WPC; (\!voӭo]r (K88ֈl`:NC-CpI;∻SrZ|̭``p]OXuٟJ=vhvc/=#O< R&,*P1[#UN % 0: UEFI ^ U8 w 4   m N 1u 72 UF 0U W 0_ 0H 0c 0J 0N0`~*m 0u 0X 08 0U"F 05 0  0C 0#" 0 0 1 0H 0 0 0 0n 0@. 0n 0B 0! 0! 0" 0t# 09$R$ 0M%/ & B*9'c'-) 0cG* 0w* 0!+ 0+ 0K, 0, 0- 0./ 0De1>2U623f4!4a;;;;;; 0V;;;;;; 0Lq;q;q; B; B;HP LaserJet 8000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,<4 9Z .Courier New Regularx.s <5 9Z+ Courier New l.:i+003|x)U3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i).Courier New Regular*+ (_2623  .. *G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (^2$ !USUS.,  X\XXX  0  ("$XCXXX  0  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (O$http://www.epa.gov/ttn/rto/whatsnew.html[change  $USUS.,X\XXX  2    _SeveralofthepetitionsalsorequestedthatEPAalsomake  findingsunderthe8hourozonestandard.TheEPAmade  technicaldeterminationsunderthe8hourstandardinthe  May25,1999rulebutlaterstayedthatportionoftherule  inlightoflitigationonthe8hourstandard(65FR2674; p January18,2000). c $USUS.,X\XXX  3    _Thisapproachof harmonizingtheSection126Ruleandthe  NOxSIPCallwasprovidedasarulemakingoptionina  consentdecreedevelopedbythepetitioningStatesandEPA.*A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <4 9Z+.Courier New Regular*5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5       *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.*>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/rto/whatsnew.html&2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5   % $USUS.,X\XXX  1    _Asaresultofacourtdecision,EPAwillnowonlybe  including21StatesandtheDistrictofColumbiaintheSIP  Call.&0 d d  $USUS.,X\XXX  4    _BecauseofthestayontheSection126Rulewithrespectto  the8hourstandard,EPAdidnotmakefindingsunderthe8  hourstandardatthattime.EPAplanstocompleteits  actionsonthe8hourpetitionsinafuturerulemaking. # P'USUS.,  _  r-XX9r-Section126Rule:WithdrawalProvision  page39of41#r-9v##XXr-W#(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#  $USUS.,X\XXX  5    _X\XXX\TheEPAisrespondingtotheremandrelatedtothe  categorizationofcogeneratorsinarulemakingthatwas  proposedonFebruary22,2002(67FR8396).#X\XXX\#X\XXX\Ԁ#X\XXX\#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# mailto:A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov.<6X9`(Courier New $USUS.,X\XXX  6    _Indiana,Kentucky,Michigan,andNewYorkwereonly  partiallycoveredbytheSection126Rule.  $USUS.,X\XXX  7    _TX\XXX\heEPAiscurrentlyrevisingcertainportionsoftheNOx  SIPCallinresponsetoa#X\XXX\#March3,2000decisionbytheU.S.  CourtofAppealsfortheD.C.Circuit.SeeMichiganv.EPA,  213F.3d663(D.C.Cir.2000).Inthisdecision,thecourtX\XXX\  #X\XXX\#upheldtheNOxSIPCallonallmajorissues,butremanded p fournarrowissuestoEPAforfurtherrulemaking.TheX\XXX\EPA `  expectstocompletetherulemakingbytheendoftheyear, P  whichwillslightlymodifytheNOxSIPbudgetsbasedonthe @  courtsholding.Inlightofthechangesnecessaryto 0  respondtothecourtdecision,EPA anticipatesthatthe  p  finalNOxSIPbudgetswouldbenomorestringentthanthe `  originalSIPbudgetsasmodifiedbytheMarch2,2000 P  technicalamendment(65FR11222).Therefore,aSIPmeeting @  theMarch2,2000budgetsandprovidingforreductionsby 0  May1,2003,shouldfullyaddressthesignificantNOx   transportfromthatState,andthecurrentsection52.34(i)  withdrawalprovisionappliestoautomaticallywithdrawthe  section126requirementsforsourcesinthatState.  #X\XXX\#TABLE A(.3$ !USUS.,  >c$"Small Circle"0  d  d !USUS.,  _X\XXX8\XXdd8р656050P     ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY  40CFRPart52 X [FRLXXXXX]  p   Section126Rule:WithdrawalProvision  D    AGENCY : EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).    ACTION :0 Proposedrule.  (# (#  SUMMARY : Intodaysaction,EPAisproposingtoreviseone   narrowaspectofafinalrulepublishedonJanuary18,2000,  knownastheSection126Rule.TheEPApromulgatedtherule x inresponsetopetitionssubmittedbyfourNortheastern X Statesundersection126oftheCleanAirAct(CAA)forthe 8 purposeofmitigatinginterstatetransportofnitrogen h oxides(NOx)andozone.Nitrogenoxidesareoneofthemain H precursorsofgroundlevelozonepollution.TheSection126 ( Rulerequireselectricgeneratingunits(EGUs)andnon ! electricgeneratingunits(nonEGUs)locatedin12eastern #! StatesandtheDistrictofColumbiatoreducetheirNOx x% # emissionsthroughaNOxcapandtradeprogram. X'"%  ` Originally,EPAharmonizedtheSection126Rulewitha 8)$' relatedozonetransportrule,knownastheNOxState +h&) implementationplancall(NOxSIPCall),whichalso  addressesNOxandozonetransportintheeasternUnited  States.TheEPAestablishedthesamecompliancedatefor p bothrules,May1,2003.WhereStatesadopted,andEPA P  approved,SIPsmeetingtheNOxSIPCall,andwithaMay1, 0  2003compliancedate,EPAwouldwithdrawtheSection126 `  requirementsforsourcesinthatState.Thiswasa @  practicalwaytoaddresstheoverlapbetweenthetworules.   Asaresultofcourtactions,thecompliancedatesforthe  Section126RuleandtheNOxSIPCallhavenowbeendelayed  untilMay31,2004.Inaddition,theNOxSIPCallhasbeen p dividedintotwophases.Therefore,EPAisproposingto P revisetheSection126withdrawalprovisionsothatitwill 0 operateunderthesenewcircumstances.Intodaysaction, ` EPAisproposingtowithdrawtheSection126RuleifaState @ adopts,andEPAapproves,aSIPwithaMay31,2004   compliancedatethatmeetseitherthefullNOxSIPCallor "  Phase1wheretheStateisregulatingtheSection126 $" sourcestothesamestringencyastheSection126Rule.  p&!$ DATES :ThecommentperiodonthisproposalendsonMay24, P(#& 2003. Commentsmustbepostmarkedbythelastdayofthe P*%( commentperiodandsentdirectlytotheDocketOfficelisted  inADDRESSES(induplicateformifpossible).Apublic  hearingwillbeheldonApril24,2003inWashington,DC,if p oneisrequestedbyApril10,2003. Pleasereferto P  SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATIONforadditionalinformationonthe P  commentperiodandhearing. 