[Federal Register: October 29, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 209)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61650-61654]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29oc03-18]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[SIP NO. MT-001-0048; FRL-7580-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Maintenance of Air Pollution Control Equipment for Existing
Aluminum Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a State Implementation Plan
revision submitted by the State of Montana on January 16, 2003. This
revision provides existing aluminum plants an exemption to meeting
emission limits during scheduled maintenance. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 28,
2003.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by mail to Richard R.
Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite
300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Comments may also be submitted
electronically, or through hand delivery/courier. Please follow the
detailed instructions described in (Part (I)(B)(1)(i) through (iii)) of
the Supplementary Information section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Ostrand, Air and Radiation
Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region
8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 312-6437, ostrand.laurie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. Why EPA is Proposing to Disapprove the State of Montana's
January 16, 2003 Submittal
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The MACT standard refers to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants.
(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(v) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. The Regional Office has established an official public
rulemaking file available for inspection at the Regional Office. EPA
has established an official public rulemaking file for this action
under MT-001-0048. The official public file consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. Although a part of the
official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public rulemaking
file is the collection of materials that is available for public
viewing at the Air and Radiation Program, EPA Region 8, 999 18th
Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the For Further Information Contact
section to schedule your inspection. You may view the public rulemaking
file at the Regional Office Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
excluding federal Holidays.
2. Copies of the State submittal are also available for public
inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State
Air Agency. Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection at the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, Air and Waste Management Bureau, 1520 E. 6th
Avenue, Helena, Montana 59620.
3. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the Regulations.gov Web site located at http://www.regulations.gov
where you can find, review, and submit comments on,
Federal rules that have been published in the Federal Register, the
Government's legal newspaper, and are open for comment.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office,
as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in
the version of the comment that is placed in the official public
rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted
material, will be available at the Regional Office for public
inspection.
B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text
``Public comment on proposed rulemaking MT-001-0048'' in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside
of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying
the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket. 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.
[[Page 61651]]
i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail). Please send any comments simultaneously to long.richard@epa.gov and ostrand.laurie@epa.gov and include the text ``Public comment on
proposed rulemaking MT-001-0048'' in the subject line. EPA's e-mail
system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail
comment directly without going through ``Regulations.gov'' (see below),
EPA's e-mail system will automatically capture your e-mail address. E-
mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system
are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official
public docket.
ii. Regulations.gov. Your use of Regulations.gov is an alternative
method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to
Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov, then click on the button
``TO SEARCH FOR REGULATIONS CLICK HERE'' and select Environmental
Protection Agency as the Agency name to search on. The list of current
EPA actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. The system is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
iii. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM
that you mail to the mailing address identified in section 2, directly
below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect,
Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any
form of encryption.
2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Richard R. Long, Director, Air
and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466. Please include the text ``Public comment on proposed rulemaking
MT-001-0048'' in the subject line on the first page of your comment.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Richard
R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite
300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal Holidays.
C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you
submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy
that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the
disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not
marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for
public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about
CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section.
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
regional file/rulemaking identification number in the subject line on
the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you
provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your
comments.
II. Background
On January 16, 2003, the State of Montana submitted a new rule for
incorporation into the SIP. The rule is titled Administrative Rules of
Montana (ARM) 17.8.335, Maintenance of Air Pollution Control Equipment
for Existing Aluminum Plants. On April 1, 2003, we sent a letter to the
State indicating that the submittal was complete pursuant to the
requirements in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
The rule was adopted as part of the SIP. The rule covers
maintenance of air pollution control equipment for existing aluminum
plants. There is currently one source that is subject to this rule, the
Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (CFAC) in Columbia Falls, Montana. CFAC
operates a primary aluminum reduction plant. The plant is equipped with
air pollution control equipment, including ducts conveying exhaust to
dry scrubbers. The State and CFAC have indicated they believe that air
pollution control equipment requires periodic maintenance to keep it in
good operating order. The State and CFAC have also indicated that the
failure to maintain the air pollution control equipment eventually
results in the failure of the equipment. Finally, the State and CFAC
have indicated that the failure of the equipment would result in air
pollution emissions from the plant that exceed those allowed and may
create an unacceptable risk to public heath.
Further, the State and CFAC contend that the maintenance of the air
pollution control equipment requires the plant to shut down the dry
scrubbers and to bypass some of the dry scrubbers during the
maintenance event. If the plant continues to operate during the
shutdown of the dry scrubbers, the air pollution emissions from the
plant may exceed those allowed by rules governing emission of air
pollutants.
In the past the plant has applied to the State for a variance from
rules governing emission of air pollutants so that the plant could
conduct maintenance on the air pollution control equipment while
continuing to operate the plant. CFAC contends that the process for
obtaining a variance is time consuming. The State has adopted a rule
that allows the plant to maintain air pollution control equipment while
the plant is operating, without requiring the plant to obtain a
variance.
