[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12000-12001]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04458]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0164; Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Jefferson, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at
Jefferson, IA. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review as part of the decommissioning of the Jefferson non-
directional beacon (NDB). The geographic coordinates of the airport
would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0164/Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-8 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Jefferson Municipal Airport, Jefferson, IA, to
support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-0164/
Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-8.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by amending the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile (increased from a 6.3-mile) radius of Jefferson
Municipal Airport, Jefferson, IA; removing the Jefferson NDB and
associated extension from the airspace legal description; and updating
the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review as part of the
decommissioning of the Jefferson NDB which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures this airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Jefferson, IA [Amended]

Jefferson Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 42[deg]00'35'' N, long. 94[deg]20'31'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Jefferson Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 28, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-04458 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


its state, and EPA does not reevaluate California's policy decisions in
deciding whether to grant authorization, as long as, pursuant to
section 209(e), the regulations can be met without making the costs
prohibitive. The comments received regarding cost-effectiveness do not
show that the costs for fleet operators generally will be prohibitive.
California's estimates of the costs of the regulation are reasonable
and CARB has rebutted the argument that small fleet operators in
general will not be able to meet the requirements.\177\ EPA also agrees
with CARB's statement that EPA has long deferred to California's policy
judgments associated with cost-effectiveness ``EPA will not look into
the question of cost-effectiveness--that is, whether the overall
benefits of the regulation are outweighed by the regulation's costs of
compliance.'' \178\ Consequently, based on the record, EPA is unable to
make the finding that the Fleet Requirements are not technologically
feasible with the available lead time giving consideration to the cost
of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ CARB's Authorization Request at 25. CARB notes that small
fleets are expected to be able to fully comply with the regulation
if it routinely turns over its vehicles and equipment and meet the
emission target rates and have little or no compliance costs
associated with the regulation. To the extent normal turnover is
insufficient, CARB notes small fleets are expected to comply through
installation of VDECS (If a small fleet cannot be retrofitted with a
VDECS that vehicle is exempt from the BACT requirements, including
turnover), by exercising the special option for fleets with less
than 500 total horsepower, designating vehicles as low-use, and by
exercising the small fleet vehicle exemptions along various other
exemptions, credits, etc.
    \178\ Id., citing 58 FR 4166 (January 7, 1993), Decision
Document at 20 [``Since a balancing of these . . . costs against the
potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy
decision [of CARB is adopting the regulation] I believe I am
required to give very substantial deference to California's
judgments on this score.''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Consistency of Certification Procedures
    California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures
would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the California test
procedures were to impose certification requirements inconsistent with
the federal certification requirements. Such inconsistency would mean
that manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and
federal testing requirements using the same test vehicle or
engine.\179\ CARB presents that the Fleet Requirements raise no issue
regarding incompatibility of California and federal test procedures.
``There is no requirement on engine manufacturers or fleet owners to
certify engines beyond existing federal and state certification testing
for new engines. Additionally, there are no conflicts between federal
and California test procedures for verification testing for diesel
emission control strategies in that there is no comparable mandatory
federal program.'' \180\ EPA received no comments suggesting that
CARB's Fleet Requirements pose any test procedure consistency problem.
Therefore, based on the record, EPA cannot find that CARB's testing
procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) and cannot deny CARB's
request based on this criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).
    \180\ CARB Authorization Request at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Additional Issues Raised in Comment

    EPA received a series of comments on grounds other than those
specified in section 209(e)(2)(A) of the Act. These comments include
several administrative concerns including the lack of a public hearing
in California and a request to reopen the public comment period (and to
stay the issuance of a final EPA decision). We also received a number
of comments objecting to the authorization based on other federal law
or constitutional claims. As set forth below, EPA has complied with all
relevant administrative process requirements for this proceeding and
none of the comments described above provide any basis for denying
CARB's Authorization Request.
1. Request for a Public Hearing in California
    EPA received comment during the course of the public comment period
associated with EPA's August 12, 2012 Federal Register notice
requesting that EPA conduct a public hearing or hearings in California
in order for those affected by CARB's regulation, the fleet operators,
to be directly heard and for those unable to travel to Washington, DC
be afforded the opportunity to express their concerns to EPA.
    Section 209(e)(2)(A) states in part that ``. . . the Administrator
shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, authorize
California to adopt and enforce standards and other requirements
relating to the control of emissions from such nonroad vehicles or
engines . . . .'' EPA's process for providing an opportunity for public
comment on the CARB Fleet Requirements was consistent with the normal
process EPA applies in response to this language. EPA has consistently
announced in the Federal Register the opportunity for a public hearing
for any authorization request received from CARB. As a general matter
EPA has also offered an opportunity for written comment which has
opened on the date of the Federal Register notice and closed on a date
after the public hearing. As part of EPA's public hearings, the
presiding officer has consistently stated that the hearing was being
conducted in accordance with section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act and
that any interested parties have the opportunity to present both oral
testimony and written comments. While EPA occasionally has held
hearings in California, the vast

