[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31510-31514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11027]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0535; FRL-9690-01-R9]
Withdrawal and Partial Approval/Partial Disapproval of Clean Air
Plans; San Joaquin Valley, California; Contingency Measures for 2008
Ozone Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
withdraw the portion of the March 25, 2019 final action conditionally
approving state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from the State of
California under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') to address
contingency measure requirements for the 2008 ozone national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the San Joaquin
Valley, California ozone nonattainment area. The SIP revisions include
the portions of the ``2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Standard and the 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation
Plan'' that address the contingency measure requirement for San Joaquin
Valley. Simultaneously, the EPA is proposing a partial approval and
partial disapproval of these SIP submissions. These proposed actions
are in response to a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, Ninth
Circuit, No. 19-71223, opinion filed August 26, 2021) remanding the
EPA's conditional approval of the contingency measure SIP submissions.
DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before June 23, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0535 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3407, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act Consequences
III. Request for Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight.\1\ These two pollutants,
referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources,
including on-and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse health
effects occur following exposure to elevated levels of ozone,
particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air
containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which
can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung
diseases.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State of California refers to reactive organic gases
(ROG) rather than VOC in some of its ozone-related SIP submissions.
As a practical matter, ROG and VOC refer to the same set of chemical
constituents, and for the sake of simplicity, we refer to this set
of gases as VOC in this proposed rule.
\2\ See ``Fact Sheet--2008 Final Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' dated March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA promulgates NAAQS for
pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The EPA has previously
promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979 and 1997.\3\ In 2008, the EPA
revised and further strengthened the ozone NAAQS by setting the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 parts per million
(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period.\4\ Although the EPA further
tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm in 2015, this action
relates to the requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1979 was 0.12 parts per
million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202
(February 8, 1979). The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997 was 0.08 ppm
averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
\4\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
\5\ Information on the 2015 ozone NAAQS is available at 80 FR
65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the
country as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. The EPA classifies
ozone nonattainment areas under CAA section 181 according to the
severity of the ozone pollution problem, with classifications ranging
from ``Marginal'' to ``Extreme.'' State planning and emissions control
requirements for ozone are determined, in part, by the nonattainment
area's classification. The EPA designated the
[[Page 31511]]
San Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on
May 21, 2012, and classified the area as Extreme.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno,
Tulare, and Kings counties, and the western portion of Kern County. The
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area stretches over 250 miles from
north to south, averages a width of 80 miles, and encompasses over
23,000 square miles. It is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain
range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra
Nevada range to the east.\7\ The population of the San Joaquin Valley
in 2015 was estimated to be nearly 4.2 million people and is projected
to increase by 25.3 percent by 2030 to over 5.2 million people.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the San
Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
\8\ The population estimates and projections include all of Kern
County, not just the portion of Kern County within the jurisdiction
of the SJVAPCD. See Chapter 1 and table 1-1 of the District's 2016
Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or
``State'') is the state agency responsible for the adoption and
submission to the EPA of California SIP submissions, and it has broad
authority to establish emissions standards and other requirements for
mobile sources. Under California law, local and regional air pollution
control districts in California are responsible for the regulation of
stationary sources and are generally responsible for the development of
regional air quality plans. In the San Joaquin Valley, the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or
``District'') develops and adopts air quality management plans to
address CAA planning requirements applicable to that region. The
District then submits such plans to CARB for adoption and submission to
the EPA as proposed revisions to the California SIP.
Under the CAA, after the EPA designates areas as nonattainment for
a NAAQS, states with nonattainment areas are required to submit SIP
revisions. With respect to areas designated as nonattainment, states
must implement the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS under Title 1, part D of the
CAA, which includes section 172 (``Nonattainment plan provisions in
general'') and sections 181-185 of subpart 2 (``Additional Provisions
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas''). To assist states in developing
effective plans to address ozone nonattainment problems, in 2015, the
EPA issued a SIP Requirements Rule (SRR) for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (``2008 Ozone SRR'') that addressed implementation of the 2008
standards, including attainment dates, requirements for emissions
inventories, attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstrations, as well as the transition from the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and associated anti-backsliding
requirements.\9\ The 2008 Ozone SRR is codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart AA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017 and 2018, CARB submitted SIP revisions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, including the District's ``2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-
Hour Ozone Standard'' (``2016 Ozone Plan'') and CARB's ``2018 Updates
to the California State Implementation Plan'' (``2018 SIP Update''). In
two separate final rules, we approved the 2016 Ozone Plan and the 2018
SIP Update as meeting all the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements for the San Joaquin Valley Extreme nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with the exception of the contingency measure
requirement.\10\ For the contingency measure requirement, we issued a
conditional approval that relied upon a commitment by the District to
amend the District's architectural coatings rule to include contingency
provisions and a commitment by CARB to submit the amended District rule
to the EPA within a year of final conditional approval of the
contingency measure element for the San Joaquin Valley.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 84 FR 3302 (February 12, 2019), corrected at 84 FR 19680
(May 3, 2019); and 84 FR 11198 (March 25, 2019).
