Proposed Rule2023-02289
Air Approval Plan; Oklahoma; Excess Emission and Malfunction Reporting Requirements
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 3, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA, the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Oklahoma through the Secretary of Energy & Environment on November 7, 2016. The revision was submitted in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call published by EPA on June 12, 2015, which included certain provisions in the Oklahoma SIP related to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. The submittal requests the removal of the provisions identified in the 2015 SIP call from the Oklahoma SIP. EPA is proposing to determine that the removal of these substantially inadequate provisions from the SIP will correct the deficiencies in the Oklahoma SIP identified in the June 12, 2015 SIP call.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7378-7382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02289]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0674; FRL-10596-01-R6]
Air Approval Plan; Oklahoma; Excess Emission and Malfunction
Reporting Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA, the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of Oklahoma through the Secretary of Energy & Environment on
November 7, 2016. The revision was submitted in response to a finding
of substantial inadequacy and SIP call published by EPA on June 12,
2015, which included certain provisions in the Oklahoma SIP related to
excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
events. The submittal requests the removal of the provisions identified
in the 2015 SIP call from the Oklahoma SIP. EPA is proposing to
determine that the removal of these substantially inadequate provisions
from the SIP will correct the deficiencies in the Oklahoma SIP
identified in the June 12, 2015 SIP call.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 6, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2016-0674 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or via email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#481b20293a6629242926082d3829662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f2a19a9380dc939e939cb2978293dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Mr. Alan Shar, (214) 665-
6691, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f7a49f9685d9969b9699b7928796d9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="57043f362579363b36391732273679303821">[email protected]</span></a>. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270. 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 at either
location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Regional Haze and
SO<INF>2</INF> Section, EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite
500, Dallas, Texas 75270, (214) 665-6691, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bd8e3eaf9a5cae7eae5cbeefbeaa5ece4fd">[email protected]</a>. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA
Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, as there will be a delay in processing
mail and no courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. EPA's 2015 SIP Action
B. Oklahoma's Subchapter 9 (OAC 252:100-9) Excess Emission and
Malfunction Reporting Requirements
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
III. Impacts on Areas of Indian Country
IV. Proposed Action
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. EPA's 2015 SIP Action
On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a Federal Register proposed
rulemaking action outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to
SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP
provisions and explained how
[[Page 7379]]
each one either did or did not comply with the CAA with regard to
excess emission events.\1\ For each SIP provision that EPA determined
to be inconsistent with the CAA, EPA proposed to find that the existing
SIP provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and
thus proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On
September 17, 2014, EPA issued a document supplementing and revising
what the Agency had previously proposed on February 22, 2013, in light
of a D.C. Circuit decision that determined the CAA precludes authority
of EPA to create affirmative defense provisions applicable to private
civil suits. EPA outlined its updated policy that affirmative defense
SIP provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed
in the supplemental proposal document to apply its revised
interpretation of the CAA to specific affirmative defense SIP
provisions and proposed SIP calls for those provisions where
appropriate (79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, (78 FR 12460) Feb. 22, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as
the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states, including Oklahoma, were substantially inadequate to meet
CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP
revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month
deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP revisions.
States were required to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in
response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016. The detailed rationale
for issuing the SIP call to Oklahoma can be found in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action and preceding proposed actions.
EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\2\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to Oklahoma in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did,
however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that
were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether EPA should
maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\3\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all
populations, including overburdened communities, impacted by air
pollution receive the full health and environmental protections
provided by the CAA.\4\ The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the prior
statement from the 2020 Memorandum of EPA's plans to review and
potentially modify or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no
longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends to implement the principles
laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the agency takes action on SIP
submissions, including this SIP submittal provided by Oklahoma in
response to the 2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
\4\ Section J, June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Oklahoma's Subchapter 9 (OAC 252:100-9) Excess Emission and
Malfunction Reporting Requirements
Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), Title 252, Chapter 100,
Subchapter 9 (OAC 252:100-9) Excess Emission and Malfunction Reporting
Requirements (hereafter, Subchapter 9) was approved into the Oklahoma
SIP on November 3, 1999 (64 FR 59629), and became federally effective
on January 3, 2000.
As a part of EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA made a finding that
certain provisions in the Oklahoma SIP are substantially inadequate to
meet CAA requirements because they provide for discretionary exemptions
from otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, and thus issued a
SIP call with respect to these provisions. The SIP-called provisions
were OAC 252:100-9-3(a) and OAC 252:100-9-3(b) of Subchapter 9.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Section G. Affected States in EPA Region VI, June 12, 2015
(80 FR 33968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
In response to EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action, Oklahoma submitted a SIP
revision on November 7, 2016, requesting the removal of the SIP-called
provisions, OAC 252:100-9-3(a) and OAC 252:100-9-3(b) of Subchapter 9.
