[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 224 (Thursday, November 19, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73636-73640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24065]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-055; FRL-10016-32-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the 
removal of the air pollution nuisance rule from the Ohio State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) using a Clean Air Act (CAA) error correction 
provision. EPA has determined that this rule was not relied upon by 
Ohio to demonstrate implementation, maintenance or enforcement of any 
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Upon the effective date 
of this action, the nuisance rule will no longer be part of the Ohio 
SIP.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0055. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility 
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Rachel 
Rineheart, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-7017 before visiting 
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Rineheart, Environmental 
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7017, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is the background for this action?

    The CAA was first enacted in 1970. Section 110(a)(1) required each 
state to submit to EPA a SIP that provided for the implementation, 
maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS. In the 1970s and early 1980s, 
thousands of state and local agency regulations were submitted to EPA 
for incorporation into SIPs, ostensibly to fulfill the new Federal 
requirements. In many cases, states submitted entire regulatory air 
pollution programs, including many elements not required by the CAA. 
Due to time and resource constraints, EPA's review of these submittals 
focused primarily on the rules addressing the new substantive 
requirements of the CAA, and we approved many other

[[Page 73637]]

elements into the SIP with minimal review. We now recognize that some 
of these elements may be appropriate for state and local agencies to 
adopt and implement, but should not become federally enforceable SIP 
requirements; these include rules that prohibit air pollution 
nuisances. Such rules generally have no connection to the purposes for 
which SIPs are developed and approved, namely the implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
    Ohio rule AP-2-07, ``Air pollution nuisances prohibited,'' was 
approved by EPA into the Ohio SIP on April 15, 1974. See 39 FR 13542. 
Subsequently, Ohio amended and renumbered the rule as OAC 3745-15-07 
and submitted it as a revision to the SIP. EPA approved the amended 
rule on August 13, 1984. See 49 FR 32182. OAC 3745-15-07 prohibits the 
``emission or escape into the open air from any source or sources 
whatsoever, of smoke, ashes, dust, dirt, grime, acids, fumes, gases, 
vapors, odors, or any other substances or combinations of substances, 
in such manner or in such amounts as to endanger the health, safety or 
welfare of the public, or cause unreasonable injury or damage to 
property.''
    On March 23, 2020, EPA proposed, under the authority of section 
110(k)(6) of the CAA, to remove Ohio's nuisance rule from the Ohio SIP 
because it does not have a reasonable connection to the attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS and EPA erred in approving it as part of the 
Ohio SIP.

II. Response to Comments Received on the Proposed Rule

    EPA received some comments that were political in nature or that 
where otherwise beyond the scope of this action (i.e., related to 
climate change, water quality, or other non-NAAQS related issues), and 
EPA will not be responding to these comments. Adverse comments that 
were germane to the action and EPA's response to those comments are 
summarized below.

A. Extension of Comment Period

    EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the 
Federal Register on March 23, 2020, with a 30-day comment period ending 
April 22, 2020. See 85 FR 16309. The timing of publication coincided 
with the Ohio Department of Health Director's Stay at Home Order, 
issued on March 22, 2020. EPA received four requests for an extension 
to the public comment period citing difficulties in communicating with 
and organizing interested parties, limited access to supporting 
information, and lack of childcare due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 
Stay at Home Order. Three requests sought a 60-day extension and one 
request sought an extension to May 13, 2020. On April 22, 2020, EPA 
granted a 30-day extension to the comment period to May 22, 2020. See 
85 FR 22378. No additional requests for extension were received.

B. Comments Supporting the Removal of Ohio's Nuisance Rule From the SIP

    EPA received comments in support of EPA's NPRM from the Ohio 
Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Chemistry Technology Council, The Ohio 
Manufacturers' Association, API Ohio, and the Ohio Oil and Gas 
Association.

