 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 Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 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 available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make 
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The requirements 
of Executive Order 12898 have been previously addressed to the extent 
practicable in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the regional 
haze rule (cited above), particularly in chapters 2 and 9 of the RIA. 
Today's direct final rule makes no changes that would have a 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effect on minorities and low-income populations.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
SBREFA, 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. The EPA will submit a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 
A ``major rule'' cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published 
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 804(a).

IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for today's direct final rule comes from 
sections 169(a) and 169(b) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k)). 
These sections require EPA to issue regulations that will require 
States to revise their SIPs to ensure that reasonable progress is made 
toward the national visibility goals specified in section 169(A).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.


[[Page 71014]]


    Dated: December 15, 2003.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Acting Administrator.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF 
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart P--Protection of Visibility

0
2. Section 51.309 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(6) and 
(d)(5)(i), removing paragraphs (d)(5)(ii) and (d)(5)(iii), and 
redesignating paragraph (d)(5)(iv) as (d)(5)(ii), to read as follows:


Sec.  51.309  Requirements related to the Grand Canyon Visibility 
Transport Commission.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Continuous decline in total mobile source emissions means that 
the projected level of emissions from mobile sources of each listed 
pollutant in 2008, 2013, and 2018, are less than the projected level of 
emissions from mobile sources of each listed pollutant for the previous 
period (i.e., 2008 less than 2003; 2013 less than 2008; and 2018 less 
than 2013).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) Statewide inventories of onroad and nonroad mobile source 
emissions of VOC, NOX, SO2, PM2.5, 
elemental carbon, and organic carbon for the years 2003, 2008, 2013, 
and 2018.
    (A) The inventories must demonstrate a continuous decline in total 
mobile source emissions (onroad plus nonroad; tailpipe and evaporative) 
of VOC, NOX, PM2.5, elemental carbon, and organic 
carbon, evaluated separately. If the inventories show a continuous 
decline in total mobile source emissions of each of these pollutants 
over the period 2003-2018, no further action is required as part of 
this plan to address mobile source emissions of these pollutants. If 
the inventories do not show a continuous decline in mobile source 
emissions of one or more of these pollutants over the period 2003-2018, 
the plan submission must provide for an implementation plan revision by 
no later than December 31, 2008 containing any necessary long-term 
strategies to achieve a continuous decline in total mobile source 
emissions of the pollutant(s), to the extent practicable, considering 
economic and technological reasonableness and federal preemption of 
vehicle standards and fuel standards under title II of the CAA.
    (B) The plan submission must also provide for an implementation 
plan revision by no later than December 31, 2008 containing any long-
term strategies necessary to reduce emissions of SO2 from 
nonroad mobile sources, consistent with the goal of reasonable 
progress. In assessing the need for such long-term strategies, the 
State may consider emissions reductions achieved or anticipated from 
any new Federal standards for sulfur in nonroad diesel fuel.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-31471 Filed 12-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P