

[Federal Register: December 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 75690-75694]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18de06-16]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0926; FRL-8257-6]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to 
the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Excess Emissions Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing two actions related to excess emissions 
provisions that were previously approved by EPA into the Nevada 
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada 
State Implementation Plan. These proposed actions include approval of a 
State request for rescission of certain provisions related to excess 
emissions and correction of an error made by the Agency in approving 
another provision also related to excess emissions. We are proposing to 
correct the error by disapproving the previously approved provision and 
thereby deleting the provision from the plan. The proposed approval of 
the rescission request is contingent upon receipt of certain public 
notice and hearing documentation from the State of Nevada. EPA is 
proposing these actions under the Clean Air Act authority to correct 
errors in approving, and obligation to take action on, State submittals 
of revisions to state implementation plans. The intended effect is to 
correct a past error in approving a particular provision into the plan 
and to allow for the rescission of closely-related provisions. EPA is 
taking comments on this proposal and plans to follow with a final 
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0926, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes

[[Page 75691]]

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI 
or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should 
not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not 

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents 
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). 
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment 
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947-4126.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Which Provisions Are Covered by This Proposal?
II. What Is the Background for This Proposal?
III. How Are We Evaluating These Provisions?
IV. What Are Our Proposed Actions on These Provisions?
    A. NAC 445.667
    B. NAQR Article 2.5.4
V. Proposed Actions, Public Comment and Final Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Which Provisions Are Covered by This Proposal?

    This document provides notice of EPA's proposed actions on the 
following State rules approved by EPA under section 110 of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and thereby made a part of the applicable 
state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of Nevada.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Most recent approval date and FR
            Rule No.                    Title or text       Submittal date                  cite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAC 445.677.....................  Excess emissions:               10/26/82  03/27/84 at 49 FR 11626.
                                   Scheduled maintenance;
                                   testing; malfunctions.
NAQR Article 2.5.4..............  ``Breakdown or upset,           10/31/75  01/09/78 at 43 FR 1341.
                                   determined by the
                                   Director to be
                                   unavoidable and not the
                                   result of careless or
                                   marginal operations,
                                   shall not be considered
                                   a violation of these
                                   regulations''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What Is the Background for This Proposal?

    In January 1972, in response to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, 
the Governor of Nevada submitted the original SIP to EPA for approval. 
EPA approved certain portions of the original SIP and disapproved other 
portions under section 110(a) of the CAA. See 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 
1972) and 40 CFR 52.1470(b). For some of the disapproved portions of 
the original SIP, EPA promulgated substitute provisions, referred to as 
Federal implementation plan (FIP) provisions, under section 110(c) of 
the Act. See, e.g., EPA's final rule at 38 FR 7270 (February 25, 1974) 
in which EPA established provisions for review of new or modified 
indirect sources.
    This original SIP included various rules, codified as articles 
within the Nevada Air Quality Regulations (NAQR), and various statutory 
provisions codified in title 40, chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised 
Statutes (NRS). In the early 1980's, Nevada reorganized and re-codified 
its air quality rules as sections within chapter 445 of the Nevada 
Administrative Code (NAC). Today, Nevada codifies its air quality 
regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC and codifies air quality 
statutes in chapter 445B of title 40 of the NRS.
    The original SIP, approved by EPA in May 1972, included NAQR 
article 2.5 (``Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or 
Upset''), which contained what are referred to as ``excess emissions'' 
or ``malfunction'' provisions. Herein, we use the term ``excess 
emissions,'' and in this context, ``excess emissions'' means emissions 
of an air pollutant in excess of an emission standard. NAQR article 
2.5, as approved by EPA in May 1972, reads:

2.5 Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or Upset:
    2.5.1 Scheduled maintenance, testing approved by the control 
officer, or repairs which may result in emission of air contaminants 
prohibited by these regulations shall be performed during a time 
designated by the control officer as being favorable for atmospheric 
ventilation.
    2.5.2 The control officer shall be notified in writing on the 
time and expected duration at least 24 hours in advance of any 
scheduled maintenance which may result in emission of air 
contaminants prohibited by these regulations.
    2.5.3 The control officer shall be notified within 24 hours 
after any breakdown or upset.
    2.5.4 Breakdown or upset, determined by the control officer to 
be unavoidable and not the result of careless or marginal 
operations, shall not be considered a violation of these 
regulations.

