Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Lead and Ozone, 27127-27134 [2015-11340]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• 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.);
• 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);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• 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 CAA; and,
• 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).
The SIP is 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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile Organic
Compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 29, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015–11338 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 May 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0297; FRL–9927–54–
Region 9]
Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Infrastructure Requirements for Lead
and Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially
approve and partially disapprove a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Arizona to
address the requirements of section
110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and 2008
ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires that each State adopt
and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS. We refer
to such SIP revisions as ‘‘infrastructure’’
SIPs because they are intended to
address basic structural SIP
requirements for each new or revised
NAAQS including, but not limited to,
legal authority, regulatory structure,
resources, permit programs, monitoring
and modeling necessary to assure
attainment and maintenance of the
standards. We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 11, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2015–0297, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at buss.jeffrey@
epa.gov.
3. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning
Office (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne, San Francisco, California
94105.
4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey
Buss, Air Planning Section (AIR–2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San
Francisco, California 94105. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27127
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2015–
0297. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information
through www.regulations.gov or email
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected from disclosure. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
anonymous access system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide
it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA
without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105. EPA
requests that you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection during normal business
hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, (415) 947–4152, email:
buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM
12MYP1
27128
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. EPA’s Approach to the Review of
Infrastructure SIP Submittals
B. Statutory Framework and Scope of
Infrastructure SIPs
C. Regulatory Background
II. Arizona’s Submittals
III. EPA’s Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
A. EPA’s Approach to the Review of
Infrastructure SIP Submittals
EPA is acting upon several SIP
submittals from Arizona that address
the infrastructure requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP
submittal of this type arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section
110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submittals ‘‘within 3 years (or such
shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality
standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and
these SIP submittals are to provide for
the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the
duty to make these SIP submittals, and
the requirement to make the submittals
is not conditioned upon EPA’s taking
any action other than promulgating a
new or revised NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’
submittal must address.
EPA has historically referred to these
SIP submittals made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submittals.
Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses
the term to distinguish this particular
type of SIP submittal from submittals
that are intended to satisfy other SIP
requirements under the CAA, such as
‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment
SIP’’ submittals to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of
part D of title I of the CAA, ‘‘regional
haze SIP’’ submittals required by EPA
rule to address the visibility protection
requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NSR)
permit program submittals to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I,
part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing
and general requirements for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 May 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
infrastructure SIP submittals, and
section 110(a)(2) provides more details
concerning the required contents of
these submittals. The list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2)
contains a wide variety of disparate
provisions, some of which pertain to
required legal authority, some of which
pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain
to requirements for both authority and
substantive program provisions.1 EPA
therefore believes that while the timing
requirement in section 110(a)(1) is
unambiguous, some of the other
statutory provisions are ambiguous. In
particular, EPA believes that the list of
required elements for infrastructure SIP
submittals provided in section 110(a)(2)
contains ambiguities concerning what is
required for inclusion in an
infrastructure SIP submittal.
The following examples of
ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and
section 110(a)(2) requirements with
respect to infrastructure SIP submittals
for a given new or revised NAAQS. One
example of ambiguity is that section
110(a)(2) requires that ‘‘each’’ SIP
submittal must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has
long noted that this literal reading of the
statute is internally inconsistent and
would create a conflict with the
nonattainment provisions in part D of
title I of the Act, which specifically
address nonattainment SIP
requirements.2 Section 110(a)(2)(I)
pertains to nonattainment SIP
requirements and part D addresses
when attainment plan SIP submittals to
address nonattainment area
requirements are due. For example,
section 172(b) requires EPA to establish
a schedule for submittal of such plans
for certain pollutants when the
Administrator promulgates the
designation of an area as nonattainment,
and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to
two years, or in some cases three years,
for such designations to be
1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides
that states must provide assurances that they have
adequate legal authority under state and local law
to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides
that states must have a SIP-approved program to
address certain sources as required by part C of title
I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that
states must have legal authority to address
emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
2 See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air
Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR
25162, at 25163–25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
promulgated.3 This ambiguity illustrates
that rather than apply all the stated
requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, EPA must determine
which provisions of section 110(a)(2)
are applicable for a particular
infrastructure SIP submittal.