majority of hearings on section 209 proceedings have occurred in
Washington, DC. EPA has been conducting its section 209(b) waiver
proceedings and section 209(e) authorization proceedings in this manner
for decades, and although Congress has amended provisions in section
209 on two separate occasions, Congress has not chosen to alter EPA's
administrative requirements.
    EPA is guided by the principles of fair public notice and
opportunity for comment. In this instance, EPA published notice of
CARB's authorization request in the Federal Register, including the
Clean Air Act prescribed authorization criteria EPA would review in
consideration of CARB's request, and provided more than 30 days of
notice before conducting a public hearing. EPA conducted a properly
noticed public hearing in Washington, DC which was attended by several
trade associations representing numerous members and fleet operators
within California.\181\ EPA has placed the transcript of the public
hearing into the public docket. After the public hearing EPA provided
an additional 30 days for interested parties to submit written comment
addressing all relevant issues pertaining to California's authorization
request. The affected parties have had in their possession the
necessary information to adequately comment on whether the Fleet
Requirements are technologically feasible as well as CARB's
protectiveness determination. Opponents have had access to the
necessary information to formulate comments in regard to the second
waiver criterion at section 209(e)(2)(A)(ii). All written comments have
been placed in the public docket. EPA was responsive to the desire
expressed by some commenters to speak directly with representatives to
EPA, including the desire to explain the economic impacts the Fleet
Requirements may have on their businesses. In response, EPA conducted
and made available an informal teleconference phone call for interested
parties in California with representatives from EPA.\182\ This Federal
Register notice provides EPA's reasoned response to all oral testimony,
written comment, and viewpoints expressed to EPA. All commenters,
including opponents of the waiver, have had ample opportunity to
comment and meet their applicable burdens of proof. Opponents of CARB's
Fleet Requirements and of its authorization request have had ample
opportunity to present their viewpoints during the course of CARB's
rulemaking and EPA's authorization proceeding. Lastly, as noted above,
CARB has engaged in several proceedings and has adopted a series of
amendments in response to concerns raised by the regulated parties,
including fleet operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ As explained in EPA's July 2009 GHG waiver decision, EPA
is guided by the language in the Clean Air Act and not the hearing
requirements set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act. EPA
incorporates that reasoning into today's decision. See 74 FR 32744,
32780-32782 (July 8, 2009).
    \182\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0691-0321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Request for EPA To Reopen the Comment Period
    EPA received comment from PLF characterized as a ``Notice of New
Development and Supplemental Comment'' requesting that EPA reopen the
comment period associated with the Fleet Requirements authorization
request and to hold in abeyance any decision regarding California's
authorization request. PLF points to the recent decision issued by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
Natural Resources Defense Counsel v. EPA, No. 08-1250, January 4, 2013,
(Decision) for the proposition that the court's decision and CARB's
authorization application are inextricably linked. PLF characterizes
the Decision as requiring EPA itself to adopt stringent federal
implementation standards for PM2.5 throughout the nation,
including California. Because California asserted that it ``needs''
PM2.5 nonroad diesel standards that are more stringent than
federal PM2.5 standards, and because EPA is now required to
use the ``stringent, action-forcing provisions'' of section 188-188(b)
of the Clean Air Act as a result of the Decision, PLF maintains that it
is appropriate to complete EPA's administrative proceedings on remand
(from the Decision) before EPA is able to determine the extent to which
there is a ``need'' for California to have its own PM2.5
standard based on ``compelling and extraordinary conditions'' in
California. In addition, PLF asserts that EPA's most recent revision of
the NAAQS PM2.5 primary standard, which lowers the existing
level to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter, and the concomitant revision
to the Air Quality Index for PM2.5, provides additional
reason to question California's ``need'' for its own PM2.5
nonroad diesel standard.\183\ EPA responds to the substance of PLF's
comments above in our discussion of the second criterion for
authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ Although PLF expresses the NAAQS PM2.5 primary
standard in ``micrometers,'' the correct unit of measure is
micrograms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, EPA does not agree that the recent decision of
the Court of Appeals has any significant effect on the second criterion
for granting authorization. Moreover, PLF has had a full opportunity to
make its argument with regard to this new decision and its potential
effect on this authorization determination, and EPA has responded in
full to PLF's comments. We therefore believe there is no need for a
further reopening of the comment period for this proceeding; nor is
there any cause for any delay in issuing our decision with regard to
the authorization. Therefore, we deny PLF's request to reopen the
authorization comment period and to delay issuing an authorization
decision for the Fleet Requirements.
3. Claims Outside the Scope of the Clean Air Act
    Airlines for America (``A4A'') has provided comment opposing EPA
authorization of California's Fleets Regulation. A4A claims that the
Fleet Requirements, as they affect airport ground equipment, are
preempted by the Federal Aviation Act and the Airline Deregulation Act.
These comments are outside the scope of EPA's scope of review of
California authorization requests under section 209(e)(2). As EPA has
stated on numerous occasions, EPA's review of California regulations
under section 209 is not a broad review of the reasonableness of the
regulations or its compatibility with all other laws. Sections 209(b)
and 209(e) of the Clean Air Act limit EPA's authority to deny
California requests for waivers and authorizations to the three
criteria listed therein. As a result, EPA has consistently refrained
from denying California's requests for waivers and authorizations based
on any other criteria.\184\ In instances where the U.S. Court of
Appeals has reviewed EPA decisions declining to deny waiver requests
based on criteria not found in section 209(b), the Court has upheld and
agreed with EPA's determination.\185\ A4A's comment raises issues of
federal preemption that are not included within the criteria listed
under sections 209(e).\186\ Therefore, in considering