0   ADDRESSES :CommentsmaybesubmittedthroughtheU.S.Postal `  Servicetothefollowingaddress:U.S.Environmental `  ProtectionAgency,EPAWest(AirDocket),1200Pennsylvania  \ Avenue,NW,RoomB108,MailCode6102T,Washington,DC < 20460,Attention:DocketNo.A9743.Tomailcommentsor  documentsthroughFederalExpress,UPS,orothercourier  services,themailingaddressis:U.S.Environmental  ProtectionAgency,EPADocketCenter(AirDocket),1301  ConstitutionAvenue,NW,RoomB108,MailCode6102T, h Washington,DC20004.ThetelephonenumberfortheAir H! Docketis2025661742andthefaxnumberis2025661741.  (#x  TheEPAencourageselectronicsubmissionofcommentsand %X " datafollowingtheinstructionsunderSUPPLEMENTARY &8"$ INFORMATIONofthisdocument.Noconfidentialbusiness ($& informationshouldbesubmittedthroughe-mail. *%(  ` Documentsrelevanttothisactionareavailablefor  publicinspectionattheEPADocketCenter,locatedat1301  ConstitutionAvenue,NW,RoomB102 ,Washington,DC between p 8:30a.m.and4:30p.m.,MondaythroughFriday,excluding P  legalholidays.Areasonablefeemaybechargedfor 0  copying. `   ` Thepublichearing,ifrequested,willbeheldatAriel @  RiosNorth,Room1332,1200PennsylvaniaAvenue,NW,   Washington,DC,20460.   FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT :Questionsconcerning  today'sactionshouldbeaddressedtoCarlaOldham,EPA,  OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards,AirQuality p StrategiesandStandardsDivision,C53902,Research P TrianglePark,NC,27711,telephone(919)5413347,email 0 atoldham.carla@epa.gov. `  SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION :  @  PublicHearing  "@   ` TheEPAwillconductapublichearingonthisproposal $ " onApril24,2003beginningat9:00a.m.,ifrequestedonor &!$ beforeApril10,2003.TheEPAwillnotholdahearingif x(#& oneisnotrequested.PleasecheckEPA's_webpageat X*%( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/rto_whatsnew.html4 !O  5  6O  7 !on 8,'* April11,2003fortheannouncementofwhetherthehearing  willbeheld. Ifthereisapublichearing,itwillbeheld  atArielRiosNorth,Room1332,1200PennsylvaniaAvenue,  NW,Washington,DC,20460.f  g ԀTheMetrostopisFederal p  Triangle.Ifyouwanttorequestahearingandpresentoral P  testimonyatthehearing,youshouldnotify,onorbefore 0  April10,2003,JoAnnAllman , EPA,OfficeofAirQuality `  PlanningandStandards,AirQualityStrategiesandStandards `  Division,C53902,Research TrianglePark,NC27711, @ telephone(919)5411815,emailallman.joann@epa.gov.Oral @ testimonywillbelimitedto5minuteseach.Thehearing   willbestrictlylimitedtothesubjectmatterofthe  proposal,thescopeofwhichisdiscussedbelow.Anymember  ofthepublicmayfileawrittenstatementbythecloseof p thecommentperiod.Writtenstatements(duplicatecopies P preferred)shouldbesubmittedtoDocketNo.A9743atthe 0! addressesgivenaboveforsubmittalofcomments.The #`  hearingschedule,includingthelistofspeakers,willbe $@ " postedonEPAs_webpageat & "$ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/rto_whatsnew.html45 H!O  5  6~ O   7 H! .A ($& verbatimtranscriptofthehearing,ifheld,andwritten *%( statementswillbemadeavailableforcopyingduringnormal  workinghoursattheEPADocketCenteraddressgivenabove  forinspectionofdocuments.  p  AvailabilityofRelatedInformation  P   ` Theofficialrecordforthisrulemaking,aswellasthe  h publicversion,hasbeenestablishedunderdocketnumberA  H  9743(includingcommentsanddatasubmittedelectronically (  asdescribedbelow).Apublicversionofthisrecord,   includingprinted,paperversionsofelectroniccomments,  whichdoesnotincludeanyinformationclaimedas x confidentialbusinessinformation,isavailablefor X inspectionfrom8:30a.m.to4:30p.m.,Mondaythrough 8 Friday,excludinglegalholidays.Theofficialrulemaking h recordislocatedattheaddressinADDRESSESatthe H beginningofthisdocument.Inaddition,theFederal ( Registerrulemakingactionsandassociateddocumentsare   locatedat "  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/126/index.html. x$"  ` TheEPAhasissuedaseparateruleonNOxtransport X&!$ entitled,"FindingofSignificantContributionand 8(#& RulemakingforCertainStatesintheOzoneTransport *h%( AssessmentGroupRegionforPurposesofReducingRegional +H'* TransportofOzone."Therulemakingdocketforthatrule  (DocketNo.A9656),hereafterreferredtoastheNOxSIP  Call,containsinformationandanalysesthatEPAhasrelied p uponinthesection126rulemaking,andhencedocumentsin P  thatdocketarepartoftherulemakingrecordforthisrule. 0  DocumentsrelatedtotheNOxSIPCallrulemakingare `  availableforinspectionindocketnumberA9656atthe @  addressandtimesgivenabove.    SubmittingElectronicComments    ` Electroniccommentsareencouragedandcanbesent x directlytoEPAat4E O  5  AandRDocket@epa.gov.6*O*  7 +ԀElectronic X commentsmustbesubmittedasanASCIIfileavoidingtheuse 8 ofspecialcharactersandanyformofencryption.Comments h anddatawillalsobeacceptedondisksinWordPerfect8.0 H orASCIIfileformat.Allcommentsanddatainelectronic ( formmustbeidentifiedbythedocketnumberA9743.   ElectroniccommentsmaybefiledonlineatmanyFederal "  DepositoryLibraries. x$"  Outline   (p#& I.0 ` WhatistheRelationshipBetweentheSection126Rule )8%( andtheNOxSIPCall?*(&)` (#` (# II.0 ` WhatistheHistoryoftheSection126RuleWithdrawal +'* Provision?` (#` (# III.0 ` WhyDoestheSection126RuleWithdrawalProvisionNeed  tobeRevised?` (#` (# A.0 ` UnderWhatCircumstancesDoestheSection126Rule  WithdrawalProvisionCurrentlyOperate?p` (#` (# B.0 ` HowHaveCourtActionsAffectedtheCircumstancesUpon `  WhichtheSection126RuleWithdrawalProvisionWas P  Based?@ ` (#` (# 1. ` CourtActionsontheNOxSIPCall. 0  2.0 ` CourtActionsontheSection126Rule. p ` (#` (# IV.0 ` WhatisEPAsProposaltoRevisetheSection126Rule `  WithdrawalProvision?P ` (#` (# A.0 ` WhatisEPAsProposalRelatedtotheSIPCompliance @  Date?0 ` (#` (# B.0 ` WhatisEPAsProposalRelatedtoWithdrawingthe   Section126RuleBasedonaPhase1SIP?` (#` (# V.0 ` WhatistheCurrentStatusoftheNOxSIPsUnderthe  NOxSIPCallandEPAsProposedActiontoWithdrawthe  Section126RuleinaState?