Another example of ambiguity within
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to
whether states must meet all of the
infrastructure SIP requirements in a
single SIP submittal, and whether EPA
must act upon such SIP submittal in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1)
directs states to submit ‘‘a plan’’ to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the
CAA to allow states to make multiple
SIP submittals separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same
NAAQS. If states elect to make such
multiple SIP submittals to meet the
infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA
can elect to act on such submittals
either individually or in a larger
combined action.4 Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take
action on the individual parts of one
larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submittal for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on the entire
submittal. For example, EPA has
sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP
submittal.5
3 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section
110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various
subparts of part D set specific dates for submittal
of certain types of SIP submittals in designated
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note,
e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates
for submittal of emissions inventories for the ozone
NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are
necessarily later than three years after promulgation
of the new or revised NAAQS.
4 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to
the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment
New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR
4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action
approving the structural PSD elements of the New
Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to
meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR
rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 78 FR
4337, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action on the
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
5 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee,
through the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA
demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action
for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on
January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action
on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16,
2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR
42997), EPA took separate proposed and final
actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007
submittal.
E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM
12MYP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submittal
requirements for different NAAQS.
Thus, EPA notes that not every element
of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant,
or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS.
The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP
submittals for each NAAQS therefore
could be different. For example, the
monitoring requirements that a state
might need to meet in its infrastructure
SIP submittal for purposes of section
110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for
different pollutants, for example
because the content and scope of a
state’s infrastructure SIP submittal to
meet this element might be very
different for an entirely new NAAQS
than for a minor revision to an existing
NAAQS.6
EPA notes that interpretation of
section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when
EPA reviews other types of SIP
submittals required under the CAA.
Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP
submittals, EPA also has to identify and
interpret the relevant elements of
section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to
these other types of SIP submittals. For
example, section 172(c)(7) requires that
attainment plan SIP submittals required
by part D have to meet the ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ of section 110(a)(2).
Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP
submittals must meet the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding
enforceable emission limits and control
measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
regarding air agency resources and
authority. By contrast, it is clear that
attainment plan SIP submittals required
by part D would not need to meet the
portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the air quality prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program
required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a
pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus
subject to part D planning requirements.
As this example illustrates, each type of
SIP submittal may implicate some
elements of section 110(a)(2) but not
others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in
some of the statutory language of section
110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA
believes that it is appropriate to
interpret the ambiguous portions of
section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2)
in the context of acting on a particular
SIP submittal. In other words, EPA
6 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM
2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of
new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new
indicator species for the new NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 May 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP
submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP
development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or
meet each of them in the same way.
Therefore, EPA has adopted an
approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submittals against the
list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but
only to the extent each element applies
for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use
guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for
infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on
newly arising issues and in some cases
conveying interpretations that have
already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submittals for particular
elements.7 EPA most recently issued
guidance for infrastructure SIPs on
September 13, 2013 (2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance).8 EPA developed this
document to provide states with up-todate guidance for infrastructure SIPs for
any new or revised NAAQS. Within this
guidance, EPA describes the duty of
states to make infrastructure SIP
submittals to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made
recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are
relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submittals.9 The guidance also
discusses the substantively important
issues that are germane to certain
subsections of section 110(a)(2).
Significantly, EPA interprets sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that
7 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA
requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate
regulations for infrastructure SIP submittals. The
CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals,
regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance
or regulations pertaining to such submittals. EPA
elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
8 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13,
2013.
9 EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not
make recommendations with respect to
infrastructure SIP submittals to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the
D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7
(D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of
the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA
elected not to provide additional guidance on the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that
time. As the guidance is neither binding nor
required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide
guidance on a particular section has no impact on
a state’s CAA obligations.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27129
infrastructure SIP submittals need to
address certain issues and need not
address others. Accordingly, EPA
reviews each infrastructure SIP
submittal for compliance with the
applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
is a required element of section
110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP
submittals. Under this element, a state
must meet the substantive requirements
of section 128, which pertain to state
boards that approve permits or
enforcement orders and heads of
executive agencies with similar powers.
Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP
submittals to ensure that the state’s SIP
appropriately addresses the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance explains EPA’s
interpretation that there may be a
variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive
statutory requirements, depending on
the structure of an individual state’s
permitting or enforcement program (e.g.,
whether permits and enforcement
orders are approved by a multi-member
board or by a head of an executive
agency). However they are addressed by
the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included
in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submittals because section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
As another example, EPA’s review of
infrastructure SIP submittals with
respect to the PSD program
requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the
structural PSD program requirements
contained in part C, title I of the Act and
EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural PSD
program requirements include
provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources
and regulated NSR pollutants, including
greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast,
structural PSD program requirements do
not include provisions that are not
required under EPA’s regulations at 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option
to provide grandfathering of complete
permit applications with respect to the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the
latter optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in
the context of an infrastructure SIP
action.
For other section 110(a)(2) elements,
however, EPA’s review of a state’s
infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on
assuring that the state’s SIP meets basic
E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM
12MYP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27130
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
structural requirements. For example,
section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia,
the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources.
Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state
has a SIP-approved minor NSR program
and whether the program addresses the
pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In
the context of acting on an
infrastructure SIP submittal, however,
EPA does not think it is necessary to
conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state’s existing minor
source program (i.e., already in the
existing SIP) for compliance with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
regulations that pertain to such
programs.
With respect to certain other issues,
EPA does not believe that an action on
a state’s infrastructure SIP submittal is
necessarily the appropriate type of
action in which to address possible
deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP.
These issues include: (i) Existing
provisions related to excess emissions
from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies
addressing such excess emissions
(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related
to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s
discretion’’ that may be contrary to the
CAA because they purport to allow
revisions to SIP-approved emissions
limits while limiting public process or
not requiring further approval by EPA;
and (iii) existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final
NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186,
December 31, 2002, as amended by 72
FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (‘‘NSR
Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may
approve an infrastructure SIP submittal
without scrutinizing the totality of the
existing SIP for such potentially
deficient provisions and may approve
the submittal even if it is aware of such
existing provisions.10 It is important to
note that EPA’s approval of a state’s
infrastructure SIP submittal should not
be construed as explicit or implicit reapproval of any existing potentially
deficient provisions that relate to the
three specific issues just described.
EPA’s approach to review of
infrastructure SIP submittals is to
identify the CAA requirements that are
logically applicable to that submittal.
EPA believes that this approach to the
10 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to
include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP
submittal that contained a legal deficiency, such as
a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM
events, then EPA would need to evaluate that
provision for compliance against the rubric of
applicable CAA requirements in the context of the
action on the infrastructure SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 May 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
review of a particular infrastructure SIP
submittal is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the
general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in
110(a)(2) as requiring review of each
and every provision of a state’s existing
SIP against all requirements in the CAA
and EPA regulations merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in
question has the basic structural
elements for a functioning SIP for a new
or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as
statutory and regulatory requirements
under the CAA have evolved, they may
include some outmoded provisions and
historical artifacts. These provisions,
while not fully up to date, nevertheless
may not pose a significant problem for
the purposes of ‘‘implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a
new or revised NAAQS when EPA
evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submittal. EPA believes that a better
approach is for states and EPA to focus
attention on those elements of section
110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to
warrant a specific SIP revision due to
the promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA’s 2013
Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives
simpler recommendations with respect
to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS
pollutants to meet the visibility
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As
a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal
for any future new or revised NAAQS
for carbon monoxide need only state
this fact in order to address the visibility
prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its
approach with respect to infrastructure
SIP requirements is based on a
reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides
other avenues and mechanisms to
address specific substantive deficiencies
in existing SIPs. These other statutory
tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the
nature and severity of the alleged SIP
deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes
EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the
Agency determines that a state’s SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or
maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise
comply with the CAA.11 Section
11 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to
address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to
the treatment of excess emissions during SSM
events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of
Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 76 FR 21639,
April 18, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct
errors in past actions, such as past
approvals of SIP submittals.12
Significantly, EPA’s determination that
an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submittal is not the appropriate time
and place to address all potential
existing SIP deficiencies does not
preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of
the basis for action to correct those
deficiencies at a later time. For example,
although it may not be appropriate to
require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director’s discretion
provisions in the course of acting on an
infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be
among the statutory bases that EPA
relies upon in the course of addressing
such deficiency in a subsequent
action.13
B. Statutory Framework and Scope of
Infrastructure SIPs
As discussed in Section A of this
proposed rule, CAA section 110(a)(1)
requires each state to submit to EPA,
within three years after the
promulgation of a primary or secondary
NAAQS or any revision thereof, an
infrastructure SIP revision that provides
for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of such NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) sets the content
requirements of such a plan, which
generally relate to the information and
authorities, compliance assurances,
procedural requirements, and control
measures that constitute the
‘‘infrastructure’’ of a state’s air quality
management program. These
infrastructure SIP elements required by
section 110(a)(2) are as follows:
• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission
limits and other control measures.
• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air
quality monitoring/data system.
12 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in
past actions on SIP submittals related to PSD
programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in
State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR
82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has previously
used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the
Agency determined it had approved in error. See,
e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR 34641,
June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69
FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to
California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
13 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submittal
from Colorado on the grounds that it would have
included a director’s discretion provision
inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at
42344, July 21, 2010 (proposed disapproval of
director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540,
January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such
provisions).
E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM
12MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for
enforcement of control measures and
regulation of new and modified
stationary sources.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate
pollution transport.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate
and international pollution abatement.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate
resources and authority, conflict of
interest, and oversight of local and
regional government agencies.
• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary
source monitoring and reporting.
• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency
episodes.
• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation
with government officials, public
notification, PSD, and visibility
protection.
• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality
modeling and submittal of modeling
data.
• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting
fees.
• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/
participation by affected local entities.
Two elements identified in section
110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submittal deadline of section
110(a)(1) and are therefore not
addressed in this action. These two
elements are: section 110(a)(2)(C), to the
extent it refers to permit programs
required under CAA part D
(nonattainment NSR), and section
110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the
nonattainment planning requirements of
part D. As a result, this action does not
address infrastructure for the
nonattainment NSR portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section
110(a)(2)(I).
C. Regulatory Background
2008 Pb NAAQS
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a
revised NAAQS for Pb.14 This action
triggered a requirement for states to
submit an infrastructure SIP to address
the applicable requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2) within three years. On
October 14, 2011, EPA issued
‘‘Guidance on Section 110 Infrastructure
SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS’’, referred
to herein as EPA’s 2011 Pb Guidance.15
Depending on the timing of a given
submittal, some states relied on the
14 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The 1978 Pb
standard (1.5 mg/m3 as a quarterly average) was
modified to a rolling 3 month average not to exceed
0.15 mg/m3. EPA also revised the secondary NAAQS
to 0.15 mg/m3 and made it identical to the revised
primary standard. Id.
15 See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions 1–10 (October 14, 2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 May 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
earlier draft version of this guidance,
referred to herein as EPA’s 2011 Draft
Pb Guidance.16 EPA issued additional
guidance on infrastructure SIPs on
September 13, 2013.17
2008 Ozone NAAQS
On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a
revised NAAQS for 8-hour Ozone.18
This action triggered a requirement for
states to submit an infrastructure SIP to
address the applicable requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2) within three
years. EPA did not, however, prepare
guidance at this time for states in
submitting infrastructure SIP revisions
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.19 On
September 13, 2013, EPA issued
‘‘Guidance of Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2),’’ which provides advice
on the development of infrastructure
SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (among
other pollutants) as well as
infrastructure SIPs for new or revised
NAAQS promulgated in the future.20
II. Arizona’s Submittals
The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has
submitted several infrastructure SIP
revisions pursuant to EPA’s
promulgation of the Pb and ozone
NAAQS addressed by this proposed
rule, including the following:
• October 14, 2011—‘‘Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision under
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2);
2008 Lead NAAQS,’’ to address all of
the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements,
except for section 110(a)(2)(G),21 for the
16 ‘‘DRAFT Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead
(Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS),’’ June 17, 2011 version.