    The State of Nevada amended NAQR article 2.5, and submitted the 
amended versions to EPA, at various times during the 1970's and early 
1980's. In January 1978, EPA approved amended versions of subsections 
2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.4 that had been submitted on October 31, 1975 
(see 43 FR 1341, January 9, 1978 and 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(11)) and, later 
that year, approved an amended version of subsection 2.5.3 that had 
been submitted on December 10, 1976 (see 43 FR 36932, August 21, 1978 
and 40 CFR 52.1470(c)(12)). The amendments to article 2.5 approved in 
1978 involved minor changes, such as the replacement of the term 
``control officer'' with the term ``Director'' and the specification of 
a phone number for notifying the Director of the occurrence of 
breakdown or upset conditions.
    In 1982, the State of Nevada amended, re-codified, and submitted 
NAQR article 2.5 as NAC 445.667 (``Excess emissions: scheduled 
maintenance; testing; malfunctions'') and NAC 445.668 (``Excess 
emissions: Determination of fault''). NAC 445.667 reflected minor 
revisions to the reporting requirements of former NAQR article 2.5 
(i.e., subsections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3) but also included a new 
paragraph requiring owners and operators to provide within 15 days 
after any malfunction, breakdown, upset, startup or human

[[Page 75692]]

error ``sufficient information'' to enable the director to determine 
the seriousness of the excess emissions and specifying what constituted 
``sufficient information''. In 1984, we approved NAC 445.667 and 
thereby effectively replaced all of NAQR article 2.5 in the applicable 
Nevada SIP except for subsection 2.5.4. See 49 FR 11626 (March 27, 
1984). In contrast to NAC 445.667, EPA took no action to approve or 
disapprove NAC 445.668, the re-codified version of NAQR article 2.5.4. 
Thus, the excess emissions provisions in the applicable SIP currently 
include NAC 445.667, as approved in March 1984, and NAQR 2.5.4, as 
approved in January 1978.
    In a SIP revision submittal dated January 12, 2006, the Governor's 
designee for SIP matters, the Nevada Division of Environmental 
Protection (NDEP), requested rescission of many rules from the 
applicable SIP, including NAC 445.667.\1\ As discussed below, we are 
proposing to approve this request because of its connection to NAQR 
article 2.5.4, which we approved in error into the SIP, and for which 
we are now proposing disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The January 12, 2006 SIP submittal superseded in part an 
earlier SIP submittal dated February 16, 2005. The January 12, 2006 
SIP submittal was not a complete re-submittal of the earlier 
submittal in that it did not include the documentation of public 
notice and hearing for new or amended rules adopted prior to 2005. 
CAA section 110(l) requires reasonable notice and public hearing 
prior to adoption of SIP revisions by States for subsequent 
submittal to EPA for approval or disapproval under CAA section 
110(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NDEP has not requested rescission of NAQR article 2.5.4 from the 
applicable SIP. We propose, however, as discussed below, to initiate 
action herein to disapprove this previously-approved provision under 
CAA section 110(k)(6), which expressly provides EPA with authority to 
correct errors in prior SIP approvals, and thereby delete NAQR article 
2.5.4 from the applicable SIP. In doing so, we find that approval of 
NAQR article 2.5.4 into the SIP in 1972, and then again in amended 
form, in 1978, was an error because NAQR article 2.5.4, which exempts 
certain occurrences of excess emissions from the potential for 
enforcement at the discretion of NDEP, is not consistent with 
attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS) nor with the regulatory framework of the Act, which 
gives EPA and citizens independent authority to enforce emissions 
limitations and other requirements approved into the SIP.

