

[Federal Register: July 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 135)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 38787-38793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jy07-10]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0903; FRL-8439-6]
RIN 2060-AA02

 
 Public Hearings and Submission of Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes changes to EPA's regulations specifying 
the public hearing requirements for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submissions, identifying the method for submission of SIPs and 
preliminary review of plans; and the criteria for determining the 
completeness of plan submission requirements to reflect the changes to 
the public hearing and plan submission requirements. It also updates 
the addresses to several Regional offices.

DATES: This rule is effective August 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0903. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this 
rule, please contact Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air 
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9043. 
Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at 
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Comments and Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 13, 2007, (72 FR 11307) EPA published a proposed rule to 
change the requirements of 40 CFR 51.102, 51.103 and Appendix V to Part 
51. Also, administrative changes to 40 CFR 52.02 and 52.16 to update 
the addresses for several of the EPA Regional offices were published.
    The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides that each revision to a SIP 
submitted by a State must be adopted by such State ``after reasonable 
notice and public hearing.'' EPA's regulations on public hearings in 40 
CFR 51.102(a) states ``Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of 
this section, States must

[[Page 38788]]

conduct one or more public hearings on the following prior to adoption 
and submission to EPA.'' The completeness criteria indicate that a 
complete submission must include ``Evidence that public notice was 
given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by 
EPA, including the date of publication of such notice'' and 
``Certification that public hearings(s) were held in accordance with 
the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and 
constitution, if applicable.'' 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V (2.1)(f) and 
(g). Following these public hearing requirements, states hold public 
hearings on any revision to a SIP. Many of these plan revisions are 
minor or noncontroversial in nature and no member of the public or the 
regulated community attends or participates in the hearing. These 
hearings consume both valuable time and resources. Rather than 
requiring a public hearing for all SIP revisions, EPA proposed to 
revise these regulations to allow states to determine those actions for 
which there may be little or no interest by the public or the regulated 
community and, for those actions, to provide the public the opportunity 
to request a public hearing. If no request for public hearing is made, 
then the State would have fulfilled the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.102(a) and no public hearing is required to be held.
    Whether or not a public hearing is held, the State is required to 
provide a 30-day period for the written submission of comments from the 
public.
    Forty CFR 51.103(a) and (b) require states to submit ``five copies 
of the plan to the appropriate Regional Office.'' The completeness 
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V(2.1)(d) provide that a complete 
submission must include ``indication of the changes made to the 
existing approved plan, where applicable.'' Since the time these 
regulations were promulgated, electronic access to documents has become 
readily available and there is no longer the same need for the State to 
provide multiple printed copies of the submitted plan. EPA proposed to 
revise these regulations to allow the Regions and the states 
flexibility to determine the number of printed and electronic copies of 
the plan submission necessary to ensure full public access to the 
submitted plan (including identification of the changes made) and to 
allow the agency to review the plan for approvability. EPA also 
proposed to revise 40 CFR 52.02 and 52.16, to reflect the current 
addresses for the Region 3, Region 4, Region 7 and Region 8 offices.