17 See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013
from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air
Directors, EPA Regions 1–10, ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2)’’ (referred to herein as ‘‘2013
Infrastructure SIP Guidance’’).
18 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
19 Preparation of guidance for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS was postponed given EPA’s
reconsideration of the standard. See 78 FR 34183
(June 6, 2013).
20 See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013
from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air
Directors, EPA Regions 1–10, ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2)’’ (referred to herein as ‘‘2013
Infrastructure SIP Guidance’’).
21 In a separate rulemaking, EPA fully approved
Arizona’s SIP to address the requirements regarding
air pollution emergency episodes in CAA section
110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 77
FR 62452 (October 15, 2012). Although ADEQ did
not submit an analysis of Section 110(a)(2)(G)
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27131
2008 Pb NAAQS (2011 Pb I–SIP
Submittal).
• December 27, 2012—‘‘Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision under
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2);
2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ to address
all of the CAA section 110(a)(2)
requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS (2012 Ozone I–SIP Submittal).
On February 19, 2015 EPA approved
elements of the above submittals along
with others with respect to the 2008 Pb
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (L) and (M).22 That action also
explained that we would separately act
on the permitting infrastructure SIP
elements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D), (J), and (K) in a subsequent
rulemaking. These permitting related
provisions are the subject of today’s
proposal.
In addition to the above 2011 and
2012 infrastructure SIP submittals,
ADEQ submitted ‘‘New Source Review
State Implementation Plan Submission’’
on October 29, 2012, and
‘‘Supplemental Information to 2012
New Source Review State
Implementation Plan Submission’’ on
July 2, 2014 (NSR Submittals). In
addition to addressing revisions to
Arizona’s New Source Review (NSR)
program, these submissions also relate
to infrastructure SIP elements in CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K),
which EPA is proposing action on in
today’s rulemaking.
As discussed in our November 24,
2014 proposed action, and our March
18, 2015 proposed action on Arizona’s
NSR Submittals,23 we have found that
the submittals we are acting on today
fulfill the procedural requirements for
public participation and other
completeness criteria described in 40
CFR 51 Appendix V.
III. EPA’s Evaluation
EPA has evaluated the 2011 Pb I–SIP
Submittal, the 2012 Ozone I–SIP
Submittal and the NSR Submittals, as
well as existing provisions of the
Arizona SIP for compliance with the
following CAA section 110(a)(2) permitrelated infrastructure SIP requirements
for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS:
requirements, we discuss them in our TSD, which
is in the docket for this rulemaking.
22 ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the 2008
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)’’ was signed on February 19,
2015 but, as of April 30, 2015, has not yet published
in the Federal Register. This action was proposed
in the Federal Register on November 24, 2014 (79
FR 69796).
23 80 FR 14044.
E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM
12MYP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27132
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for
enforcement of control measures and
regulation of new and modified
stationary sources for the 2008 Pb and
ozone NAAQS.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Prongs 1
and 2: Interstate transport—contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any
other State for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Prong 3:
Interstate transport—prevention of
significant deterioration for the 2008 Pb
and ozone NAAQS.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Prong 4:
Interstate transport—protection of
visibility for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation
with government officials, public
notification, PSD, and visibility
protection for the 2008 Pb and ozone
NAAQS.
• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality
modeling and submission of modeling
data for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
In general, the submittals demonstrate
Arizona’s compliance with most of
these permit-related infrastructure
requirements by describing appropriate
existing requirements regarding new
and modified stationary source permits,
interstate transport, consultation and air
quality modeling. CAA section 110(l)
prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP) or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. We propose to
determine that our approval of these
submittals with respect to the permitrelated infrastructure SIP elements
would comply with CAA section 110(l)
because nothing in this approval would
relax any existing SIP requirement and
the proposed SIP revision would not
interfere with the on-going process for
ensuring that requirements for RFP and
attainment of the NAAQS are met.