III. How Are We Eealuating These Provisions?

    Under CAA sections 110(k)(2) and (3), EPA is obligated to approve 
or disapprove (in whole or in separable part) submittals by States of 
SIPs and SIP revisions found or deemed to be complete, and under CAA 
section 110(k)(6), EPA has the authority to correct errors made by the 
Agency in approving such SIPs and SIP revisions. EPA has reviewed the 
State's request for rescission of certain excess emissions provisions 
and considered the removal of another excess emissions provision for 
compliance with the CAA requirements for SIPs in general set forth in 
CAA section 110(a) and 40 CFR part 51 (particularly, subpart K ``Source 
Surveillance'') and also for compliance with CAA requirements for SIP 
revisions in CAA section 110(l) and 193.\2\ We have also applied the 
principles set forth in the following EPA policy memoranda 
(collectively, ``excess emissions policy memoranda''):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP 
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other 
applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA section 193 prohibits 
modifications in control requirements that were in effect before the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any nonattainment area unless 
the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions 
of the nonattainment pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 
Maintenance, and Malfunctions'' from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant 
Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation, dated September 28, 1982;
     ``Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 
Maintenance, and Malfunctions'' from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant 
Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation, dated February 15, 1983;
     ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding 
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' from 
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated September 20, 1999; and
     ``Re-Issuance of Clarification--State Implementation Plans 
(SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, 
and Shutdown'' from Eric Schaeffer, Director, Office of Regulatory 
Enforcement and John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, dated December 5, 2001.

IV. What Are Our Proposed Actions on These Provisions?

A. NAC 445.667

    NAC 445.667 establishes reporting requirements under two 
circumstances involving the potential or the occurrence of excess 
emissions. First, NAC 445.667 requires advance notice to the Director 
of any scheduled maintenance or repairs that may result in excess 
emissions. Second, NAC 445.667 requires the Director to be notified 
within certain prescribed periods of any excess emissions that occur 
after any malfunction of process or pollution control equipment or 
during startup of such equipment.
    Upon review of CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart K 
(``Source Surveillance''), we find that the episodic reporting of 
excess emissions required under NAC 445.667 generally supports 
enforceability of the SIP and protection of the NAAQS. However, a 
review of the text of the excess emissions provisions themselves and 
the regulatory history of the State's submittals and EPA actions (or 
inaction as the case may be) on NAQR article 2.5, NAC 445.667, and NAC 
445.668 convinces us that NAC 445.667 should not be separated from NAQR 
article 2.5.4 for the purposes of SIP actions under CAA section 
110(k)(3) and related error corrections under CAA section 110(k)(6). 
Note, for example, that NAC 445.667 and NAC 445.668 were originally 
codified as subsections within a single rule, NAQR article 2.5, 
``Scheduled Maintenance, Testing, and Breakdown or Upset.''
    CAA section 110(k)(3) provides for full or partial approvals and 
disapprovals of SIP submittals. We consider ``separable'' portions of 
SIP submittals to be eligible for separate action under CAA section 
110(k)(3). By ``separable,'' EPA means that the action it anticipates 
taking will not result in the approved rule(s) being more stringent 
than the State anticipated. See EPA memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, entitled ``Processing of 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals,'' dated July 9, 1992. In 
the context of an error correction under CAA section 110(k)(6), we 
apply the principle of being separable to avoid a result in which the 
approved rule(s) in the SIP becomes more stringent than the State 
anticipated upon our removal of another rule or portion of that rule. 
In this case, we believe that the State intended the two excess 
emissions rules, i.e., reporting provisions of NAC 445.667 and the 
determination of fault provisions of NAQR article 2.5.4, to be 
considered together as a single