` (#` (# VI.0 ` StatutoryandExecutiveOrderReviews` (#` (# A.0 ` ExecutiveOrder12866:RegulatoryPlanningandReviewp` (#` (# B.0 ` PaperworkReductionAct`` (#` (# C.0 ` RegulatoryFlexibilityActP` (#` (# D.0 ` UnfundedMandatesReformAct@` (#` (# E.0 ` ExecutiveOrder13132:Federalism0` (#` (# F.0 ` ExecutiveOrder13175:ConsultationandCoordination  p withIndianTribalGovernments`` (#` (# G.0 ` ExecutiveOrder13045:ProtectionofChildrenfrom P EnvironmentalHealthRisksandSafetyRisks@` (#` (# H.0 ` ExecutiveOrder13211:ActionsthatSignificantly 0 AffectEnergySupply,Distribution,orUse ` (#` (# I.0 ` NationalTechnologyTransferAdvancementAct!` (#` (#  I.WhatistheRelationshipBetweentheSection126Rule $" andtheNOxSIPCall?  X&!$  ` Inthepastseveralyears,EPAhasbeenengagedintwo  (p#& separaterulemakingstoaddresstheinterstateozone *P%( transportproblemintheeasternhalfoftheUnitedStates. +0'* Theserules,knownastheNOxSIPCallandtheSection126  Rule,bothrequirereductionsinNOxemissions,whichare  precursorstogroundlevelozoneformation. p   ` OnOctober27,1998(63FR57356),EPApromulgatedthe P  NOxSIPCalltherebyrequiring22EasternStatesandthe 0  DistrictofColumbiatoreducestatewideNOxemissionstoa `  specifiedlevel(NOxbudget).7 X\XXX\  1      ׀TheStateshavethe @  flexibilitytochoosetheparticularmixofcontrolmeasures   necessarytomeettheNOxbudget.Theprimarystatutory  provisionfortheNOxSIPCallisCAAsection  110(a)(2)(D)(i),underwhich,ingeneral,eachSIPis p requiredtoincludeprovisionstoassurethatsourceswithin P theStatedonotemitpollutantsinamountsthat 0 significantlycontributetononattainmentorinterferewith ` maintenanceproblemsdownwind. @  ` In1997,whileEPAwasintheprocessofdevelopingthe   NOxSIPCall,eightNortheasternStatessubmittedpetitions "  undersection126oftheCAAseekingtomitigatesignificant $" interstatetransportofNOxandozone.Section126refers p&!$ toStateobligationsunderCAAsection110(a)(2)(D)(i)as  doestheNOxSIPCall.Section126authorizesaStateto  petitionEPAtomakeafindingthatanymajorsourceor p groupofstationarysourcesinupwindStatesare P  significantlycontributingtononattainment,orinterfering 0  withmaintenance,inthepetitioningState.IfEPAmakes `  suchafinding,EPAisauthorizedtoestablishFederal @  emissionlimitsfortheaffectedsources.Thepetitions   requestedthatEPAmakesuchfindingsandestablishcontrol  requirementsforcertainsourcesinabout30States.   ` TheEPAtookactionontheSection126petitionsin p finalrulesissuedonMay25,1999andJanuary18,2000 P (togetherknownastheSection126Rule)(64FR28250and65 0 FR2674).Inactingonthesection126petitions,EPA ` reliedonanalysesandinformationusedintheNOxSIPCall @ rulemaking,includingthelinkagesitdrewbetweenspecific   upwindStatesandnonattainmentandmaintenanceproblemsin "  specificdownwindStates.TheEPAdeterminedthatlarge $" EGUsandlargeindustrialboilersandturbines(nonEGUs)in p&!$ 12StatesandtheDistrictofColumbiaweresignificantly P(#& contributingtononattainmentproblemsinfourofthe 0*%( petitioningStatesunderthe1hourozonenationalambient ,`'* airqualitystandard. X\XXX\  2      ׀TheEPArequiredthesesourcesto  reducetheirNOxemissionsthroughaFederalNOxcapand  tradeprogram. p  ` TheSection126RuleoverlapsconsiderablywiththeNOx P  SIPCall.BoththeSection126RuleandtheNOxSIPCall 0  arebasedonmuchthesamesetoffactsregardingthesame `  pollutants.Bothrelyonsection110(a)(2)(D)(i)ofthe @  CAA.AllofthesourcesaffectedbytheSection126Rule   arelocatedinStatesthatarecoveredbytheNOxSIPCall.  Therefore,asdiscussedbelow,EPAcoordinateditsactions  underthetwotransportrules.(SeetheMay25,1999and p January18,2000Section126Rulesforadetailedhistoryof P therelationshipbetweentheNOxSIPCallandtheSection 0 126Rule.) `  II.WhatistheHistoryoftheSection126RuleWithdrawal @ Provision?     ` WhenEPAissuedtheMay25,1999Section126Rule, "  therewasanexistingrequirementundertheNOxSIPCallfor `$" StatestoreducetheirNOxemissionsandanexplicitand  expeditiousscheduletodoso.Therefore,EPAwasableto  coordinate,orharmonize,theSection126RulewiththeNOx p SIPCall.TheEPAestablishedthesamecompliancedate,May P  1,2003forbothrules.Then,EPAstructureditsactionon 0  thesection126petitionstogiveaStatetheopportunityto `  addressitsNOxtransportfirstundertheNOxSIPCall @  beforeEPAwoulddirectlyregulatesourcesintheState   undertheSection126Rule.Thus,intheMay25,1999  Section126Rule,EPAmadetechnicaldeterminationsasto  whichsourcesweresignificantlycontributingtothe p petitioningStatesbutdeferredmakingtheSection126 P findings,whichwouldtriggerthecontrolrequirements,as 0 longasStatesandEPAstayedontracktomeettheNOxSIP ` Callobligations.TheEPAincludedawithdrawalprovision @ intheSection126RuleunderwhichtheSection126Rulefor   sourcesinaStatewouldbeautomaticallywithdrawnifthat "  StatesubmittedandEPAapprovedaNOxSIPfullymeetingthe $" NOxSIPCall(see64FR2827128274;May25,1999).Thus, p&!$ thesection126controlrequirementswouldnotgointoplace P(#& ifaStatetooktimelyactionundertheNOxSIPCall.This 0*%( gaveupwindStatestheflexibilitytoaddresstheozone ,`'* transportproblemthemselves,butwouldnotdelay  implementationoftheNOxtransportremedybeyondtheMay1,  2003Section126Rulecompliancedate. X\XXX\  3      ׀Thiswasa p practicalwaytoaddresstheoverlapbetweentheactions P  thatwouldberequiredundertheNOxSIPCallandunderthe 0  rulemakingonthesection126petitions.(Thebasisforthe `  withdrawalprovisionisdiscussedbelowinsectionIII.A. @  Foramoredetaileddiscussionofthebasisforharmonizing   thetworulesandtheinterplayoftheunderlyingstatutory  provisions,seetheMay25,1999finalrule.)   ` TheNOxSIPCalloriginallyrequiredStatestosubmit p theirNOxSIPstoEPAbySeptember30,1999.OnMay25, P 1999,inresponsetoarequestbyStateschallengingtheNOx 0 SIPCall,theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheDistrictof ` ColumbiaCircuit(D.C.Circuitorthecourt)issuedastay @ oftheSIPsubmissiondeadlinependingfurtherorderofthe   court.Michiganv.EPA,213F.3d663(D.C.Cir.,2000), "  cert.denied,121S.Ct.1225(2001)(ordergrantingstayin $" part).Inasmuchasthecompliancedateislinkedwiththe p&!