II. Comments and Responses

    EPA received comments on the proposed action. The majority of 
commenters were in support of the proposed action and suggested minor 
changes to the proposed action. Following is a summary of the comments 
received and EPA's response to those comments.
    Comment: One commenter is concerned that the proposed requirement 
for states to pre-schedule a public hearing and then cancel it if no 
one requests the hearing would ``(1) create confusion for the public, 
(2) require the additional expense of more legal notices to notify the 
public that a hearing has been cancelled, and (3) confuse and disrupt 
the schedule of court reporters set to cover the hearings.'' The 
commenter suggests that ``States only schedule a public hearing on a 
`nonsubstantive or noncontroversial'' topic if requested.'' The 
commenter understands that ``adoption of a minor amendment or submittal 
of a minor SIP revision may be delayed by a few weeks if a hearing is 
not `prescheduled'' and publicized at the same time as a 30-day comment 
period.''
    The commenter also requests that EPA (1) review and consider the 
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) approach to ``administrative 
modifications'' as published in the Federal Register on February 14, 
2007 (72 FR 7224); and (2) define minor SIP revisions that would be 
considered ``nonsubstantive or noncontroversial'' and would require a 
30 day comment period but no public hearing.
    Response: This rule revision is designed to provide states some 
flexibility in the public hearing process. It is EPA's intent to help 
states reduce the cost of holding public hearings that are not attended 
by the public, not lengthen the comment period by another 30 days. 
While one approach is to announce the public hearing when the proposed 
SIP revision is made available for comment and then to cancel the 
hearing if not requested, another approach the State may take is the 
one suggested by the commenter--i.e., the State may allowing the public 
the opportunity to request a public hearing in the initial notice and 
then (if a hearing is requested) publish a new 30 day notification 
(using the same media as the initial 30 day notification) announcing 
that a public hearing will be held and providing when and where it will 
be held. We are modifying the regulatory text to allow for this 
approach.
    EPA agrees with the commenter that the cancellation of a public 
hearing without providing some means for the public to determine if the 
hearing is cancelled may ``create confusion for the public.'' To avoid 
confusion, the State should clearly indicate in the notice how it will 
inform the public of whether the hearing will be held. One option is to 
announce the cancellation of a hearing in the same medium as the notice 
was originally published. Another option would be to include a web 
address (Uniform Resource Locator) where a cancellation notice will be 
posted and a phone number the public may call to determine if the 
public hearing has been cancelled. We are revising the regulatory text 
to make clear that the State must notify the public that the hearing 
has been cancelled.
    EPA has not used the phrase ``nonsubstantive or noncontroversial'' 
in its regulation. Rather, we have simply used that term to describe 
the types of SIP revisions that states have identified as frequently 
not attracting attendance at a public hearing. We see no need to define 
that term since it has no regulatory meaning.
    Comment: One commenter requests clarification on whether the 
language in 40 CFR 51.102(a) that states ``If no request for a public 
hearing is received during the 30-day notification period and the 
original notice announcing the 30-day notification period clearly 
states that if no request for a public hearing is received the hearing 
will be cancelled, then the public hearing may be cancelled.'' is 
mandatory language for public hearing notices or permissive language.
    Response: The intent of this language is to allow states the 
flexibility in the public hearing process. The State may choose whether 
it wishes to hold a public hearing or whether it wishes to hold a 
public hearing only if so requested. If it chooses to hold a public 
hearing only if requested, then the State should use the language in 
italics above (or substantially similar language) to convey that the 
hearing will be cancelled if no one requests a hearing.
    Comment: One commenter is concerned that ``while many of the 
documents can be provided electronically, there may be occasions where 
an exhibit or other document may not lend itself to an electronic 
format.'' The commenter requests that a provision be added to the rule 
that will allow a State to submit five hard copies of any portion of 
the submittal that cannot be submitted electronically and, for the 
remainder of the submittal,

[[Page 38789]]