[[Page 75693]]

regulatory scheme whereby owners and operators can avoid enforcement 
proceedings triggered by excess emissions due to malfunctions if they 
follow the related reporting requirements and take the necessary 
remedial steps. In other words, we believe the State did not intend the 
excess emissions reporting requirements for malfunctions to exist 
independently in the SIP from the related determination of fault 
provisions.
    Given the connection between NAQR article 2.5.4 and NAC 445.667, 
therefore, and because we erred in approving (and are proposing 
disapproval of) the former, as discussed below, we propose to approve 
the State's request for rescission of the latter. Neither the January 
12, 2006 SIP revision submittal nor the February 16, 2005 SIP revision 
submittal (that the latter submittal replaced in part) included public 
participation documentation for this requested rescission, thus, our 
proposed approval of the rescission of NAC 445.667 from the SIP is 
contingent upon receipt of public notice and hearing documentation from 
the State of Nevada. Such documentation is required under CAA section 
110(l) for all SIP revisions.
    We note that approval of the rescission request for NAC 445.667 
would have no effect on excess emissions reporting requirements that 
apply to stationary sources under other SIP rules, under 40 CFR part 60 
(``Standards of performance for new stationary sources''), or 40 CFR 
parts 61 (``National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants'') 
and 63 (``National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for 
source categories'').

B. NAQR Article 2.5.4

    NAQR article 2.5.4 allows the Director (which, in this context, 
refers to NDEP) to exempt from enforcement certain excess emissions due 
to malfunction. NDEP's discretion in this regard is limited to 
conditions that NDEP determines to be unavoidable and not the result of 
careless or marginal operations but can be used to exempt such excess 
emissions from any source under NDEP jurisdiction regardless of the 
source's potential to cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. 
NAQR article 2.5.4 does not limit the duration of the exemption nor 
include any provisions that serve to protect ambient air quality during 
the exemption period for the purpose of avoiding violations of the 
NAAQS.
    EPA's long-standing position is that provisions such as NAQR 
article 2.5.4 are not consistent with the fundamental purpose of a SIP, 
which as set forth in CAA section 110(a)(1) is to provide for 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. See 42 FR 
21472 (April 27, 1997), 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977), and EPA's 
excess emissions policy memoranda.\3\ We view all excursions above SIP 
emission limits as violations because the purpose of SIP limits are to 
protect the NAAQS, and thus, any emissions above such limits may cause 
or contribute to violations of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's interpretation of section 110 in the context of State 
excess emissions provisions has been upheld by the United State 
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Michigan Mfrs. Ass'n v. 
Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations (see 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)), and Congress intended such limitations to be 
continuous in nature. See the definition of ``emission limitation'' in 
CAA section 302(k).\4\ Allowing the Director to exempt from enforcement 
incidents during which emissions exceed the underlying emissions 
limitation means that none of the emission limitations in the SIP 
otherwise subject to enforcement under State law and the Clean Air Act 
are truly continuous in nature but rather may be discontinued for 
indefinite periods by the Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under CAA section 302(k), the terms ``emission limitation'' 
and ``emission standard'' mean a requirement established by the 
State or the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or 
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, 
including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance 
of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, 
equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under 
this chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, by leaving enforcement of the underlying emission 
limitation in the sole hands of the Director of the State air pollution 
agency without explicit limits to his/her discretion, NAQR article 
2.5.4 conflicts with the regulatory structure of the Clean Air Act, 
which is intended to provide for independent enforcement by EPA and 
citizens of emissions limitations and other requirements approved by 
EPA into SIPs. See, generally, CAA sections 113 (``Federal 
enforcement'') and 304 (``Citizen suits''). The purpose of SIPs to 
protect the NAAQS, the continuous nature of emissions limitations, and 
the independent authorities for EPA and citizen represent core elements 
of the Clean Air Act from as far back as the Clean Air Amendments of 
1970. Thus, our approvals of NAQR article 2.5.4 as part of the Nevada 
SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), and then again, in amended form, on 
January 9, 1978 (43 FR 1341) were clearly in error.
    Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, 
provides, ``Whenever the Administrator determines that the 
Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any 
plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area designation, 
redesignation, classification or reclassification was in error, the 
Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or 
promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any 
further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis 
thereof shall be provided to the State and the public.''
    We interpret this provision to authorize the Agency to make 
corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown to our 
satisfaction (or we discover) that (1) We clearly erred in failing to 
consider or in inappropriately considering information made available 
to EPA at the time of the promulgation, or the information made 
available at the time of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to 
have been clearly inadequate, and (2) other information persuasively 
supports a change in the regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763 
(November 30, 1992).
    In this instance, we have found clear error in our 1972 and 1978 
approvals of NAQR article 2.5.4 as a part of the Nevada SIP because at 
the time of our 1972 and 1978 actions approving this rule, the Clean 
Air Act required SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS 
through continuous emissions limitations and provided for a regulatory 
scheme whereby EPA and citizens have enforcement authority separate 
from that of the State; whereas, NAQR article 2.5.4 provides for 
discontinuance of emission limitations under certain conditions without 
regard to protection of the NAAQS. Further, by determining that excess 
emissions are not a violation of the SIP, the Director can at his 
discretion cut off EPA or citizen enforcement of the underlying 
emissions limitation thereby confounding the regulatory scheme 
promulgated by Congress in the Clean Air Act. We also find that 
continued presence of NAQR article 2.5.4 in the applicable Nevada SIP 
undermines enforceability of the SIP and is potentially harmful to the 
environment.
    Therefore, under CAA section 110(k)(6), we are proposing to correct 
our errors in approving NAQR article 2.5.4 as part of the Nevada SIP on 
May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842) and on January 9, 1978 (43 FR 1341) by 
disapproving the previously approved versions of the rule and thereby 
deleting the rule from the applicable SIP. If finalized as