$ SIPsubmissiondate,thestaycreateduncertaintyregarding  thecompliancedate.Becausetherewasnolongeraschedule  fortheNOxSIPCall,andtherefore,noassurancethat p transportwouldbeaddressedbyMay1,2003,EPAnolonger P  hadabasisfordeferringactionundertheSection126Rule. 0  Therefore,inafinalrulepublishedonJanuary18,2000, `  EPAmovedforwardtomakethefindingswithrespecttothe @  1hourozonestandardandactivatethecontrolrequirements   undertheSection126Rule(65FR2674).9 X\XXX\  4      ׀However,the  Section126Rulecontinuedtocontainaprovision  (53.34(i))wherebythesection126requirementswouldbe p automaticallywithdrawnforsourcesinaStateifEPA P approvedaStatesSIPthatprovidedfortheNOxSIPCall 0 emissionreductionrequirementsbyMay1,2003. `  III.WhyDoestheSection126RuleWithdrawalProvision @ NeedtoBeRevised?     A.UnderWhatCircumstancesDoestheSection126Rule "  WithdrawalProvisionCurrentlyOperate?  H$"  ` Section52.34(i)oftheSection126Rulecurrently &`!$ providesthat:  0 ` ...afinding[undertheSection126Rule]astoa  particularmajorsourceorgroupofstationarysources  inaparticularStatewillbedeemedtobewithdrawn, p andthecorrespondingpartoftherelevantpetition(s) `  denied,iftheAdministratorissuesafinalaction P  puttinginplaceimplementationplansthatcomplywith @  therequirementsof51.121and51.122[theNOxSIP 0  Call]ofthischapterforsuchState. p ` (#` (# X\XXX\ ` AsdiscussedintheSection126Rule(65FR26822684), P  thepremisefortheautomaticwithdrawalprovisionwasthat 0  onceaSIP(orFederalimplementationplan(FIP))controls  thefullamountofsignificantcontributionfromaState,  thesection126sourcesinthatStatecouldnolongerbe  significantlycontributingtodownwindnonattainment,and ` hencethebasisforthesection126findingswouldnolonger @ bepresent.Further,theprovisionwouldensurethatthe  p downwindpetitioningStatesreceivetheemissionreduction P benefitstheyareentitledtoundersection126byMay1, 0 2003,whichwasthenthecompliancedate,eitherunderthe ! Section126RuleorunderaFederallyenforceableSIPorFIP #! (65FR2684).Thus,EPAsrationaleforadoptingthe % # automaticwithdrawalprovisiondependeduponaMay1,2003 `'"% compliancedateforsourcesundertheSIPthatwould @)$' substituteforthecontrolremedyundertheSection126  +p&) Rule.Accordingly,EPAinterpretedsection52.34(i)to  applyonlywhereEPAapprovesaSIPrevision(orpromulgates  aFIP)meetingthefullrequirementsoftheNOxSIPCalland p includingaMay1,2003compliancedateforsources(See65 P  FR2683).#X\XXX\a#X\XXX\Theautomaticwithdrawalprovisiondoesnot 0  addressanyothercircumstances.#X\XXX\ h#X\XXX\ `   #X\XXX\h#X\XXX\B.HowHaveCourtActionsAffectedtheCircumstancesUpon @  WhichtheSection126RuleWithdrawalProvisionWasBased?     ` BoththeNOxSIPCallandtheSection126Rulewere  challengedincourt.Asaresultofcourtactions,certain ` circumstancesuponwhichtheSection126withdrawal @ provisionwasbasedhavechangedthedeadlinesfortheNOx  p SIPCallandtheSection126Rulehavebeendelayedandthe P SIPCallhasbeendividedinto2phases(knownasPhase1 0 andPhase2).#X\XXX\i#X\XXX\   1.CourtActionsontheNOxSIPCall.     ` OnMarch3,2000,apaneloftheD.C.Circuitlargely h"  upheldtheNOxSIPCallbutremandedafewissuestoEPAfor H$" furtherconsideration.(SeeMichiganv.EPA,213F.3d663 (&x!$ (D.C.Cir.,2000),cert.denied,121S.Ct.1225(2001).) (X#& AsdiscussedinsectionIIabove,duringthelitigation,the )8%( courtissuedastayoftheSIPsubmissiondeadline.OnJune +'* 22,2000,inresponsetoamotionbyEPA,thecourtlifted  thestayandestablishedanewSIPsubmissiondateof  October30,2000.OnAugust30,2000,theD.C.Circuit p orderedthatthedeadlineforimplementationoftheNOxSIP P  CallbeextendedfromMay1,2003toMay31,2004.#X\XXX\k#X\XXX\ԀTheNOx 0  SIPCallthenhadalatercompliancedateandwasnolonger `  harmonizedwiththeSection126Rule.#X\XXX\o#X\XXX\Ԁ#X\XXX\p#X\XXX\ @   ` Asaresultofthecourtdecision,EPAdividedtheNOx   SIPCallintotwophases.Phase1representstheportionof  therulethatwasupheldbythecourtandaccountsfor  approximately90percentofthetotalemissionsreductions p calledforbytheoriginalNOxSIPCall.#X\XXX\p#X\XXX\Thecourt P establishedSIPsubmissiondateandcompliancedateapplyto 0 Phase1.Phase2oftheNOxSIPCallisaddressingissues ` remandedbythecourt.TheEPAproposedthePhase2 @ requirementsonFebruary22,2002(67FR8396).#X\XXX\r#X\XXX\TheSIP   submissiondateandcompliancedateforthePhase2willbe "  establishedthroughthatrulemakingaction. $" #X\XXX\2t#X\XXX\ ` TheEPApromulgatedtheJanuary2000Section126Rule p&!$ atthetimewhentheNOxSIPCallstaywasinplace.Inthe P(#& preambletotherule,EPAnotedthatifEPAprevailedinthe 0*%( NOxSIPCalllitigation,thecourtorEPAwouldneedto ,`'* establishanewdeadlineforSIPsubmissionandthedelay  fromtheoriginalSeptember1999SIPdeadlinecouldrequire  ashiftinthedateforachievingtheNOxSIPCallemissions p reductionsbeyondMay1,2003(65FR2683).TheEPA P  indicatedthatwhenandifsuchasituationweretoarise, 0  EPAwouldaddressthroughrulemakingtheeffectsofthenew `  NOxSIPCalldeadlineontheSection126withdrawal @  provision.#X\XXX\!u#X\XXX\    2.CourtActionsontheSection126Rule    ` OnMay15,2001,thecourtruledonanumberof x challengestoEPAsSection126Rule.SeeAppalachianPower X v.EPA,249F.3d1032(D.C.Cir.2001).Thecourtlargely 8 upheldtheSection126Rule,butremandedtwoissuestoEPA. h ThecourtdirectedEPAto:(1)properlyjustifyeitherthe H currentoranewsetofEGUheatinputgrowthratestobe ( usedinestimatingStateheatinputin2007,and(2)either   properlyjustifyoralteritscategorizationofcogenerators "  thatsellelectricitytotheelectricgridasEGUs.C X\XXX\  5      ׀#X\XXX\x#X\XXX\ x$"  ` OnAugust24,2001,theD.C.CircuitCourttolled X&!$ (suspended)thecomplianceperiodforEGUsundertheSection  126RuleasoftheMay15,2001decisionpendingEPAs  responsetotheremandrelatedtoEGUgrowthrates. p AppalachianPowerv.EPA,249F.3d1052(D.C.Cir2001), P  Order(August24,2001).TheEPAissueditsresponseina 0  noticepublishedonMay1,2002(67FR21868).Becauseof `  thetimeneededtofullyrespondtothegrowthfactor @  remand,thetollingofthecomplianceperiodresultedina   delayintheimplementationoftheSection126Ruleuntil  the2004ozoneseason.ThiscreatedaneedforEPAtoonce  againharmonizetheSection126RulewiththeNOxSIPCall. p Therefore,onApril30,2002,EPAissuedafinalrulemaking P torevisetheSection126Rulecompliancedateandother 0 relateddates(67FR21522).ThenewcompliancedateisMay ` 31,2004,whichisthesamecompliancedateforPhase1of @ theNOxSIPCall,butslightlymorethanayearlaterthan   thecompliancedateuponwhichtheSection126Rule "  withdrawalprovisionwasbased.  $" IV.WhatisEPAsProposaltoRevisetheSection126Rule p&!$ WithdrawalProvision?  8(#&  ` AnumberofreasonssupportedstructuringtheMay25, *P%( 1999Section126Ruletoprovideforanautomaticwithdrawal +0'* ofthesection126findingsuponapprovalofaSIPrevision  complyingwiththeNOxSIPCall.Asdiscussedabove,EPA  believesitisappropriate,whenconsistentwiththe p relevantstatutoryprovisions,tostructuretheSection126 P  RuletoallowforStateratherthanFederalregulationwhen 0  eitherwouldbeequallyeffectiveinimplementingthe `  statutorygoalofproducingtimelyemissionsreductions. @  Thewithdrawalprovisionalsoavoidstheoverlapofthe   Federalrequirementsundersection126andStatemeasuresin  responsetotheNOxSIPCall.However,duetothechanges  thathaveoccurredtotheSection126RuleandtheNOxSIP p Callasaresultofcourtactions,theSection126Rule P withdrawalprovisionisnowoutofdate.Therefore,itis 0 necessarytoreviseandupdatethewithdrawalprovisionso ` thatitwillfunctionasoriginallyintended. @  #X\XXX\|#X\XXX\A.WhatisEPAsProposalRelatedtotheSIPCompliance   Date?  "   #X\XXX\f#X\XXX\  ` AsdiscussedinSectionIII.A.above,EPAinterprets `$" thecurrentSection126Rulewithdrawalprovisiontooperate @&!$ onlywhentheSIPhasaMay1,2003compliancedate.  (p#& BecausetheSection126RulecompliancedeadlineisnowMay *P%( 31,2004,aNOxSIPtopreemptorreplacetheSection126 +0'*  RulerequirementswouldnotneedtobeimplementeduntilMay  31,2004.Therefore,intodaysaction,EPAisproposing  thatthesection126findingsforsourcesinaStatewillbe p deemedtobewithdrawn,andthecorrespondingportionofthe P  relevantpetitionwillbedenied,ifEPAapprovesaNOxSIP 0  thatmeetstheNOxSIPCallrequirementsof40CFR51.121 `  and51.122(orPhase1requirementsunderthecircumstances @  discussedbelow)byMay31,2004ratherthanbyMay1,2003.    B.WhatisEPAsProposalRelatedtoWithdrawingthe  Section126RuleBasedonaPhase1SIP?  x #X\XXX\#X\XXX\  ` ThecurrentwithdrawalprovisionrequiresaStateto @ meetthefullNOxSIPCall. IfaStatecontrolsits  p statewidesignificantcontributionundertheNOxSIPCall, P itnecessarilymusthaveaddressedthesignificant 0 contributionfromthesection126sourcesinthatState.  ThisprovidedthebasisforEPAtorevokethesection126   findingsandrequirementsastothosesources. x  "   ` AtthetimeEPApromulgatedtheSection126Rule,the `$" NOxSIPCallhadnotyetbeendividedintotwophases. @&!$ Therefore,EPAdidnotaddressthequestionofwhether  (p#& somethinglessthanafullNOxSIP,thatis,aPhase1SIP, *P%( couldadequatelysubstituteforthesection126 +0'* requirements.Phase1oftheNOxSIPCallprovidesaround  90percentoftheSIPCallreductions.Statesarerequired  toachievethePhase1reductionsbyMay31,2004,thesame p compliancedateastheSection126Rule.InFebruaryof P  thisyear,EPAproposedthePhase2requirements.ThePhase 0  2compliancedatewillbeestablishedinafuturefinal `  rule.BecauseEPAexpectsthatthePhase2compliancedate @  willbelaterthanthe2004ozoneseason,Stateswillbe   requiredtoachieveonlythePhase1reductionsin2004and  notthefullNOxSIPCallreductions. Therefore,inorder  toavoidhavingsourcesbesubjecttotwodifferentsetsof p transportrequirementsin2004undertheNOxSIPCalland P theSection126Rule,EPAisproposingcriteriafor 0 withdrawingtheSection126RulebasedonaPhase1SIP. `  ` AlthoughthePhase1SIPwouldachievethevast @ majorityoftheSIPCallreductions,thereisnoguarantee   thataPhase1SIPwould,inallcases,controlatleastthe "  sameamountofemissionsastheSection126RuleinaState $" orthattheStatewouldchoosetoregulateallthe p&!$ identifiedSection126sources.Therefore,EPAisnot P(#& proposingthatsimplymeetingthePhase1reductionswould 0*%( provideabasisforautomaticwithdrawaloftheSection126 ,`'* requirements.Instead,EPAisproposingthattheSection  126RulebewithdrawninaStateunderthemorelimited  circumstanceswhereEPAdeterminesthatanapprovedPhase1 p SIPisrequiringatleastthesametotalquantityof P  emissionsreductionsfromthesamegroupofsourcesas 0  controlledundertheSection126RulebyMay31,2004.In `  thissituation,theSIPwouldretaintheenvironmental @  benefitsthatsection126wouldhaveprovidedandthe   section126sourceswouldnolongerbesignificantly  contributingtodownwindnonattainmentproblems. 󀀀   ` TheprocessforwithdrawingtheSection126Rulebased p onaPhase1SIPwoulddifferslightlyfromthesituation P whereaStateadoptsaSIPmeetingthefullNOxSIPCall 0 requirementsinthatasecondstepwouldbeinvolved.In ` thelattercase,theSection126Rulewouldbeautomatically @ withdrawnuponSIPapproval.InthecaseofthePhase1   SIP,theSection126RulewouldbewithdrawnuponEPAs "  determinationthattheapprovedPhase1SIPregulatesthe $" groupofsection126sourcestothesameorgreater p&!$ stringencyastheSection126Rule.  P(#&  ` BasedonthereviewofSIPstodate,EPAbelievesitis 0*%( likelythatallofthePhase1SIPsfromStatesaffectedby ,`'* theSection126Rulewillregulateallofthesection126  sourcestothesamestringencyastheSection126Rule.  However,notallofthePhase1SIPshavebeenfully p approvedyetandoneaffectedStatehasnotyetsubmitted P  itsSIP.Therefore,EPAisstillconsideringwhetherthere 0  areothercircumstancesunderwhichitwouldbeappropriate `  towithdrawtheSection126Rule. p TheEPAissoliciting @  commentsonalternativeapproachesforwithdrawingthe   Section126RulebasedonanapprovedPhase1SIP.  #X\XXX\#X\XXX\ V.WhatistheCurrentStatusoftheNOxSIPsundertheNOx  SIPCall #X\XXX\%#X\XXX\ andEPAsProposedActiontoWithdrawtheSection X 126RuleinaState#X\XXX\Ǣ#X\XXX\? X  #X\XXX\h#X\XXX\ ` TheJanuary2000Section126Ruleaffectedsources  p locatedintheDistrictofColumbiaandthefollowing12 P States:Delaware,Indiana,Kentucky,Maryland,Michigan, 0 NewJersey,NewYork,NorthCarolina,Pennsylvania,Ohio,   Virginia,andWestVirginia.G X*XXX\X*XXX*X*XXX*X\XXX*  6      ׀AlloftheseStatesare "  requiredtosubmitPhase1SIPsundertheNOxSIPCall.To $" date,EPAhasgivenfinalapprovaltoNOxSIPsfromtenof `&!