whether to grant authorization for California's Fleet Requirements
under section 209(e), EPA cannot deny California's request for
authorization based on the issues raised by A4A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See, e.g., 74 FR 32744, 32783 (July 8, 2009).
    \185\ See Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nichols,
142 F.3d 449, 462-63, 466-67 (D.C. Cir.1998), Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111, 1114-20 (D.C. Cir.
1979).
    \186\ A4A may raise these issues in a direct challenge to
California's regulations in other forums, but these issues are not
relevant to EPA's limited review under section 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also received comment suggesting that EPA and California must
certify CARB's Fleet Requirements as ``not having a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities'' under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601).\187\ EPA notes that CARB's
authorization request and EPA's subsequent action do not constitute a
rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and
therefore are not covered by the certification requirement in that
statute. EPA's authorization proceedings and actions under section
209(e)(2)(A) are informal adjudications. In an authorization
proceeding, EPA receives a request from one entity (CARB) that is
presenting an existing regulation established as a matter of California
law. The request is for an EPA authorization for that party, so it may
adopt and enforce the specific regulations. In deciding this request,
EPA interprets and applies the three authorization criteria established
by the Act, and under this provision is required to grant the
authorization unless EPA makes one of the three specified findings. EPA
applies the pre-existing law, section 209(e)(2)(A), and EPA's
regulation promulgated therein, to a specific request covering a
specific regulation, and applies the three statutory criteria to the
facts of the specific request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ Delta Construction, May 12, 2010 comment at 3 (Citing 42
U.S.C. 7410(k) and 40 CFR 52.02(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision to grant or deny the authorization request directly
affects the legal rights of the party before EPA, California. If EPA
grants the authorization, then CARB may enforce its state regulations.
Other parties, for example, the fleet operators, may be indirectly
affected because state regulation is no longer preempted. While there
may be indirect consequences for various parties, the only decision
taken by EPA in the authorization proceeding is the decision that
permits the State of California to adopt and enforce its state
regulations. As noted above, sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Clean
Air Act limit EPA's authority to deny California requests for waivers
and authorizations to the three criteria listed therein. As a result,
EPA has consistently refrained from denying California's requests for
waivers and authorizations based on any other criteria.\188\ Review of
California regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
included within the criteria listed under sections 209(e). Indeed,
Congress intended EPA to provide California with substantial deference
in making its own decisions regarding the effects of its regulations.
Therefore, in considering whether to grant authorization for
California's Fleet Requirements under section 209(e), EPA is not
required to undertake a review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
could not deny California's request for authorization based on any such
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ See, e.g. 74 FR 32744, 32783 (July 8, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Constitutional Claims
    EPA received a number of comments suggesting that EPA should deny
authorization of the Fleet Requirements because of their potential to
impose negative economic impacts on fleets. These comments stated that
the regulations would cause emissions control equipment that fleet
operators purchased before CARB's regulations took effect to lose its
asset value, even though the equipment still has a long useful life.
The comments suggest that CARB's regulation amounts to a ``taking'' as
defined under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
``appropriate sections of California Constitution and Law.'' EPA's
response to these comments is guided first by the language in section
209(e)(2)(A) that clearly sets forth the limited criteria or basis by
which we may deny an authorization request from CARB. EPA's limited
ability to deny an authorization request to the criteria found in
section 209(e)(2)(A) of the Act is consistent with case law.\189\
Therefore, in considering whether to grant authorization for
California's Fleet Requirements under section 209(e), EPA cannot deny
California's request for authorization based on constitutional
arguments outside the scope of the Clean Air Act. Moreover, such
arguments are best directed against California directly in a court of
law, not to a separate government agency with only a limited authority
to review California's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ MEMA I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Authorization Determination for California's Fleet Requirements

    After a review of the information submitted by CARB and other
commenters, EPA finds that those opposing California's request have not
met the burden of demonstrating that authorization for California's
Fleet Requirements should be denied based on any of the statutory
criteria of section 209(e)(2)(A). For this reason, EPA finds that an
authorization for California's Fleet Requirements should be granted.

IV. Decision

    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California
section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation. After evaluating California's Fleet Requirements, CARB's
submissions, and the public comments received, EPA is granting an
authorization to California for its Fleet Requirements.
    My decision will indirectly affect not only persons in California,
but also entities outside the state who must comply with California's
requirements. For this reason, I determine and find that this is a
final action of national applicability for purposes of section
307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act,
judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions
for review must be filed by November 19, 2013. Judicial review of this
final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings,
pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not
a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt
from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of
this action on small business entities.
    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of
5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: September 13, 2013.
Janet G. McCabe,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2013-22930 Filed 9-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P