[[Page 75694]]

proposed, we will codify the error correction by amending 40 CFR 
52.1470(b), 52.1470(c)(11), and 52.1483 accordingly.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that our proposed action herein of disapproving a 
previously approved excess emissions rule is consistent with actions 
we have taken on similar excess emissions provisions in other 
portions of the Nevada SIP and in other SIPs. For example, in 1981, 
we disapproved section 12, an excess emissions rule adopted by Clark 
County (that we had previously approved as part of the Clark County 
portion of the Nevada SIP) on similar grounds as described herein. 
See 46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981) and 69 FR 54006 (September 7, 
2004). In 1978, we disapproved similar excess emissions rules 
adopted by 22 different air pollution control districts in the State 
of California and, in some instances, reversed previous approvals of 
prior versions of those rules. See 43 FR 33915 (August 2, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Actions, Public Comment and Final Actions

    Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is proposing approval of a 
request by the State of Nevada for rescission of NAC 445.667 (``Excess 
emissions: Scheduled maintenance; testing; malfunctions'') from the 
applicable SIP because of the connection between NAC 445.667 and NAQR 
article 2.5.4, which we approved in error and for which we are 
proposing disapproval.
    EPA is also proposing, under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, to 
correct errors made by the Agency in approving NAQR article 2.5.4 in 
1972 and again in 1978 as part of the applicable SIP by disapproving 
the previously approved versions of the rule and thereby deleting NAQR 
article 2.5.4 from the applicable SIP. We are proposing this correction 
because the subject rule provides an exemption from enforcement at the 
State's discretion for certain excess emissions and is thereby 
inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the SIP, which is to 
provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, 
inconsistent with Congressional intent for continuous emission limits, 
and inconsistent with the regulatory structure of the Clean Air Act 
which provides for independent enforcement authority by EPA and 
citizens.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the 
next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the 
comment period, we intend to publish a final rule that will rescind NAC 
445.667, and that will delete NAQR article 2.5.4, from the applicable 
Nevada SIP, and to codify the latter action by amending 40 CFR 
52.1470(b), 52.1470(c)(11), and 52.1483 accordingly.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
action merely proposes to delete previously approved state rules that, 
viewed collectively, fail to meet Federal requirements and imposes no 
additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to rescind or 
delete pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose 
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also 
does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This 
action merely proposes to delete previously approved state rules that, 
viewed collectively, fail to implement a Federal standard, and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does 
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: December 8, 2006.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E6-21500 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