$ thethirteenjurisdictions(allbutMichigan,Ohio,and @(#& Virginia).   ` TheDistrictofColumbia,Maryland,NewJersey,andNew  YorkvoluntarilyadoptedSIPsthatmeettheoriginalfull p NOxSIPCallbudgets(65FR11222;March2,2000)and P  includeaMay1,2003compliancedate.Therefore,these 0  SIPsmeetthecriteriaforthecurrentSection126 `  withdrawalprovisionandtheSection126Rulealreadyhas @  beenautomaticallywithdrawnforsourcesinthosefour   jurisdictions.I X*XXX\X*XXX*X*XXX*X\XXX*  7      ׀   ` NorthCarolinaadoptedaSIPmeetingtheoriginalfull  NOxSIPCallbudgetwithaMay31,2004compliancedate.If p EPAfinalizestodaysactionasproposed,theSection126  Ruleunderthe1hourstandardwillbeautomatically  withdrawnforsourcesinthatState#X\XXX\ɣ#X\XXX\upontheeffectivedate p ofthefinalrule#X\XXX\#X\XXX\.#X\XXX\b#X\XXX\ P   ` TheEPAistodayproposingthattheapprovedPhase1 0  SIPsfromDelaware,Indiana,Kentucky,Pennsylvania,and `  WestVirginiaregulatethetotalgroupofsection126 @  sourcesintherespectiveStatestothesamestringencyas   theSection126Ruleandincludeacompliancedatenolater  thanMay31,2004.IfEPAfinalizestodaysrulerevision  asproposed,theSection126Ruleunderthe1hourstandard p willbewithdrawnforsourcesinthoseStatesuponthe P effectivedateofthefinalrule. 0  ` TheEPAproposedtoconditionallyapprovetheVirginia ` andOhioSIPs.Intodaysaction,EPAisproposingthat @ onceVirginiaandOhiosatisfytheconditionsidentifiedin   theirrespectiveSIPproposalactionsandEPAfullyapproves "  theSIPs, eachSIPwouldregulatethetotalgroupofsection $" 126sourcesintherespectiveStatetothesamestringency p&!$ astheSection126Rule.IfEPAfinalizestodaysrule P(#& revisionasproposedandfullyapprovestheVirginiaand 0*%( OhioSIPs,theSection126Ruleunderthe1hourstandard ,`'* willbewithdrawnforsourcesinthoseStatesuponthelater  oftheeffectivedateforthefinalrulebasedontodays  proposalandtheeffectivedateforfinalSIPapproval.#X\XXX\#X\XXX\ p  ` #X\XXX\_#X\XXX\WeexpectMichigantosubmitaPhase1SIPshortly.#X\XXX\³#X\XXX\ P  TheEPAwilladdresstheremovaloftheSection126Rulein 0  MichiganinaseparaterulemakingactiononceEPAreceives `  andproposesactionontheMichiganSIP.#X\XXX\8#X\XXX\ @   ` #X\XXX\V#X\XXX\TheEPAnotesthatthisproposaltowithdrawthe   Section126RuleonlyaffectstheportionoftheSection126  Rulebasedonthe1hourozonestandard.Inevaluatingthe  section126petitions,EPAmadeseparatedeterminations p underthe1hourand8hourstandards.Inlightofthe P litigationonthe8hourstandard,EPApreviouslystayedthe 0 8hourportionoftheSection126Rule.Recently,EPA ` issueditsfinalresponsetoaU.S.CourtofAppealsforthe @ D.C.Circuitremandofthe8hourstandard.Afteracareful   review,EPAhasreaffirmedthe8hourozonestandardandis "  movingforwardtoimplementthestandard.Therefore,EPA $" willbeinitiatingarulemakingtoliftthe8hourstayon p&!$ theSection126Rule.Inthatrulemaking,EPAwill P(#& completeitsactiononthe8hourpetitions.#X\XXX\#X\XXX\ 0*%( #X\XXX\# X\XXX\VI.StatutoryandExecutiveOrderReviews  ,`'*  #X\XXX\s#ԚA.0 ` X\XXX\ExecutiveOrder#X\XXX\#Ԁ12866:RegulatoryPlanningandReview ` (#` (#  ` UnderExecutiveOrder12866(58FR51735,October4, x 1993),theAgencymustdeterminewhethertheregulatory X actionis"significant"and,therefore,subjecttoOfficeof 8  ManagementandBudget(OMB)reviewandtherequirementsof  h theExecutiveOrder.TheOrderdefines"significant  H  regulatoryaction"asonethatislikelytoresultinarule (  thatmay:    ` 1.Haveanannualeffectontheeconomyof$100  millionormoreoradverselyaffectinamaterialwaythe x economy,asectoroftheeconomy,productivity,competition, X jobs,theenvironment,publichealthorsafety,orState, 8 local,ortribalgovernmentsorcommunities; h  ` 2.Createaseriousinconsistencyorotherwise H interferewithanactiontakenorplannedbyanotheragency; (  ` 3.Materiallyalterthebudgetaryimpactof   entitlements,grants,userfees,orloanprogramsorthe "  rightsandobligationsofrecipientsthereof;or x$"  ` 4.Raisenovellegalorpolicyissuesarisingoutof X&!$ legalmandates,thePresident'spriorities,orthe 8(#& principlessetforthintheExecutiveOrder. *h%(  ` UnderExecutiveOrder12866,thisproposedactionis +H'* nota"significantregulatoryaction"andisthereforenot  subjecttoreviewbyOMB. TheJanuary2000Section126Rule  (65FR2674)establishescontrolrequirementsforcertain p sourcesin12StatesandtheDistrictofColumbia.The P  Section126RulecontainsaprovisionunderwhichEPAwould 0  withdrawthecontrolrequirementsinaStateifEPAapproves `  aStateplantocontroltheNOxtransportinresponsetothe @  NOxSIPCall.X\XXX\Astheresultofcourtactions,the   compliancedatesfortheSection126RuleandtheNOxSIP  CallhavenowbeendelayeduntilMay31,2004.Inaddition,  theNOxSIPCallhasbeendividedintotwophases. p Therefore,EPAisproposingtoreviseandupdatetheSection P 126withdrawalprovisionsothatitwilloperateunderthese 0 newcircumstances.#X\XXX\# `  ` Thisproposedactionwouldnotcreateanyadditional @ impactsbeyondwhatwaspromulgatedintheJanuary2000   Rule.Thisproposedrulealsodoesnotraisenovellegalor "  policyissues.Therefore,EPAbelievesthatthisactionis $" nota significantregulatoryaction. p&!$  B.PaperworkReductionAct  P(#&  ` Todaysactiondoesnotproposeanynewinformation *h%( collectionrequestrequirements.Therefore,aninformation +H'* collectionrequestdocumentisnotrequired.   FX\XXX\C.#X\XXFX\#FX\XXX\RegulatoryFlexibilityAct  #X\XXFX\E# FX\XXX\ ` TheRegulatoryFlexibilityAct(RFA)generallyrequires X anagencytopreparearegulatoryflexibilityanalysisof 8  anyrulesubjecttonoticeandcommentrulemaking  h requirementsundertheAdministrativeProcedureActorany  H  otherstatuteunlesstheagencycertifiesthattherulewill (  nothaveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantial   numberofsmallentities.Smallentitiesincludesmall  businesses,smallorganizations,andsmallgovernmental x jurisdictions. X #X\XXFX\#FX\XXX\ ` Forpurposesofassessingtheimpactsoftheproposed 8 ruleonsmallentities,smallentityisdefinedas:(1)a h smallbusinessaccordingtotheU.S.SmallBusiness H AdministrationsizestandardsfortheNAICScodeslistedin ( thefollowingtable;#X\XXFX\#FX\XXX\   #X\XXFX\%#*HYJddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,kdd ,dd ,dd +  +8#!