submit two hard copies and an electronic copy.
    Response: We believe that the rule already provides this 
flexibility. The rule as written allows for the State to submit either 
``five hard copies or at least two hard copies with an electronic 
version of the hard copy.'' The rule also allows the State in 
conjunction with the Regional Office (in the statement ``unless 
otherwise agreed to by the State and Regional Office'') to resolve 
unique situations as they arise.
    Comment: One commenter recommends the rule include a requirement 
for notifying the public when a public hearing will be cancelled and 
how the public will be notified of the cancellation.
    Response: EPA agrees with commenter and has revised the rule to 
address this concern.
    Comment: Several commenters are not sure how the revised 40 CFR 
51.102(a) is supposed to work and state ``Under both the existing and 
proposed rule, the comment period consists of 30-days, with the hearing 
held on the 30th day. As proposed, whether or not the State would 
actually hold a hearing would not be known by the State until the 
actual day of the hearing, day 30. How will the public know whether or 
not a hearing is being held? How would the State notify the public? The 
public would have no advance notice in which to plan to attend or not 
and the State would have no time in which to inform the public, whether 
through the current requirement for a newspaper advertisement, or 
through other electronic means.'' Commenters recommend revising section 
(a) to read ``Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 
this section and within the 30-day notification period as required by 
paragraph (e) of this section, States must provide notice, provide the 
opportunity to submit written comments and allow the public the 
opportunity to request a public hearing.'' A new section (d) was 
suggested to read ``No hearing will be required for any plan change if 
the change is identified by the State to consist of minor or 
administrative revisions that are likely to be of little public 
interest. As required in paragraph (a) of the proposal, the State must 
provide the public the opportunity to request a public hearing in the 
notice announcing the 30-day notification period. If the State provides 
the public the opportunity to request a public hearing and a request is 
received, the State must provide a new 30-day notification period of 
the hearing in accordance with paragraph (e) and conduct the hearing at 
the end of the notification period. If no request for a public hearing 
is received during the initial 30-day notification period and the 
original notice announcing the 30-day notification period clearly 
states that if no request for a public hearing is received there will 
be no hearing, then no public hearing will be conducted.''
    Response: This rule revision is designed to provide states 
flexibility in the public hearing process. Under this rule states have 
several options they can employ in the public hearing process. Here are 
a few examples:
    1. Choose to hold a public hearing and provide the public with the 
meeting logistics (when and where) in the 30-day notification. States 
may choose to use this option because they believe the revision(s) will 
draw public interest and therefore plan to hold a public hearing.
    2. Provide the public the opportunity to request a hearing. States 
may choose to use this option for revisions they believe will not 
elicit public interest. For example, in the initial notice, the State 
would include a scheduled public hearing 35 days from the date of the 
notice and inform the public that if a hearing is not requested by the 
end of the 30th day, the public hearing will be cancelled. If a hearing 
is not requested the State would post on the 31st day a cancellation 
notice in the manner announced at the time of the initial notice (e.g., 
in a newspaper, the State Register, or on a Web site notifying the 
public that the hearing was cancelled).
    3. Publish a 30-day notice to inform the public of revisions to the 
SIP and requiring that any request for a public hearing must be 
submitted within 30-days. If a public hearing is requested, the State 
would publish a new notice providing 30-days notice of the time and 
place of the public hearing.
    We are not adopting the specific language suggested by the 
commenter. We believe the regulatory language would allow the State to 
elect to use any of the options noted above.
    EPA is not creating an exception to the public hearing requirement 
for ``minor or administrative revisions'' in this rule. Such a line-
drawing exercise is difficult, as some things that may appear minor or 
administrative to one person may have more significant implications 
than initially believed or may not be minor or insignificant to another 
person. Providing the opportunity for a public hearing for all changes 
will allow the public (rather than the State) to decide which revisions 
are minor and administrative and on which members of the public do not 
need a public hearing and which revisions members of the public believe 
may have more significance and for which they need a public forum with 
the State Agency.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the revised language in 40 
CFR 51.103(b) regarding requests for preliminary review of plans by 
EPA. The commenter states: ``Currently, we make requests for 
preliminary review by email with a link to the State Web site where the 
notice and proposal are located. Requiring additional paper copies goes 
directly against the intent of this regulatory action. While we 
understand the need to maintain more formal documentation for the 
official submittal in paragraph (a), the same requirements for 
paragraph (b) do not make sense for an optional, voluntary action.'' 
and recommends revising the language to include ``or an entirely 
electronic submittal.''
    Response: As an initial matter, the current rule requires that 
requests be accompanied by five hard copies . Thus, the commenter 
incorrectly indicates that the EPA's proposed rule is adding 
constraints. To the contrary, the regulatory language would provide 
flexibility by allowing requests to ``be accompanied by five hard 
copies or at least two hard copies with an electronic version of the 
hard copy'' and providing latitude with the clause ``unless otherwise 
agreed to by the State and Regional Office.'' This provision would 
allow the State and the Regional Office to agree to an entirely 
electronic submittal, where appropriate, but retains the requirement 
for hard copy submissions where no such agreement is reached.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that Section 2.1(d) of 
Appendix V of Part 51--Criteria for Determining the Completeness of 
Plan Submissions, be revised because ``Computer terminology comes and 
goes, not all systems are entirely compatible, and whatever is 
specified in the CFR now will likely need to be revisited.'' Commenters 
recommended the language to read ``If the State submits an electronic 
copy, it must be an exact duplicate of the hard copy, including signed 
documents, with changes indicated. The specific electronic formats to 
be used are to be agreed upon by the State and the Regional Office. 
Files need to be submitted in manageable amounts (e.g., a file for each 
section or chapter, depending on size, and separate files for each 
distinct document) as agreed to by the State and Regional Office.''
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that computer technology 
will continue to change, however, revising the language is not needed. 
EPA believes it has provided enough

[[Page 38790]]