Based upon this analysis, EPA
proposes to partially approve the
submittals with respect to the permitrelated infrastructure SIP requirements.
However, we have also identified
several infrastructure SIP requirements
that Arizona has not demonstrated are
fulfilled by the submittals. EPA
proposes to partially disapprove
Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals
with respect to the 2008 Pb and 2008
Ozone NAAQS, as follows (details of the
partial disapprovals and partial
approvals are presented after this list):
• 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for
enforcement of control measures and
regulation of new and modified
stationary sources.
• 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate
pollution transport.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 May 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate
pollution abatement and international
air pollution.
• 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation
with government officials, public
notification, PSD, and visibility
protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling
and submission of modeling data.
PSD Programs
With respect to the requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a
program to provide for regulation of the
modification and construction of
stationary sources, including a PSD
program under part C of title I, EPA is
proposing to: (1) Disapprove the 2011
Pb and 2012 Ozone Infrastructure SIP
for ADEQ and Pinal County because the
SIP-approved PSD programs lack certain
‘‘structural’’ PSD program elements as
identified in our TSD, and (2)
disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 Ozone
Infrastructure SIP for Maricopa and
Pima counties, which do not have SIPapproved PSD programs. We note that
although the SIP remains deficient with
respect to PSD requirements in ADEQ,
Pinal, Maricopa, and Pima counties for
I–SIP purposes, no further action is
necessary for these purposes because
the Federal PSD program addresses the
deficiencies in all four areas. However,
we do recommend SIP revisions
consistent with the CAA infrastructure
SIP requirements.
With respect to the first two ‘‘prongs’’
of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (regarding
significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in any other State), we are
proposing approval for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS for the reasons stated in our
TSD. We are not proposing any action
today on the first two prongs for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS. With respect to
the third prong, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone
Infrastructure SIP for the reasons
discussed in our TSD regarding
‘‘structural’’ PSD requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(C). With respect to the
fourth prong, EPA is proposing approval
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA is not
proposing any action on prong four
today for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
will address this requirement in a
subsequent rulemaking. Finally, with
respect to the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA is
proposing to approve the 2011 Pb and
2012 ozone Infrastructure SIP with
respect to ADEQ and Pinal County,
which both implement SIP-approved
PSD programs that contain the required
notice provisions, but to disapprove the
SIP with respect to Maricopa County
and Pima County, which are subject to
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR
52.21.
With respect to the requirement in
110(a)(2)(J) to ‘‘meet the applicable
requirements of section 121 (relating to
consultation), section 127 (relating to
public notification), and part C (relating
to prevention of significant deterioration
of air quality and visibility protection),’’
we propose to find that Arizona meets
the requirements of sections 121 and
127 of the Clean Air Act but to
disapprove it for failure to fully satisfy
the requirements of part C relating to
PSD.
With respect to the requirement in
110(a)(2)(K) that the SIP provide for
specified air quality modeling and the
submission of data related to such air
quality monitoring to the Administrator,
we propose to disapprove the 2011 Pb
I–SIP and 2012 ozone I–SIP because
ADEQ, Pinal, Pima, and Maricopa
counties have not submitted adequate
provisions or a narrative that explain
how existing state and county law
satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(K).
For Pima and Maricopa counties, the
Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21
addresses this deficiency and therefore
no further action is necessary. However,
we do recommend SIP revisions
consistent with the CAA infrastructure
SIP requirements.
For all the elements that do not meet
the CAA Section 110(a)(2) requirements
in today’s proposed rule, there are
existing FIPs in place with the
exception of the modeling requirements
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for
Pinal County and ADEQ. We note that
to the extent our proposed approval or
disapproval of an I–SIP element relies
on our March 18, 2015 proposed action
on Arizona’s NSR submittals, our final
action on the I–SIP elements identified
in this notice is contingent upon our
taking final action on Arizona’s NSR
submittals to approve the NSR
submittals into the SIP, which may be
in the form of a limited approval/
limited disapproval action, as proposed
in our March 18, 2015 proposed action
on those submittals.