# +NAICS $ # CODE =8,!%!$"8 =ECONOMICACTIVITYORINDUSTRY =8,!$ &"8 =SIZESTANDARDIN #<' NUMBEROF $ ( EMPLOYEES, %!) MILLIONSOF &!* DOLLARSOF |'"+ REVENUES,OR `(#, OUTPUT `V!D)$-"8 SRB 322121322122SRB`322121 * &. 322122 PF;+&/" SRB 322121322122 SRB PPulpmills H>* &0 p@750p@H750 ka2* &1" p@750 p@ lA325211lAk325211 J@5d" lA325211 lA J Plasticsmaterials,synthetic d resins,andnonvulcanized H elastomers H>, p@750p@H750 qg2d" p@750 p@ RB 325188325199RBq325188 T 325199 PF;8 " RB 325188325199 RB PIndustrialorganicchemicals I?T @@1000@@I1,000 lb3T " @@1000 @@ 8A3241108Al324110 J@5  " 8A324110 8A JPetroleumrefining I?   p@1500p@I1,500 lb3  " p@1500 p@ 5A3311115Al331111 J@5( x " 5A331111 5A JSteelworks,blastfurnaces, ( x androllingmills I? \ @@1000@@I1,000 lb3( x" @@1000 @@ \A333611\Al333611 J@5 " \A333611 \A JSteam,gas,andhydraulic   turbines I?h  @@1000@@I1,000 lb3 " @@1000 @@ \A333618\Al333618 J@50 " \A333618 \A JStationaryinternalcombustion 0  engines I?  @@1000@@I1,000 lb30 " @@1000 @@ YA333415YAl333415 J@5<" YA333415 YA JAirconditioningandwarmair < heatingequipmentand  p commercialandindustrial T refrigerationequipment H>8 p@750p@H750 qg2<" p@750 p@ $nIB 222111222112$nIBq222111 ` 222112 PF;D " $nIB 222111222112 $nIB PElectricutilities '`! '4million `" megawatthrs. KAD#" A486210AK486210 J@5 $" A486210 A JNaturalgastransmission ' % '$6.0 KA &"  A221330 AKЀ221330 J@54'  A221330  A JSteamandairconditioning 4( supply 'h) '  $10.5"4*  "FX\XXX\(2)asmallgovernmentaljurisdictionthatisagovernment L- ofacity,county,town,schooldistrictorspecialdistrict !,/ withapopulationoflessthan50,000;and(3)asmall # 1 organizationthatisanynotforprofitenterprisewhichis % 3 independentlyownedandoperatedandisnotdominantinits |'"5 field. \)$7 #X\XXFX\# ` FX\XXX\Afterconsideringtheeconomicimpactsoftodays <+&9 proposedruleonsmallentities,Icertifythatthisaction  willnothaveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantial  numberofsmallentities.Todaysproposal,ifpromulgated, p wouldnotcreatenewrequirementsforsmallentitiesor P  othersources.Instead,thisactionisproposingtorevise 0  theSection126Ruletowithdrawthesection126 `  requirementsunderspecifiedcircumstances.#X\XXFX\#FX\XXX\Wecontinueto @  beinterestedinthepotentialimpactsoftheproposedrule   onsmallentitiesandwelcomecommentsonissuesrelatedto  suchimpacts.#X\XXFX\#   D.UnfundedMandatesReformAct  p  ` TitleIIoftheUnfundedMandatesReformActof1995 8 (UMRA),PublicLaw1044,establishesrequirementsfor h Federalagenciestoassesstheeffectsoftheirregulatory H actionsonState,local,andtribalgovernmentsandthe ( privatesector.Undersection202oftheUMRA,2U.S.C.   1532,EPAgenerallymustprepareawrittenstatement, "  includingacostbenefitanalysis,foranyproposedorfinal x$" ruleswith Federalmandatesthatmayresultinthe X&!$ expenditurebyState,local,andtribalgovernments,inthe 8(#& aggregate,orbytheprivatesector,of$100millionormore *h%( inany1year.A Federalmandateisdefinedtoincludea +H'*  Federalintergovernmentalmandateanda Federalprivate  sectormandate(2U.S.C.658(6)).A Federal  intergovernmentalmandate,inturn,isdefinedtoincludea p regulationthat wouldimposeanenforceabledutyupon P  State,local,ortribalgovernments,(2U.S.C. 0  658(5)(A)(i)),exceptfor,amongotherthings,adutythat `  is aconditionofFederalassistance(2U.S.C. @  658(5)(A)(I)).A Federalprivatesectormandateincludes   aregulationthat wouldimposeanenforceabledutyuponthe  privatesector,withcertainexceptions(2U.S.C.  658(7)(A)).   p  ` TheEPAhasdeterminedthatthisproposedactiondoes P notincludeaFederalmandatethatmayresultinestimated 0 costsof$100millionormoreforeitherState,local,or ` tribalgovernmentsintheaggregate,orfortheprivate @ sector.ThisFederalactiondoesnotproposeanynew   requirements,asdiscussedabove.Accordingly,no "  additionalcoststoState,local,ortribalgovernments,or $" totheprivatesector,wouldresultfromthisaction. p&!$  E.X\XXX\ExecutiveOrder#X\XXX\!#Ԁ13132:Federalism  P(#&  ` ExecutiveOrder13132,entitled Federalism(64FR *h%( 43255,August10,1999),requiresEPAtodevelopan +H'* accountableprocesstoensure meaningfulandtimelyinput  byStateandlocalofficialsinthedevelopmentof  regulatorypoliciesthathavefederalismimplications. p  Policiesthathavefederalismimplicationsisdefinedin P  theExecutiveOrdertoincluderegulationsthathave 0   substantialdirecteffectsontheStates,onthe `  relationshipbetweenthenationalgovernmentandtheStates, @  oronthedistributionofpowerandresponsibilitiesamong   thevariouslevelsofgovernment.   ` Undersection6ofExecutiveOrder13132,EPAmaynot  issuearegulationthathasfederalismimplications,that p imposessubstantialdirectcompliancecosts,andthatisnot P requiredbystatute,unlesstheFederalgovernmentprovides 0 thefundsnecessarytopaythedirectcompliancecosts ` incurredbyStateandlocalgovernments,orEPAconsults @ withStateandlocalofficialsearlyintheprocessof   developingtheproposedregulation.TheEPAalsomaynot "  issuearegulationthathasfederalismimplicationsandthat $" preemptsStatelaw,unlesstheAgencyconsultswithState p&!$ andlocalofficialsearlyintheprocessofdevelopingthe P(#& proposedregulation. 0*%(  '(5h83 ` Thisproposedactiondoesnothavefederalism ,`'* implications.Itwillnothavesubstantialdirecteffects  ontheStates,ontherelationshipbetweenthenational  governmentandtheStates,oronthedistributionofpower p andresponsibilitiesamongthevariouslevelsofgovernment, P  asspecifiedinExecutiveOrder13132. Todaysproposed 0  actionwouldnotimposeanyadditionalburdensbeyondthose 0  imposedbytheJanuary2000Rule.Thus,therequirementsof `  section6oftheExecutiveOrderdonotapplytothis @  rulemakingaction.      