C. Comments Opposing the Removal of Ohio's Nuisance Rule From the SIP

    EPA received comments opposing the removal of the Ohio nuisance 
rule from the Sierra Club, the Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio Citizen 
Action, Altman Newman Co. LPA, the National Resources Defense Council, 
and more than 1800 individual commenters who submitted their comments 
as part of a letter-writing campaign. The following discussion provides 
a summary of the comments received and EPA's response to each comment.
    Comment 1: Commenters had requested a 60-day extension of the April 
22, 2020, deadline for comments, while EPA granted a 30-day extension 
until May 22, 2020. The commenters state: ``During the revised comment 
period there has been no opportunity for neighbors and community groups 
to learn about this action, to meet face-to-face to discuss its 
implications, or to even seek public records because public offices 
have been closed and unable to produce documents. Furthermore, the 
press has been understandably focused on the immediately life-
threatening pandemic. These circumstances have had a particularly 
devastating impact on the rights of poor and minority communities to 
learn of EPA's proposed action and to comment on citizen concerns.''
    Response: SIPs are rulemaking actions under the Administrative 
Procedure Act, which does not specify a period for public comment. 
However, a 30-day period is consistent with most SIP actions proposed 
by EPA and with the intent of Congress as reflected in CAA section 
307(h) (42 U.S.C. 7607(h)), which governs certain Federal 
administrative proceedings. It should be noted that EPA is not required 
to specifically notify any particular entity of its rulemaking actions; 
notification of all parties is accomplished through publications in the 
Federal Register. EPA published the NPRM to remove Ohio's nuisance rule 
in the Federal Register and initially provided 30 days for public 
comment. As stated previously, the publication of EPA's NPRM coincided 
with the Stay at Home Order in Ohio due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Based 
on the generalized concerns identified by commenters, including 
difficulty communicating with interested parties and issues with 
childcare, EPA granted a 30-day extension of the comment period. 
Although generally claiming, for example, that during the extended 
comment period there has been ``no opportunity'' to ``seek public 
records because public offices have been closed,'' the commenters did 
not identify any public records that would have been sought or 
explained how such records might have been relevant, and have made no 
showing of any attempt to obtain any such records. Moreover, EPA's 
original NPRM and NPRM extension did not limit the ability of any 
interested party to request an additional extension based on updated or 
more detailed concerns, but no additional request for extension was 
received after the NPRM 30-day extension.
    Comment 2: EPA cannot lawfully eliminate Ohio Admin. Code 3745-15-
07 from Ohio's State Implementation Plan through the CAA's error 
correction mechanism.
    Response: Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides EPA with the 
authority to make corrections to actions that are subsequently found to 
be in error. Alabama Environmental Council v. Administrator, 711 F.3d 
1277, 1286 (11th Cir. 2013) (``110(k)(6) provides an avenue for 
correcting a SIP revision approved in error''); see also Ass'n of 
Irritated Residents v. EPA, 790 F.3d 934, 948 (9th Cir. 2015) 
(110(k)(6) is a ``broad provision'' enacted to provide the EPA with an 
avenue to correct errors). The key provisions of section 110(k)(6) for 
present purposes are that the Administrator has the authority to 
``determine'' when a SIP approval was ``in error,'' and when the 
Administrator does so, may then revise the SIP approval ``as 
appropriate,'' in the same manner as the prior action, and do so 
without requiring any further submission for the state. Id. at 1288. 
Moreover, CAA section 110(k)(6) ``confers discretion on the EPA to 
decide if and when it will invoke the statute to revise a prior 
action.'' Id.; 790 F.3d at 948 (section 110(k)(6) grants

[[Page 73638]]