Our Technical Support Document
(TSD) contains more details about our
evaluation and is available in the public
docket for this rulemaking.
IV. Proposed Action
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3)
and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing
a partial approval of the submittals with
respect to the permit-related
infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J) and (K) for
the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS. EPA is
simultaneously proposing a partial
disapproval of the submittals because of
E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM
12MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
deficiencies summarized above. If this
partial disapproval is finalized,
sanctions will not be imposed under
section 179 of the Act because
infrastructure SIPs are not required
under Title 1, Part D of the Act.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore
not subject to review under the EO.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. because this
proposed partial approval and partial
disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA
section 110 will not in-and-of itself
create any new information collection
burdens but simply proposes to approve
certain State requirements, and to
disapprove certain other State
requirements, for inclusion into the SIP.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of
today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule, we
certify that this proposed action will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule does not impose any
requirements or create impacts on small
entities. This proposed partial SIP
approval and partial SIP disapproval
under CAA section 110 will not in-and-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 May 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
of itself create any new requirements
but simply proposes to approve certain
State requirements, and to disapprove
certain other State requirements, for
inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it
affords no opportunity for EPA to
fashion for small entities less
burdensome compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables or
exemptions from all or part of the rule.
Therefore, this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of this proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. EPA
has determined that the proposed
partial approval and partial disapproval
action does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This
action proposes to approve certain preexisting requirements, and to
disapprove certain other pre-existing
requirements, under State or local law,
and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, result from this
proposed action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27133
merely proposes to approve certain
State requirements, and to disapprove
certain other State requirements, for
inclusion into the SIP and does not alter
the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established
in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP on which EPA is
proposing action would not apply in
Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed action.
IV.G. Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This proposed action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action based on
health or safety risks subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This proposed partial
approval and partial disapproval under
CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself
create any new regulations but simply
proposes to approve certain State
requirements, and to disapprove certain
other State requirements, for inclusion
into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM
12MYP1
27134
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
The EPA believes that this proposed
action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 1, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015–11340 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
43 CFR Parts 47 and 48
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
RIN 1090–AA98
Land Exchange Procedures and
Procedures To Amend the Hawaiian
Homes Commission Act, 1920
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This rule would remove
ambiguities the State of Hawai‘i faces in
administration of the Hawaiian Homes
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 May 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
Commission Act. It would facilitate the
goal of the rehabilitation of the Native
Hawaiian community, including the
return of native Hawaiians to the land,
consistent with the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, the State of Hawai‘i
Admission Act, and the Hawaiian Home
Lands Recovery Act. The rule clarifies
the land exchange process, the
documents required, and the respective
responsibilities of the Department of the
Interior, the Department of Hawaiian
Home Lands, and other entities engaged
in land exchanges of Hawaiian home
lands. It also clarifies the documents
required and the responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Interior in the approval
process for proposed amendments by
the State of Hawai‘i to the Hawaiian
Homes Commission Act, 1920, as
amended.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before July 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the rulemaking by either of the
methods listed below. Please use
Regulation Identifier Number 1090–
AA98 in your message.
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions on the Web site for
submitting comments.
2. U.S. mail, courier, or hand delivery:
Office of Native Hawaiian Relations,
Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street
NW., Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ka‘i‘ini Kimo Kaloi, Director, Office of
Native Hawaiian Relations, telephone
(202) 208–7462.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In 1921, Congress enacted the
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
(HHCA), 42 Stat. 108, to provide a
homesteading program for native
Hawaiians by placing approximately
200,000 acres of land (known as
Hawaiian home lands) into trust. The
HHCA and the Hawaiian Home Lands
Trust are administered by the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
(DHHL), an agency of the State of
Hawai‘i. The HHCA provides the DHHL
the authority to propose to the Secretary
of the Interior the exchange of Hawaiian
home lands for land privately or
publicly owned in furtherance of the
purposes of the HHCA.