F.! !X\XXX\ExecutiveOrder#X\XXX\"#Ԁ13175:ConsultationandCoordinationwith  IndianTribalGovernments  x  ` ExecutiveOrder13175,entitled Consultationand @ CoordinationwithIndianTribalGovernments(65FR67249,  p November6,2000),requiresEPAtodevelopanaccountable P processtoensure meaningfulandtimelyinputbytribal 0 officialsinthedevelopmentofregulatorypoliciesthat   havetribalimplications. Policiesthathavetribal "  implicationsisdefinedintheExecutiveOrdertoinclude $" regulationsthathave substantialdirecteffectsononeor `&!$ moreIndiantribes,ontherelationshipbetweentheFederal @(#& governmentandtheIndiantribes,oronthedistributionof  *p%( powerandresponsibilitiesbetweentheFederalgovernment ,P'* andIndiantribes.   ` Thisproposedruledoesnothavetribalimplications.  Ifpromulgated,itwillnothavesubstantialdirecteffects p ontribalgovernments,ontherelationshipbetweenthe P  FederalgovernmentandIndiantribes,oronthedistribution 0  ofpowerandresponsibilitiesbetweentheFederalgovernment `  andIndiantribes,asspecifiedinExecutiveOrder13175. @  Today'sactiondoesnotsignificantlyoruniquelyaffectthe   communitiesofIndiantribalgovernments.Asdiscussed  above,today'sproposedactionwouldnotimposeanynew  requirementsthatwouldimposecomplianceburdensbeyond p thosethatwouldalreadyapplyundertheJanuary2000rule. P Accordingly,therequirementsofExecutiveOrder13175do 0 notapplytothisrule. `   &   ` InthespiritofExecutiveOrder13175,andconsistent @ withEPApolicytopromotecommunicationsbetweenEPAand   tribalgovernments,EPAspecificallysolicitsadditional "  commentonthisproposedrulefromtribalofficials.'z $"  G.X\XXX\ExecutiveOrder#X\XXX\#Ԁ13045:ProtectionofChildrenfrom p&!$ EnvironmentalHealthandSafetyRisks  8(#&  ` ExecutiveOrder13045: ProtectionofChildrenfrom *P%( EnvironmentalHealthRisksandSafetyRisks(62FR19885, +0'* April23,1997)appliestoanyrulethat(1)isdetermined  tobe economicallysignificantasdefinedunderExecutive  Order12866,and(2)concernsanenvironmentalhealthor p safetyriskthatEPAhasreasontobelievemayhavea P  disproportionateeffectonchildren.Iftheregulatory 0  actionmeetsbothcriteria,theAgencymustevaluatethe `  environmentalhealthorsafetyeffectsoftheplannedrule @  onchildren,andexplainwhytheplannedregulationis   preferabletootherpotentiallyeffectiveandreasonably  feasiblealternativesconsideredbytheagency.   ` TheEPAinterpretsExecutiveOrder13045asapplying p onlytothoseregulatoryactionsthatarebasedonhealthor P safetyrisks,suchthattheanalysisrequiredundersection 0 5-501oftheOrderhasthepotentialtoinfluencethe ` regulation.ThisruleisnotsubjecttoExecutiveOrder @ 13045,becausethisactionisnot economicallysignificant   asdefinedunderExecutiveOrder12866andtheAgencydoes "  nothavereasontobelievetheenvironmentalhealthrisksor $" safetyrisksaddressedbythisactionpresenta p&!$ disproportionaterisktochildren. P(#&  H.X\XXX\ExecutiveOrder#X\XXX\Z #Ԁ13211:ActionsthatSignificantlyAffect 0*%( EnergySupply,Distribution,orUse +H'*  X\XXX\ ` ThisruleisnotsubjecttoExecutiveOrder13211,   ActionsThatSignificantlyAffectEnergySupply,  Distribution,orUse(66FR28355;May22,2001)becauseit p isnotasignificantregulatoryactionunderExecutiveOrder P  12866.#X\XXX\( # Todaysactiondoesnotproposeanynewregulatory 0  requirements. 0   I.NationalTechnologyTransferandAdvancementAct  `   ` Section12(d)oftheNationalTransferandAdvancement (  Actof1995( NTTAA,PublicLaw104113section12(d)15  U.S.C.272note)directsEPAtousevoluntaryconsensus  standardsinitsregulatoryactivitiesunlesstodosowould x beinconsistentwithapplicablelaworotherwise X impractical.Voluntaryconsensusstandardsaretechnical 8 standards(e.g.,materialsspecifications,testmethods, h samplingprocedures,andbusinesspractices)thatare H developedoradoptedbyvoluntaryconsensusstandards  ( bodies.TheNTTAAdirectsEPAtoprovideCongress,through "  OMB,explanationswhentheAgencydecidesnottouse $" availableandapplicablevoluntaryconsensusstandards. x&!$  ` TheNationalTechnologyTransferandAdvancementActof X(#& 1997doesnotapplybecausetodaysactiondoesnotpropose 8*%( anynewtechnicalstandards.Thisactionisproposingto ,h'* amendtheJanuary2000Rulebyspecifyingcircumstances  underwhichtheSection126requirementswouldbewithdrawn.  ListofSubjectsin X\XXX\ :40CFRPart52   Environmentalprotection,Airpollutioncontrol,Emissions  trading,IntergovernmentalRelations,Nitrogenoxides, h`  Ozone,Ozonetransport,Reportingandrecordkeeping H@  requirements. (  ______________________________  Dated:   ______________________________ (#  ChristineToddWhitman,   %  Administrator %! :  &" $*gForthereasonssetforthinthepreamble,chapterIof  title40oftheCodeofFederalRegulationsisproposedto  beamendedasfollows:  p #X\XXX\# PART52APPROVALANDPROMULGATIONOFIMPLEMENTATIONPLANS  0  1.Theauthoritycitationforpart52continuestoreadas (  follows:   Ѐ ` Authority:42U.S.C.7401etseq.  SubpartAGeneralProvisions x 2.Section52.34isamendedbyrevisingparagraph(i)to X readasfollows: 8  52.34Actiononpetitionssubmittedundersection126 H relatingtoemissionsofnitrogenoxides .  *****   (i)Withdrawalofsection126findings.Notwithstanding "  anyotherprovisionofthissubpart,afindingunder $" paragraphs(c),(e)(1)and(e)(2),(g),and(h)(1)and `&!$ (h)(2)ofthissectionastoaparticularmajorsourceor @(#& groupofstationarysourcesinaparticularStatewillbe  *p%( deemedtobewithdrawn,andthecorrespondingpartofthe ,P'* relevantpetitiondenied,iftheAdministratorissuesa  finalactionapprovingimplementationplanprovisionsthat:  Ѐ(1)Complywiththeapplicablerequirementsof51.121and p 51.122ofthischapterforsuchState,modifiedtorequire P  achievementoftheemissionreductionsunder51.121ofthis 0  chapterstartingnolaterthanMay31,2004;or `  Ѐ(2)(A)Complywiththeapplicablerequirementsof @  51.121and51.122ofthischapter,exceptfor51.121(e)   ofthischapter,forsuchState,modifiedtorequire  achievementoftheemissionreductionsunder51.121ofthis  chapterstartingnolaterthanMay31,2004, and p (B)Achieveemissionsreductions,fromthelargeEGUsand P largenonEGUSsubjecttoparagraph(j)ofthissectionin 0 suchState,thatequalorexceedtheemissionsreductions ` otherwiserequiredunderPart97ofthischapterforsuch @ State.X\XXX\    #X\XXX\S#X\XXX\***** "  #X\XXX\#X\XXX\