\11\ 84 FR 11198 (March 25, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the CAA, ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2
as ``Serious'' or above must include in their SIPs contingency measures
consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency measures
are additional controls or measures to be implemented in the event the
area fails to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date.
Contingency measures must be designed so as to be implemented
prospectively; already-implemented control measures may not serve as
contingency measures even if they provide emissions reductions beyond
those needed for any other CAA purpose.\12\ The SIP should contain
trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for
implementation, and indicate that the measure will be implemented
without significant further action by the state or the EPA.\13\ Neither
the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a specific
amount of emissions reductions that implementation of contingency
measures must achieve, but the 2008 Ozone SRR reiterates the EPA's
guidance recommendation that contingency measures should provide for
emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's worth of
RFP, thus amounting to reductions of 3 percent of the baseline
emissions inventory for the nonattainment area.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir.
2016).
\13\ See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005); see also 2008 Ozone
SRR, 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 6,2015).
\14\ 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contingency measure element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified
by the 2018 SIP Update, includes a CARB measure referred to as the
``Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program'' and an evaluation of the
surplus emissions reductions from already-implemented measures.\15\ In
this context, ``surplus'' emissions reductions refer to emissions
reductions that are not needed to meet other SIP requirements, such as
the RFP and attainment demonstrations. In addition, the District and
CARB made commitments to adopt and submit a contingency provision \16\
as part of the District's architectural coatings rule within a year of
the final conditional approval. Once adopted, submitted, and approved,
the contingency provision in the architectural coatings rule would
become a third part of the contingency measure element. The EPA
estimated that the contingency measure, i.e., the contingency provision
in the architectural coatings rule, would achieve approximately 9
percent of one year's worth of RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 83 FR 61346, at 61356 (November 29, 2018).
\16\ The specific contingency provision that the District
committed to adopt is the removal of the exemption for architectural
coatings that are sold in containers with a volume of one liter
(1.057 quarts) or less, i.e., if triggered by an EPA determination
of failure to meet an RFP milestone or failure to attain the 2008
ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our March 25, 2019 final rule, we conditionally approved the
contingency measure element and found that the one contingency measure
(i.e., once adopted, submitted, and approved by the EPA) would be
sufficient for the State and District to meet the contingency measure
requirement for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
notwithstanding expected emissions reductions from the measure
equivalent to only a fraction of one
[[Page 31512]]
year's worth of RFP.\17\ We found the reductions from the one
contingency measure to be sufficient when considered together with the
substantial surplus emissions reductions we anticipate to occur in the
future from already-implemented measures and from other approved
measures in the plan.\18\ In our March 25, 2019 final rule, we approved
CARB's Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure as a ``SIP-
strengthening'' measure rather than as a contingency measure.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 84 FR 11198, at 11206.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An environmental organization filed a petition for review of the
EPA's March 25, 2019 conditional approval of the contingency measure
element for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, arguing, among
other things, that the EPA had abandoned, without providing a reasoned
explanation for the change, its longstanding interpretation of the CAA
that contingency measures must provide for emissions reductions
equivalent to one year's worth of progress. The petitioners also argued
that the EPA had violated the CAA by approving CARB's Enhanced
Enforcement Activities Program as SIP-strengthening because it is
unenforceable.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, Case No. 19-71223, Petitioner's Opening Brief,
Docket Entry 18-1, filed September 3, 2019, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 26, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the petition in part and denied the petition in part, holding
that the EPA's conditional approval of the contingency measure element
was arbitrary and capricious because, in the court's view, the Agency
had changed its position by accepting a contingency measure that would
achieve far less than one year's worth of RFP, as meeting the
contingency measure requirement without a reasoned explanation.\21\ The
court found that by taking into account the emissions reductions from
already-implemented measures to find that the contingency measure would
suffice to meet the applicable requirement, the EPA was circumventing
the court's 2016 holding in Bahr v. EPA. The court rejected the EPA's
arguments that the Agency's approach was grounded in its long-standing
guidance and was consistent with the court's 2016 Bahr v. EPA decision.