Our review of ARM 17.8.335, Maintenance of Air Pollution Control
Equipment for Existing Aluminum Plants, indicates that it is not
approvable and we are proposing to disapprove Montana's SIP revision
submitted on January 16, 2003 for the reasons indicated below.
[[Page 61652]]
III. Why EPA Is Proposing To Disapprove the State of Montana's January
16, 2003 Submittal
ARM 17.8.335 Is Not Consistent With the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA
Policy
First, ARM 17.8.335 provides an exemption to meeting emission
limits for a specified source category during scheduled maintenance.
Generally, since SIPs must provide for attainment and maintenance of
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the achievement
of the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (PSD)
increments, all periods of excess emissions must be considered
violations.\1\ Accordingly, any provision that allows for an automatic
exemption for excess emissions is prohibited. The appropriate mechanism
for excusing excess emissions in this situation is through the exercise
of enforcement discretion. We understand that the source conducted
modeling to demonstrate that excess emissions during the maintenance
procedures would not cause or contribute to violations of the Montana
Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS) or NAAQS. Our concerns with the
modeling are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See EPA's September 20, 1999 memorandum from Steven A.
Herman and Robert Perciasepe to Regional Administrators entitled
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State contends that the new rule only indicates that the
Department may not initiate an enforcement action for excess emissions
during maintenance of air pollution control equipment that results in a
violation of emission standards and that the rule does not contain an
exemption from enforcement for maintenance activities that violate a
federal or state ambient air quality standard or PSD increments.
We do not agree with the State. The 1970 Act established the air
quality management process as a basic philosophy for air pollution
control in this country. Under this system, we establish air quality
goals (NAAQS) for common pollutants. States develop control programs
(termed SIPs) and also issue permits under the PSD or nonattainment new
source review programs, to assure that the NAAQS are attained and
maintained. The NAAQS themselves are not an emission standard or
limitation. Coalition Against Columbus Center v. New York, 967 F.2d
764, 769 (2d Cir. 1992). States establish enforceable emission limits
in SIPs or permits at sources to assure that the NAAQS are met.
Second, in guidance documents issued by EPA and other final
rulemakings, we have indicated that scheduled maintenance is a
predictable event which can be scheduled at the discretion of the
operator, and which can therefore be made to coincide with maintenance
on production equipment, or other source shutdowns. Consequently,
excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance should be
treated as a violation unless a source can demonstrate that such
emissions could not have been avoided through better scheduling for
maintenance or through better operation and maintenance practices.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See EPA's September 28, 1982 policy memorandum from Kathleen
M. Bennett to Regional Administrators, entitled ``Policy on Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunction,''
page 3 of the Attachment. See also, 65 FR 51412, 51426 (August 23,
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State contends that the aluminum process is unique in that the
process does not include periodic shutdowns; the startup and shutdown
process is expensive and lengthy; maintenance of the control equipment
requires the plant to bypass some of the dry scrubbers. We are not
convinced that the CFAC aluminum process is so unique, or that
redundant control technology could not be added, to address scheduled
maintenance. We are not aware of other aluminum facilities that have
asked for an exemption to emission limits for scheduled maintenance.
Some other aluminum facilities are designed so that maintenance can be
completed on portions of the control equipment without having to shut
down all of the control equipment.
We are proposing to disapprove ARM 17.8.335 because we believe it
is inconsistent with the Act (e.g., sections 110(a)(2)(E) and 110(i)),
prior rulemakings and our guidance.
Concerns With Impacts in the Columbia Falls PM-10 Nonattainment Area
The impact of the ``maintenance'' emissions (i.e., the additional
700 lbs of PM per 24-hour period expected during maintenance) on the
Columbia Falls PM-10 nonattainment area were not analyzed. The State
believes CFAC is in a different airshed from the nonattainment area and
that emissions from CFAC do not have a significant impact on the
Columbia Falls PM-10 nonattainment area. We believe that further
analyses need to be completed before it can be determined that CFAC
does not impact the Columbia Falls PM-10 nonattainment area. CFAC is
only about one mile from the City of Columbia Falls. The State has not
demonstrated that this plan revision will not interfere with the
attainment plan for the Columbia Falls PM-10 nonattainment area.