latitude with the clause ``unless otherwise agreed to by the State and 
Regional Office'' to address future changes in media.
    Comment: Several commenters also encourage EPA to provide the same 
flexibility for 111(d)/129 plans.
    Response: The regulatory provisions addressed in the proposed rule 
concern SIP submissions and thus are not the appropriate place to 
address 111(d)/129 plans. EPA will take the commenter's request under 
advisement and may consider similar treatment for 111(d)/129 plans may 
be considered at a later time.
    Comment: The commenter requests ``that the requirements for 
reasonable public notice, as defined in 40 CFR 51.102(d), be 
strengthened to ensure that the public, and in particular the 
`regulated community,' are made aware of the proposed plan or plan 
revision and associated opportunity to submit comments and/or request a 
public hearing.'' The commenter believes ``that when a proposed plan or 
plan revision involves a control measure that the `regulated community' 
is responsible for implementing, states should be required to 
explicitly communicate with the affected regulated community to ensure 
that they are aware of the proposed plan or plan revision and the 
associated opportunity to submit comments and/or request a public 
hearing.'' Also, the commenter states that ``the `prominent 
advertisement' requirement has typically been met by placing a notice 
of the public hearing in the State register. Such notices may satisfy 
the State's requirements for public notice, but in our view they fall 
far short of reasonable public notice if the proposed plan or plan 
revision involves a control measure that a regulated community is 
responsible for implementing.'' The commenter wants the following 
statement added to 40 CFR 51.102(d) ``Notification directly to any 
regulated community responsible for implementing a control measure 
included in the proposed plan or plan revision.''
    Response: While we agree that ensuring that the regulated community 
is aware of planning obligations that may affect them, the 
recommendation is not practicable. Moreover, our experience is that the 
states attempt to diligently work with the regulated community (and all 
stakeholders) when developing SIPs. As and initial matter, the 
recommendation is not practical because it is unclear. Would it impose 
a burden on the State to contact and provide direct notification to any 
source that may potentially be affected by regulation? If so, we think 
the burden would be impossible for the State to meet in many 
circumstances. Some source categories could include 100's or 1000's of 
sources and the State would not be able to identify all such sources. 
Additionally, there may be issues of whom the State is required to 
notify. For example, if a State made changes to its inspection and 
maintenance program, would it be obligated to provide direct 
notification to every owner of a car registered on the State? Also, 
there may be countless service stations that perform these tests. Would 
the State be required to maintain a list of every such station? As 
noted, we believe States generally work with the regulated community in 
developing programs that may affect them. Typically, such work is a 
necessary component of developing control strategies since States must 
understand how sources operate, including the types of equipment they 
use, and what are the types and amount of emissions. We continue to 
encourage States to improve outreach efforts in developing SIPs and we 
believe the use of the internet has provided greater public access to 
information.
    Comment: One commenter requests that EPA change the requirement for 
two hard copies to one hard copy.
    Response: We believe a change is unnecessary because the rule 
provides flexibility for the State and Regional Office to agree on one 
hard copy and an electronic copy, if they determine that is 
appropriate.

III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing the revisions as stated in the proposed rule and 
has added a provision to capture the cancellation of public hearings, 
in order to reduce the possibility of confusion regarding whether a 
public hearing will be held. The provision will require States to 
include in the initial notice announcing the 30 day notification 
period, the method they will use to notify the public of whether the 
hearing will be held and to include a phone number where the public can 
call to determine if the public hearing has been cancelled.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
This action modifies the public hearing requirements for SIPs by 
clarifying that public hearings need only be held when requested by the 
public rather than automatically and provides a less costly alternative 
to the pre-existing requirement to submit five printed copies of each 
SIP revision. The present action does not establish any new information 
collection burden. 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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies 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 action 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. (See 13 CFR 121.); (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. This action

[[Page 38791]]

modifies the public hearing requirements that apply to states for 
purposes of submitting SIPs. It clarifies that public hearings need 
only be held when requested by the public rather than automatically and 
provides a less costly alternative to the pre-existing requirement to 
submit five printed copies of each SIP revision. After considering the 
economic impacts of today's action on small entities, I certify that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation to why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's action does not include a Federal mandate within the 
meaning of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
in any one year by either State, local, or Tribal governments in the 
aggregate or to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Also, EPA has 
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and therefore, 
is not subject to the requirements of sections 203. This action 
modifies the public hearing requirements for SIPs by clarifying that 
public hearings need only be held when requested by the public rather 
than automatically and provides a less costly alternative to the pre-
existing requirement to submit five printed copies of each SIP 
revision.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final 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 Executive Order 13132. This action modifies the public 
hearing requirements for SIPs by clarifying that public hearings need 
only be held when requested by the public rather than automatically and 
provides a less costly alternative to the pre-existing requirement to 
submit five printed copies of each SIP revision. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This action does not have 
``Tribal implications'' as specified in Executive Order 13175. This 
action modifies the public hearing requirements for SIPs by clarifying 
that public hearings need only be held when requested by the public 
rather than automatically and provides a less costly alternative to the 
pre-existing requirement to submit five printed copies of each SIP 
revision. The Clean Air Act and the Tribal Authority Rule establish the 
relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans 
to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that 
relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health 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 
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. This action 
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically 
significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not 
have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks 
addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to children. 
This action modifies the public hearing requirements for SIPs by 
clarifying that public hearings need only be held when requested by the 
public rather than automatically and provides a less costly alternative 
to the pre-existing requirement to submit five printed copies of each 
SIP revision.