With respect to CARB's Enhanced Enforcement Activities program measure,
the court upheld the EPA's approval of it as SIP-strengthening and held
that the measure was enforceable according to its terms. The court
remanded the conditional approval action back to the Agency for further
proceedings consistent with the decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Association of Irritated Residents. v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937
(9th Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act Consequences
As noted above, the Ninth Circuit rejected the EPA's rationale for
conditional approval of the contingency measure element of the 2016
Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP Update, for San Joaquin Valley
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the court found that the EPA
could not rely on surplus emissions reductions from already-implemented
measures to justify approval of a contingency measure that would
provide only a fraction of one year's worth of RFP as meeting the
contingency measure requirement. In this case, if we do not take into
account surplus emissions reductions, then the one contingency measure
supporting the conditional approval must shoulder the entire burden of
achieving roughly one year's worth of RFP (if triggered). As noted
previously, the one contingency measure, i.e., the contingency
provision in the District's architectural coatings rule to which the
District has committed, would provide approximately 9 percent of one
year's worth of progress. Because the contingency measure would not
provide reductions roughly equivalent to one year's worth of RFP, we
find that the conditional approval can no longer be supported. We are
therefore proposing to withdraw our March 25, 2019 conditional approval
of the contingency measure element.
In light of the decision in the Association of Irritated Residents
v. EPA, we are proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the contingency measure element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by
the 2018 SIP Update, with respect to the contingency measure
requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). For the reasons
discussed above justifying withdrawal of the conditional approval, we
are proposing to disapprove the contingency measure element except for
the Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure.
With respect to the Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program
measure, we are proposing approval for the same reasons that we
provided in the March 25, 2019 final rule and that were upheld by the
Ninth Circuit.\22\ Namely, while we find that the Enhanced Enforcement
Activities Program measure fails to meet the requirements for a stand-
alone contingency measure, we also find that it strengthens the SIP by
triggering certain actions upon a failure to meet RFP or attainment by
the applicable attainment date that may lead to emissions reductions
that would not otherwise be achieved and thereby contribute in part to
any remedy for an RFP shortfall or failure to attain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ CARB has confirmed that it has decided to retain the
Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure in the San Joaquin
Valley portion of the California SIP for the purposes of the 2008
ozone NAAQS. See email correspondence dated February 24, 2022, from
Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB, to
Anita Lee, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed withdrawal and partial disapproval, if finalized,
would have the effect of removing the contingency measure element of
the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP Update, from the
applicable California SIP, except for the Enhanced Enforcement
Activities Program measure, and removing the corresponding provisions
in 40 CFR 52.220(c) where the EPA's approval of the contingency measure
element is currently codified.\23\ Lastly, if the EPA finalizes the
proposed partial disapproval of the contingency measure element of the
2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP Update, the area would be
eligible for a protective finding under the transportation conformity
rule because the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP Update,
reflects adopted control measures and contains enforceable commitments
that fully satisfy the emissions reductions requirements for RFP and
attainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The affected paragraphs include 40 CFR
52.220(c)(496)(ii)(B)(4) and (514)(ii)(A)(2).
\24\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3). Without a protective finding, the
final disapproval would result in a conformity freeze, under which
only projects in the first four years of the most recent conforming
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIP) can proceed. Generally, during a freeze, no new RTPs,
TIPs, or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform until another
control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the same
CAA requirements is submitted, the EPA finds its motor vehicle
emissions budget(s) adequate pursuant to Sec. 93.118 or approves
the submission, and conformity to the implementation plan revision
is determined. Under a protective finding, the final disapproval of
the contingency measures element would not result in a
transportation conformity freeze in the SJV ozone nonattainment area
and the metropolitan planning organizations may continue to make
transportation conformity determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we finalize the proposed partial disapproval of the contingency
measure
[[Page 31513]]
element, the EPA must promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP)
under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months. In addition, under 40
CFR 52.35, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) will be imposed
18 months after the effective date of this action, and the highway
funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) six months after the offset
sanction is imposed. A sanction will not be imposed if the EPA
determines that a subsequent SIP submission corrects the identified
deficiencies before the applicable deadline.
III. Request for Public Comment
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking final
action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves
certain state requirements submitted for inclusion into the SIP. 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. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rulemaking
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
rulemaking does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small
entities. This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements but simply disapproves certain state
requirements submitted for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it
affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion for small entities less
burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or
exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the Clean Air
Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset
requirements) may or will result from disapproval actions does not mean
that the EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this proposed action. Therefore, this proposed action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed action contains no Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. The EPA has determined that the proposed
disapproval action 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
action proposes to disapprove 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 proposed action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
proposed action 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 Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP that the EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply
on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and the
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The 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
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves
[[Page 31514]]
certain state requirements submitted for inclusion into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (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(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the 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. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The EPA
believes that this proposed action is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
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. The EPA lacks the discretionary
authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 16, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-11027 Filed 5-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P