Because of the potential impact in the Columbia Falls nonattainment
area, we believe ARM 17.8.335, Maintenance of Air Pollution Control
Equipment for Existing Aluminum Plants, may not be consistent with
section 110(l) of the CAA. That is, EPA cannot approve a SIP revision
if it interferes with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
Concerns With the Modeling
DEQ's testimony in the matter of the amendment of air quality rules
pertaining to maintenance of air pollution control equipment for
existing aluminum plants indicates that CFAC modeled its normal
operations plus 700 lbs of PM-10 per 24-hour period.\3\ Therefore, the
normal operating emissions were considered along with the maximum
allowable increase (700 lbs of PM-10 per 24-hour period) from the
proposed maintenance procedure. Additionally, only emissions from the
CFAC facility were considered in the analysis because the State
determined that adding background concentration of PM-10 emissions
measured at the onsite PM-10 monitor adequately represented the
emissions from other sources in the area. We believe this modeling
approach is inconsistent with the modeling rules and will not assure
protection of the NAAQS for several reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The testimony is contained the documents submitted with the
January 16, 2003 SIP. See Tab 10 of the submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable emissions, rather than normal operating emissions, should
be used in modeling. This requirement is contained in EPA's Guideline
on Air Quality Models, 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, Table 9-1. Montana
adopted these rules by reference and we have approved them into the
State's SIP (see ARM 17.8.802(1)(g)). Additionally, ``normal operating
emissions'' is not defined in the State's new rule and the rule does
not explain how ``normal operating emissions'' are calculated. Finally,
EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality Models'' requires that any nearby
point sources that cause a significant concentration gradient should
also be included in the modeling. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix W,
section 9.2.3. Other sources in the airshed including those at CFAC
should also be included in the modeling.
The State only required that the source model one month (i.e.,
September) for three years. We believe
[[Page 61653]]
this is problematic because it is extremely unlikely that one would
capture worst case conditions that may occur in future September
periods. Three months of data is not enough to find even slightly
adverse conditions. The State believes that since maintenance is only
allowed in September using three years of onsite meteorological data
for September should adequately represent the types of meteorological
conditions that would be encountered during the maintenance procedures.
We do not agree. EPA's Modeling Guidelines requires five years of
National Weather Service meteorology data be used in modeling to assure
that the most adverse meteorological conditions are considered in the
analysis. See Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 CFR part 51, appendix
W, section 9.3.1. Three months of data is clearly insufficient.
Lastly, the modeling assumed a background concentration of 17
microg/m3. This value was taken from the monitor near the plant and not
the monitor in Columbia Falls. We are not convinced that the 17 microg/
m3 value is an appropriate value to be used for background
concentration. Maximum ambient concentrations measured in Columbia
Falls over the past several years in the August to October time frame
have been on the order 16 to 48 microg/m3.
Concerns With the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Requirements
EPA has two concerns regarding the interaction of this rule with
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (the MACT standard). First, we are
concerned that by adopting this rule, the State of Montana may impact
its automatic delegation of the MACT standard (40 CFR subpart LL, at
ARM 17.8.103(1)(j) and 17.8.342) because the new rule could be
interpreted to alter the requirements of the delegated MACT standard.
Although the MACT standard adopted by Montana is not being revised, the
new rule has a direct impact on the requirements of the MACT standard.
EPA's MACT standard does not have any provision for exempting excess
emissions during a maintenance event. Any excess emissions have to be
reported and enforcement discretion used in determining what, if any,
penalty is appropriate for the event. The MACT standard was
automatically delegated to the State under the condition that the
State's rule is identical to the EPA rule (40 CFR 63.91(a)(1)). If
changes are made, the automatic delegation could be withdrawn and the
State would have to undergo a formal delegation process in order to
receive delegation for this MACT standard (40 CFR 63.91(a)(2)). This
process would include a demonstration that the changed rule is at least
as stringent as the EPA rule. Second, we are concerned that by adopting
ARM 17.8.335, the State has rules with conflicting requirements--one
set in the MACT standard adoption and one set in this SIP rule, leading
to confusion for the source and public as to which one applies. We
intend to engage the State in discussion to clarify this matter.
IV. Proposed Action
For the reasons identified above, EPA is proposing to disapprove
the SIP revision submitted by the State of Montana on January 16, 2003.
The submittal requests that ARM 17.8.335, Maintenance of Air Pollution
Control Equipment For Existing Aluminum Plants, be added to the SIP. We
are continuing to evaluate the impacts of the new rule on the
delegation of the MACT standard, 40 CFR subpart LL, at ARM
17.8.103(1)(j) and 17.8.342, to the State. We are soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the Addresses section of
this document.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because this proposed rule
does not impose an information collection burden, the Paperwork
Reduction Act does not apply.
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.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because EPA's proposed disapproval action only
affects one industrial source of air pollution; Columbia Falls Aluminum
Corporation. Only one source is impacted by this action. Furthermore,
as explained in this action, the submission does not meet the
requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA cannot approve the
submission. The proposed disapproval will not affect any existing State
requirements applicable to the entity. Federal disapproval of a State
submittal does not affect its State enforceability. Therefore, because
the Federal SIP disapproval does not create any new requirements nor
impact a substantial number of small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more
[[Page 61654]]
to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector. This Federal 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 action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule 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 proposes to disapprove a state rule implementing a federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, 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 proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. This action does not involve or impose
any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to
mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations 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 and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 17, 2003.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 03-27269 Filed 10-28-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P