Je veux savoir à propos de…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 229 / Thursday, December 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule, 80 FR
65292 October 26, 2015.24 EPA
evaluates air quality criteria and impacts to public health and welfare as part of the comprehensive standard setting process. Id. EPAs final rule revising the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS includes a thorough explanation of human exposure and health risk assessments conducted in support of the Agencys review of evidence of ambient ozone exposures on human health effects, as well as detailed rationales for the Administrators decisions on both standards. See 80 FR
65292.
The commenter does not explain how the information they provided regarding health impacts from ambient ozone exposure should influence EPAs action on the Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina Good Neighbor SIP
submissions for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and EPA considers such comments to be outside of the scope of this action. As stated previously, EPAs evaluation of air quality criteria and impacts to public health and welfare are part of the standard setting process, rather than a step completed through actions on individual SIP submissions that address Good Neighbor interstate transport infrastructure SIP
requirements pursuant to CAA section 110a2DiI. EPAs evaluation of individual SIP revisions is limited to determining whether the statutory criteria for implementation and attainment of the NAAQS and other CAA requirements, as applicable, have been satisfied. See CAA section 110k2, 3.
Comment 6: EPA received one supportive set of comments on the December 30, 2019, NPRM. The comments support EPAs application of the 4-step process, and state that EPA
correctly concluded that none of the states in EPAs December 30, 2019, NPRM contributed above 1 percent to downwind receptors. Commenters also expressed support for flexibility in addressing the Good Neighbor SIPs.
Response 6: EPA agrees with commenter that it appropriately applied steps 1 and 2 of the four-step interstate transport framework which the commenter refers to as the 4-step process, and that, according to EPAs analysis, neither Florida, Georgia, North Carolina nor South Carolina contribute above one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS to any downwind state.
24 See also National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule for the 2008
NAAQS, 73 FR 16436 March 27, 2008, 16440, 1645051, 1647071 & n.20.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:00 Dec 01, 2021

Jkt 256001

With respect to the portion of the comment regarding retaining the ability for states to take different approaches to analyzing and addressing their Good Neighbor obligations, EPAs use of certain analytic methods in this action such as the use of a one percent of NAAQS contribution threshold or the definition of nonattainment and maintenance receptors does not in itself necessarily preclude different approaches to Good Neighbor analysis in other contexts, where EPA
determines to be appropriate and consistent with legal requirements and governing case law.
III. Final Action EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina SIPs. EPA finds that emissions from sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Thus, EPA is approving the interstate transport portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, separately, as meeting CAA section 110a2DiI requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410k; 40 CFR 52.02a.
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPAs role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993 and 13563 76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011;
Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.;
Are 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.;
Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described
PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

68419

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Pub. L. 1044;
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999;
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997;
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001;
Are not subject to requirements of section 12d 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 CAA; and Do 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.
In addition, for Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, the Good Neighbor SIPs are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
For South Carolina, because this final action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this action for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000.
Therefore, this final action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 2716120 Settlement Act, all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities. The Catawba Indian Nation also retains authority to impose regulations applying higher environmental standards to the Reservation than those imposed by state law or local governing bodies, in accordance with the Settlement Act.

E:FRFM02DER1.SGM

02DER1