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

    This action 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

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National

[[Page 38792]]

Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS) 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 VCS bodies. The NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action 
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider 
the use of any VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. This action modifies the public hearing requirements for 
SIPs by clarifying that public hearings need only be held when 
requested by the public rather than automatically and provides a less 
costly alternative to the pre-existing requirement to submit five 
printed copies of each SIP revision.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. 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(2). This action will be effective August 15, 2007.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 District of Columbia Circuit by September 14, 2007. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review must 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 CAA Section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Transportation, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: July 10, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
Accordingly, 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 are amended as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

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.


0
2. Section 51.102 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  51.102  Public hearings.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this section 
and within the 30 day notification period as required by paragraph (d) 
of this section, States must provide notice, provide the opportunity to 
submit written comments and allow the public the opportunity to request 
a public hearing. The State must hold a public hearing or provide the 
public the opportunity to request a public hearing. The notice 
announcing the 30 day notification period must include the date, place 
and time of the public hearing. If the State provides the public the 
opportunity to request a public hearing and a request is received the 
State must hold the scheduled hearing or schedule a public hearing (as 
required by paragraph (d) of this section). The State may cancel the 
public hearing through a method it identifies if no request for a 
public hearing is received during the 30 day notification period and 
the original notice announcing the 30 day notification period clearly 
states: If no request for a public hearing is received the hearing will 
be cancelled; identifies the method and time for announcing that the 
hearing has been cancelled; and provides a contact phone number for the 
public to call to find out if the hearing has been cancelled. These 
requirements apply for adoption and submission to EPA of:
* * * * *
    (f) The State must submit with the plan, revision, or schedule, a 
certification that the requirements in paragraph (a) and (d) of this 
section were met. Such certification will include the date and place of 
any public hearing(s) held or that no public hearing was requested 
during the 30 day notification period.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 51.103 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  51.103  Submission of plans, preliminary review of plans.

    (a) The State makes an official plan submission to EPA only when 
the submission conforms to the requirements of appendix V to this part, 
and the State delivers five hard copies or at least two hard copies 
with an electronic version of the hard copy (unless otherwise agreed to 
by the State and Regional Office) of the plan to the appropriate 
Regional Office, with a letter giving notice of such action. If the 
State submits an electronic copy, it must be an exact duplicate of the 
hard copy.
    (b) Upon request of a State, the Administrator will provide 
preliminary review of a plan or portion thereof submitted in advance of 
the date such plan is due. Such requests must be made in writing to the 
appropriate Regional Office, must indicate changes (such as, redline/
strikethrough) to the existing approved plan, where applicable and must 
be accompanied by five hard copies or at least two hard copies with an 
electronic version of the hard copy (unless otherwise agreed to by the 
State and Regional Office).

[[Page 38793]]

Requests for preliminary review do not relieve a State of the 
responsibility of adopting and submitting plans in accordance with 
prescribed due dates.

0
4. Appendix V to Part 51 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (g) 
under Section 2.1 to read as follows:

Appendix V of Part 51--Criteria for Determining the Completeness of 
Plan Submissions

* * * * *
    2.1. * * *
    (d) A copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for 
approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including 
indication of the changes made (such as, redline/strikethrough) to the 
existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy 
of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped and dated by 
the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable 
by the State. The effective date of the regulation/document shall, 
whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. If the State 
submits an electronic copy, it must be an exact duplicate of the hard 
copy with changes indicated, signed documents need to be in portable 
document format, rules need to be in text format and files need to be 
submitted in manageable amounts (e.g., a file for each section or 
chapter, depending on size, and separate files for each distinct 
document) unless otherwise agreed to by the State and Regional Office.
* * * * *
    (g) Certification that public hearing(s) were held in accordance 
with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws 
and constitution, if applicable and consistent with the public hearing 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.102.
* * * * *

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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


0
6. Section 52.02 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(2)(iii), 
(d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(vii), and (d)(2)(viii) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.02  Introduction.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
Virginia, and West Virginia. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
    (iv) Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
* * * * *
    (vii) Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 
66101.
    (viii) Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 
Wyoming. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 
Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.
* * * * *
    7. Section 52.16 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), 
(b)(7) and (b)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.16  Submission to Administrator.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
Virginia, and West Virginia. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
    (4) Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
* * * * *
    (7) Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. EPA Region 7, 901 North 
5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.
    (8) Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 
Wyoming. EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-13716 Filed 7-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