``EPA the discretion to decide when to act pursuant to that 
provision'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 110(k)(6) was added to the CAA as part of the 
CAA Amendments of 1990. Prior to the addition of that subsection, 
there was no express provision in section 110 for EPA to correct 
erroneous actions, on its own initiative and without further State 
action. Indeed, prior to the addition of 110(k)(6), the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had held that EPA 
lacked the authority to modify a SIP to correct its mistakes, unless 
it followed the then-existing revision procedure involving State 
review and other action. Concerned Citizens of Bridesburg v. EPA, 
836 F.2d 777 (1987). Although there is no statement in the 
legislative history of the CAA Amendments of 1990 that Congress 
specifically responded to Concerned Citizens in enacting 110(k)(6), 
it is telling that the addition 110(k)(6) effectively overruled that 
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While CAA section 110(k)(6) provides EPA with the authority to 
correct its own ``error,'' nowhere does this provision or any other 
provision in the CAA define what qualifies as ``error.'' Thus, EPA 
believes that the term should be given its plain language, everyday 
meaning, which includes all unintentional, incorrect or wrong actions 
or mistakes.
    EPA has used CAA section 110(k)(6) as authority to make substantive 
corrections to remove a variety of provisions from SIPs that are not 
related to the attainment or maintenance of NAAQS or any other CAA 
requirement. See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implantation 
Plans; Kentucky: Approval of Revisions to the State Implementation 
Plan,'' 75 FR 2440 (January 15, 2010) (correcting the SIP by removing a 
provision, approved in 1982, used to address hazardous or toxic air 
pollutants); ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New 
York,'' 73 FR 21546 (April 22, 2008) (issuing a direct final rule to 
correct a prior SIP by removing a general duty ``nuisance provision'' 
that had been approved in 1984); ``Correction of Implementation Plans; 
American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada State 
Implementation Plans,'' 63 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (correcting five 
SIPs by deleting a variety of administrative provisions concerning 
variances, hearing board procedures, and fees that had been approved 
during the 1970s).
    Comment 3: The proposed rule lacks any basis for the assertion that 
the air pollution nuisance rule in Ohio's SIP was approved in error and 
thus fails to meet the plain text requirements for application of 
110(k)(6).
    Response: The NPRM published on March 23, 2020, 85 FR 16309, states 
that EPA is ``proposing to remove Ohio's nuisance rule from the Ohio 
SIP because it does not have a reasonable connection to the attainment 
and maintenance of the NAAQS,'' and that the ``prior approval of OAC 
3745-15-07 into the Ohio SIP was in error.'' In addition, the NPRM 
stated that the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) had 
confirmed that Ohio did not rely on and did not intend to rely on the 
provision for purposes of attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    CAA section 110(k)(6) does not define the term ``error.'' EPA 
believes that the term should be given its plain language, common 
meaning, such that an error is a mistake or an incorrect, wrong, or 
inaccurate action. Under section 110(k)(6) EPA must make an error 
determination and provide the ``the basis thereof.'' There is no 
indication that this is a substantial burden for the Agency to meet. To 
the contrary, the requirement is met if EPA clearly articulates the 
error and the basis thereof. Ass'n of Irritated Residents, 790 F.3d at 
948; see also Alabama Environmental Council, 711 F.3d at 1287-1288 (EPA 
must ``articulate an `error' and provide `the basis' '' of its error 
determination, citing with approval EPA's error articulation in another 
EPA action at 76 FR 25178 (May 3, 2011)).
    Here, EPA articulated its error and provided the basis thereof: 
SIPs provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 
the NAAQS; the Ohio nuisance rule is not associated with the 
implementation, maintenance, or enforcement of the NAAQS; and EPA's 
previous approval in the SIP of the rule was erroneous. EPA's exclusion 
from the SIP of a nuisance provision unrelated to attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS is consistent with previous Agency practice. 
EPA has removed nuisance provisions from several SIPs, including those 
for the State of Michigan, 64 FR 7790, Commonwealth of Kentucky 
(Jefferson County portion), 66 FR 53657, and the State of Nevada, 69 FR 
54006. Additionally, EPA has issued final rules declining to approve 
nuisance provisions into SIPs. (See 45 FR 73696, 46 FR 11843, 46 FR 
26303 and 63 FR 51833.) \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Moreover, it is EPA's longstanding position that measures to 
control non-criteria pollutants may not legally be made part of the 
SIP. See February 9, 1979, memorandum ``Status of State/Local Air 
Pollution Control Measures Not Related to NAAQS,'' from Michael A. 
James, Associate General Counsel Air, Noise and Radiation Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: EPA's approval of the Ohio nuisance rule was purposeful 
and not in error as demonstrated by the August 13, 1984, 49 FR 32182, 
approval of revisions to the nuisance rule and subsequent comments from 
EPA on title V permits issued in Ohio which state that the nuisance 
rule is an applicable requirement under the SIP. Furthermore, inclusion 
of the nuisance rule is so integral to the SIP that it has been 
included in every title V permit issued and every permit issued by Ohio 
since adoption.
    Response: The permit comments related to the Ohio nuisance rule are 
correct in that the rule is currently in the SIP and therefore an 
``applicable requirement'' under the title V operating permit program. 
Confirmation of the fact that the rule is part of the SIP in the 
permitting process has no bearing on the appropriateness of that rule 
for inclusion in the SIP. The determination of whether a state rule is 
appropriate for inclusion in the SIP is beyond the scope of the 
permitting process. Inclusion of the Ohio nuisance rule in state 
permits does not demonstrate that the rule is integral to the SIP which 
is limited in scope by the CAA to the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of the NAAQS. To the contrary, as noted, the Ohio EPA 
indicated that the nuisance rule was not intended to address the 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The fact that EPA approved a revision to the Ohio nuisance rule in 
1984 does not make approval any less in error; rather, it merely 
indicates that EPA unfortunately repeated its error. Nor is it material 
whether the error was intentional (or, per the commenters, 
``purposeful'') or inadvertent. It was erroneous for EPA to approve, as 
part of the SIP, the non-NAAQS related nuisance rule, and EPA has the 
authority under section 110(k)(6) to correct that error.
    Comment 5: States have the right to create regulations that are 
more stringent than the Federal requirements.
    Response: EPA does not dispute a state's right to create 
requirements that, as a matter of state law, are more stringent than 
the Federal requirements. Congress affirmed this principle in section 
116 of the CAA. This does not, however, alter the fact that the 
requirements contained in SIP provisions are limited in scope by 
section 110(a) of the CAA. SIPs must provide for the implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Ohio's nuisance rule has no 
nexus to these statutorily prescribed requirements.
    Comment 6: The record for the proposed action states that EPA was 
taking action to promote the novel doctrine of ``regional 
consistency.'' Such a doctrine completely contradicts the well-
established principle that SIPs are tailored by states to meet their 
specific