Although not part of the finding in the 2015 SIP call, in addition to
OAC 252:100-9-3(a) and (b), Oklahoma decided to remove the remaining
sections of EPA-approved Subchapter 9: OAC 252:100-9-1, OAC 252:100-9-
2, OAC 252:100-9-4, OAC 252:100-9-5, and OAC 252:100-9-6 from its
SIP.\6\ EPA believes that removal of Subchapter 9 from the Oklahoma SIP
will eliminate the impermissible discretionary exemptions from
applicable emissions limits, but will not otherwise affect the adequacy
of the remaining portions of the Oklahoma SIP. EPA concurs with this
State action and is proposing to approve removing these provisions (OAC
252:100-9-1, OAC 252:100-9-2, OAC 252:100-9-4, OAC 252:100-9-5, and OAC
252:100-9-6) in addition to the substantially inadequate SIP-called
provisions (OAC 252:100-9-3(a) and OAC 252:100-9-3(b)) from the
Oklahoma SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Specifically, the remaining sections of EPA-approved
Subchapter 9 Excess Emission and Malfunction Reporting Requirements
are OAC 252:100-9-1 (concerning Purpose), OAC 252:100-9-2
(concerning Definitions), OAC 252:100-9-4 (concerning Maintenance
Procedures), OAC 252:100-9-5 (concerning Malfunctions and Releases),
and OAC 252:100-9-6 (concerning Excesses Resulting from Engineering
Limitations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma's submittal also includes an analysis to demonstrate
compliance with Section 110(l) of the Act.\7\ Removal of Subchapter 9
in its entirety from the Oklahoma SIP is not expected to lead to any
emissions increase and, therefore, will not affect the State's ability
to attain or maintain state or federal standards or reasonable further
progress. This
[[Page 7380]]
approach is consistent with the analogy presented in EPA's Example 1 at
80 FR 33975 of the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Consequently, EPA is proposing
to approve the removal of Subchapter 9 from the Oklahoma SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Pages 3-4 of the November 7, 2016 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note that Oklahoma has replaced the EPA-approved version of
Subchapter 9 with a new State rule; however, Oklahoma has not submitted
the new rule as a SIP revision, and it is not the subject of this
rulemaking action. Applicable only under State law, the new Subchapter
9 rule establishes emission reporting requirements and criteria for
seeking mitigation of penalties for excess emission violations sought
in State enforcement actions. These provisions do not apply to actions
brought by EPA or citizens to enforce excess emission violations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OAC 252:100-9-8(e) (concerning Mitigation Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Impacts on Areas of Indian Country
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma,
140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the State of Oklahoma requested
approval under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public
Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) (``SAFETEA''), to
administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C.
1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were
previously approved by the EPA for areas outside of Indian country. The
State's request excluded certain areas of Indian country further
described below. In addition, the State only sought approval to the
extent that such approval is necessary for the State to administer a
program in light of Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, 740
F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In ODEQ v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that under the CAA, a
state has the authority to implement a SIP in non-reservation areas
of Indian country in the state, where there has been no
demonstration of tribal jurisdiction. Under the D.C. Circuit's
decision, the CAA does not provide authority to states to implement
SIPs in Indian reservations. ODEQ did not, however, substantively
address the separate authority in Indian country provided
specifically to Oklahoma under SAFETEA. That separate authority was
not invoked until the State submitted its request under SAFETEA, and
was not approved until EPA's decision, described in this section, on
October 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2020, the EPA approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to
administer all the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory
programs, including the Oklahoma SIP, in the requested areas of Indian
country. As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA's approval under SAFETEA
does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running
through the same, that: (1) Qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian
titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c);
(2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual
Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a)
acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such
land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such
Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or
citizen of the Tribe (collectively ``excluded Indian country lands'').
The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the
extent EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs
excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the
geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of
Oklahoma's SAFETEA request.\10\ The approval also provided that future
revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory
programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without
any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA's prior approvals relating to Oklahoma's SIP frequently
noted that the SIP was not approved to apply in areas of Indian
country (consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA)
located in the state. See, e.g., 85 FR 20178, 20180 (April 10,
2020). Such prior expressed limitations are superseded by the EPA's
approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request.
\11\ On December 22, 2021, the EPA proposed to withdraw and
reconsider the October 1, 2020, SAFETEA approval. See <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ok/proposed-withdrawal-and-reconsideration-and-supporting-information">https://www.epa.gov/ok/proposed-withdrawal-and-reconsideration-and-supporting-information</a>. The EPA expects to have further discussions
with tribal governments and the State of Oklahoma as part of this
reconsideration. The EPA also notes that the October 1, 2020,
approval is the subject of a pending challenge in federal court.
Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma v. Regan, No. 20-9635 (10th Cir.). The EPA
may make further changes to any approval of Oklahoma's program to
reflect the outcome of the proposed withdrawal and reconsideration
of the October 1, 2020, SAFETEA approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, the EPA is proposing to approve a revision to
the Oklahoma SIP submitted by the State of Oklahoma on November 7,
2016. More specifically, we are proposing to approve the removal of OAC
252:100-9-1, OAC 252:100-9-2, OAC 252:100-9-3(a) and (b), OAC 252:100-
9-4, OAC 252:100-9-5, and OAC 252:100-9-6 of Subchapter 9 Excess
Emission and Malfunction Reporting Requirements of the Oklahoma SIP.
Consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in ODEQ v. EPA and with
EPA's October 1, 2020 SAFETEA approval, if this approval is finalized
as proposed, these SIP revisions will apply to all Indian country
within the State of Oklahoma, other than the excluded Indian country
lands. Because--per the State's request under SAFETEA--EPA's October 1,
2020 approval does not displace any SIP authority previously exercised
by the State under the CAA as interpreted in ODEQ v. EPA, the SIP will
also apply to any Indian allotments or dependent Indian communities
located outside of an Indian reservation over which there has been no
demonstration of tribal authority.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Oklahoma SIP
submitted by the State of Oklahoma on November 7, 2016, in response to
EPA's SSM SIP Action, concerning excess emissions during periods of
SSM. Specifically, we are proposing to approve the removal of OAC
252:100-9-1, OAC 252:100-9-2, OAC 252:100-9-3(a) and (b), OAC 252:100-
9-4, OAC 252:100-9-5, and OAC 252:100-9-6 of Subchapter 9 Excess
Emission and Malfunction Reporting Requirements of the Oklahoma SIP. We
are proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with section 110
of the Act. EPA is further proposing to determine that such SIP
revision corrects the inadequacies in the Oklahoma SIP as identified in
the 2015 SSM SIP Action. EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action
and is only taking comment on whether this proposed SIP revision is
consistent with CAA requirements and whether it addresses the
substantial inadequacy in the provisions of the Oklahoma SIP identified
in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
For informational purposes only, EPA is providing additional
information regarding this proposed action and potentially impacted
populations. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race,
color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice">https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7381]]
EPA reviewed demographic data for Oklahoma, which provides an
assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living
within the State.\13\ EPA then compared this data to the national
average for each of the demographic groups. The results of the
demographic analysis indicate that, for populations within Oklahoma,
the percent people who reported their race as a category other than
White alone (not Hispanic or Latino) is higher than national average
(63.8 percent versus 59.3 percent). The percent of population that is
American Indian/Alaska Native alone is significantly higher than the
national average (9.7 percent versus 1.3 percent). The percent of
people living below the poverty level in Oklahoma is higher than the
national average (14.3 percent versus 11.4 percent). The percent of
people over 25 with a high school diploma in Oklahoma is similar to the
national average (88.6 percent versus 88.5 percent), while the percent
with a Bachelor's degree or higher is lower than the national average
(26.1 percent versus 32.9 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ <a href="https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/OK,US/INC110220">https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/OK,US/INC110220</a>.
_____________________________________-
Communities in close proximity to and/or downwind of industrial
sources may be subject to disproportionate environmental impacts of
excess emissions. Short- and/or long-term exposure to air pollution has
been associated with a wide range of human health effects including
increased respiratory symptoms, hospitalization for heart or lung
diseases, and even premature death. Excess emissions during startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions exceed applicable emission limitations and
can be considerably higher than emissions under normal steady-state
operations. As to all population groups within the State of Oklahoma,
as explained below, we believe that this proposed action will be
beneficial and may reduce impacts. As discussed earlier in this notice,
this rulemaking, if finalized as proposed, would result in the removal
of the provisions in the Oklahoma SIP applicable to all areas in the
State that provide sources emitting pollutants in excess of otherwise
allowable amounts with the opportunity to seek executive director
discretion for violations involving excess emissions during startup,
shutdown, and malfunctions. Federal removal of such impermissible
executive director discretion provisions from the SIP is necessary to
preserve the enforcement structure of the CAA, to preserve the
jurisdiction of courts to adjudicate questions of liability and
remedies in judicial enforcement actions and to preserve the potential
for enforcement by the EPA and other parties under the citizen suit
provision as an effective deterrent to violations. If finalized as
proposed, this action is intended to ensure that overburdened
communities and affected populations across the State and downwind
areas receive the full human health and environmental protection
provided by the CAA. There is nothing in the record which indicates
that this proposed action, if finalized, would have disproportionately
high or adverse human health or environmental effects on communities
with environmental justice concerns.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to remove the
Oklahoma regulations described in the Proposed Action section above.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6 office.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Act; and
<bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This proposed approval of a revision to the Oklahoma SIP removing
provisions providing discretionary exemptions from excess emission
violations as discussed more fully elsewhere in this document will
apply, if finalized as proposed, to certain areas of Indian country as
discussed in the preamble, and therefore has tribal implications as
specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this
action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This
action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally
recognized tribal governments because no actions will be required of
tribal governments. This action will also not preempt tribal law as no
Oklahoma tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA, and thus
does not have applicable or related tribal laws. Consistent with the
EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4,
2011), the EPA has offered consultation to tribal governments that may
be affected by this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 7382]]
Dated: January 30, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2023-02289 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 3, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.