[[Page 73639]]

air pollution needs and desired protections.
    Response: EPA believes that the commenter's reference to ``the 
record'' refers to a January 30, 2020, email from John Mooney, Acting 
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 5, to Robert 
Hodanbosi, Chief, Air Pollution Control, Ohio EPA (January email) that 
was placed in the docket for this rulemaking. It notes that similar 
provisions had already been removed from the SIPs of other Region 5 
states, ``because states did not rely on those provisions for 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.'' The purpose of the email was 
to inquire whether Ohio had relied on its nuisance rule in attainment 
and maintenance of the NAAQS before proceeding with an error 
correction. The reference in the January email to other state actions 
merely notes that EPA has reached a similar conclusion in other 
rulemaking actions.
    Comment 7: The public cannot precisely tell what the question asked 
regarding Ohio EPA's reliance on the nuisance rule for ``attainment'' 
or ``maintenance'' in the January email means.
    Response: The January email and the Ohio EPA response were included 
in the docket for the proposed rulemaking. The January email was clear 
in its request that Ohio EPA confirm that it had not relied upon the 
nuisance rule in any aspect related to the attainment or maintenance of 
a NAAQS. In Ohio EPA's response, it specifically states that it had not 
relied on the nuisance rule for ``SIP planning, nonattainment 
designations, redesignation requests, maintenance plans, and 
determination of nonattainment areas or their boundaries.'' EPA finds 
that Ohio EPA clearly understood the question being asked and clearly 
identified what was meant by ``attainment'' and ``maintenance'' in its 
response to EPA.
    Comment 8: Commenters provided a declaration from William M. 
Auberle, a former official with the Regional Air Pollution Control 
Agency (RAPCA). Mr. Auberle states that he has direct knowledge of the 
inclusion of the Ohio nuisance rule in the Ohio SIP, that the nuisance 
rule is an important regulatory tool in achieving and maintaining the 
NAAQS, and that he personally used the nuisance rule while an official 
with RAPCA as an enforcement tool for achieving and maintaining the 
NAAQS.
    Response: RAPCA is a bureau of the Division of Environmental Health 
within Public Health--Dayton and Montgomery County. It is a county 
agency that contracts with the Ohio EPA to enforce state and local air 
pollution control regulations in a six-county region of Ohio. EPA does 
not dispute that state and local agencies may have used the nuisance 
rule to achieve reductions in criteria pollutants or the importance of 
the rule as a tool for local authorities in the protection of public 
health and welfare. However, using the nuisance rule to achieve 
criteria pollutant reductions is not equivalent to relying on the rule 
for SIP purposes, which may include SIP planning, nonattainment 
designations, redesignation requests, maintenance plans, and 
determination of nonattainment areas or their boundaries. Furthermore, 
Ohio EPA, the state agency responsible for development and 
implementation of the SIP, has stated that it did not find ``any 
instances of the nuisance rule, OAC 3745-15-07, being relied upon, or 
intended to be relied upon, for attainment or maintenance of any 
NAAQS.''
    Comment 9: Congress intended citizen suits to be an integral part 
of CAA enforcement, including SIP enforcement. The NPRM ignores the 
important role of citizen suits in CAA enforcement.
    Response: Congress limited the scope of SIPs required under section 
110 of the CAA to the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 
the NAAQS. The purpose of this rulemaking action is to remove OAC 3745-
15-07 from the Ohio SIP because it does not support such 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement. This rulemaking action 
does not invalidate the Ohio law or affect its applicability to Ohio 
sources. Facilities located in Ohio are still subject to the state 
nuisance rule. While removal of this rule from the SIP would preclude 
its enforcement in Federal courts, it has no impact on the authority to 
bring citizen suits in state courts under state law.
    Comment 10: Commenters state that the NPRM would harm already 
vulnerable Ohioans by eliminating an important environmental justice 
tool. Commenters also raise concerns with the potential impact on other 
sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals 
with various health issues including respiratory illnesses.
    Response: The purpose of this rulemaking action is to remove OAC 
3745-15-07 from the Ohio SIP because it is not related to the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This 
rulemaking action does not invalidate the Ohio law or affect its 
applicability to Ohio sources. Facilities located in Ohio are still 
subject to the state nuisance rule. EPA supports programs and 
activities that promote enforcement of health and environmental 
statutes in areas with minority populations and low-income populations 
and the protection of children, the elderly, and other vulnerable 
populations.
    Comment 11: Several commenters note recent studies linking 
particulate matter pollution to an increased incidence of COVID-19 
infection and the potential for increased adverse outcomes in areas 
with higher levels of air pollution. Commenters state that considering 
the current pandemic, EPA should not be relaxing air pollution 
requirements at this time.
    Response: The purpose of this rulemaking action is to remove OAC 
3745-15-07 from the Ohio SIP because it is not an element of a plan for 
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. 
Consideration of the impacts of air pollution on COVID-19 cases is 
beyond the scope of section 110 of the CAA and, thus, beyond the scope 
of this rulemaking. Furthermore, this rulemaking action does not 
invalidate the Ohio nuisance law or affect its applicability to Ohio 
sources, which remain subject to the rule as a matter of state law.
    Comment 11: The following comment was made by over 1800 individuals 
through a letter-writing campaign.
    ``I oppose the rollback of the nuisance provision of Ohio's Clean 
Air Act regulations.
    The nuisance provision ensures that threats to Ohioans' health and 
safety are prohibited, no matter what, and allows Ohio residents to 
take local pollution problems into their own hands and protect their 
communities by taking polluters to court. Without this provision, it 
will be more difficult for Ohioans to address local pollution problems.
    Eliminating this provision also destroys an important tool that 
gives both regulators and Ohio residents flexibility to address serious 
health concerns based on new scientific developments.''
    Response: The purpose of this rulemaking action is to remove OAC 
3745-15-07 from the Ohio SIP because it is not an element of a plan for 
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This 
rulemaking action does not invalidate the Ohio nuisance law, affect its 
applicability to Ohio sources or preclude citizen suits in state court.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA has determined that OAC 3745-15-07 was not relied upon by Ohio 
to

[[Page 73640]]

demonstrate the implementation, maintenance, or enforcement of the 
NAAQS. Consequently, EPA finds that its prior approval of OAC 3745-15-
07 into the Ohio SIP was in error. To correct this error, EPA is 
removing OAC 3745-15-07 from the approved Ohio SIP pursuant to section 
110(k)(6) of the CAA, and codifying this removal by revising the 
appropriate paragraph under 40 CFR part 52, subpart KK, 52.1870 
(Identification of Plan).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is amending regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. As described in the amendments to 40 CFR 
part 52 set forth below, EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-Approved 
Ohio Regulations from the Ohio SIP, which is incorporated by reference 
in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. EPA has made, and 
will continue to make the SIP generally available through 
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the 
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of 
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by January 19, 2021. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 26, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 
follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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


Sec.  52.1870  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.1870, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing 
the entry for ``3745-15-07'' under ``Chapter 3745-15 General Provisions 
on Air Pollution Control''.

[FR Doc. 2020-24065 Filed 11-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P