The Hawaiian Homes Commission
Act, among other things, created a series
of funds HHCA section 213, 42 Stat. 108
(as amended). The intent of one of these
funds is the ‘‘rehabilitation of native
Hawaiians,’’ which includes the
rehabilitation of ‘‘the educational,
economic, political, social, and cultural
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
processes by which the general welfare
and conditions of native Hawaiians are
thereby improved and perpetuated.’’ Id.
The Department of the Interior
interprets the term ‘‘rehabilitation’’ to
include political, cultural and social
reorganization that would facilitate the
stated goals of rehabilitation.1 By
providing a clear process for the
Department’s review and approval of
land exchanges and HHCA
amendments, this regulation will further
the goals of the HHCA, including
rehabilitation.
In 1959, Congress enacted the Hawai‘i
Admission Act, 73 Stat. 4, to admit the
State of Hawai‘i into the United States.
In compliance with the Hawai‘i
Admission Act, and as a compact
between the State of Hawai‘i and the
United States relating to the
management and disposition of the
Hawaiian home lands, the State of
Hawai‘i adopted the HHCA, as
amended, as a law of the State through
Article XII of the Constitution of the
State. Because Congress in the HHCA
section 223 reserved the right to alter,
amend, or repeal Title 2 of the HHCA,
section 4 of the Hawai‘i Admission Act
provides that the HHCA is subject to
amendment or repeal by the State of
Hawai‘i only with the consent of the
United States. Recognizing, however,
that it was granting the State
administrative authority, Congress in
section 4 also provided exceptions
within which the State could amend
certain administrative provisions of the
HHCA without the consent of the
United States.
During the territorial period of
Hawai‘i, the HHCA was included in the
compilation of the Revised Laws of
Hawai‘i. Following Hawai‘i’s statehood,
the HHCA was not repealed and
remains in effect with elements of both
Federal and State law. The compilation
of the HHCA was removed from the text
of the United States Code and inserted
into a note in the Code, recognizing the
State’s authority to amend provisions of
the HHCA that do not alter the
responsibilities of the United States or
infringe upon its interests or the
interests of the beneficiaries.
1 See generally Hearings on the Rehabilitation and
Colonization of Hawaiians and Other Proposed
Amendments to the Organic Act of the Territory of
Hawai’i before the House Committee on the
Territories, H.R. Rep. No. 839, 66th Cong., 2d Sess.,
at 4 (1920) (Sen. John H. Wise testified, ‘‘The
Hawaiian people are a farming people and
fishermen, out-of-door people, and [being] frozen
out of their lands . . . is one of the reasons why
the Hawaiian people are dying. Now, the only way
to save them, I contend, is to take them back to the
lands and give them the mode of living that their
ancestors were accustomed to and in that way
rehabilitate them.’’).
E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM
12MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27127-27134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11340]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0297; FRL-9927-54-Region 9]
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Lead and
Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Arizona to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and 2008 ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each State
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS. We refer to such SIP revisions as
``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are intended to address basic
structural SIP requirements for each new or revised NAAQS including,
but not limited to, legal authority, regulatory structure, resources,
permit programs, monitoring and modeling necessary to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards. We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 11, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0297, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San
Francisco, California 94105.
4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Section
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne,
San Francisco, California 94105. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0297. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through
www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected from disclosure. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105. EPA requests that you contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection during normal business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 947-4152, email:
buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.
[[Page 27128]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
B. Statutory Framework and Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
C. Regulatory Background
II. Arizona's Submittals
III. EPA's Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
EPA is acting upon several SIP submittals from Arizona that address
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states to
make a SIP submittal of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1).
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submittals ``within
3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe)
after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality
standard (or any revision thereof),'' and these SIP submittals are to
provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of
such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make
these SIP submittals, and the requirement to make the submittals is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submittal must address.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that
are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as
``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment SIP'' submittals to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submittals required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submittals, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submittals. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submittal must meet the list of requirements
therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the
statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the
nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which
specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\ Section
110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D
addresses when attainment plan SIP submittals to address nonattainment
area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to
establish a schedule for submittal of such plans for certain pollutants
when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as
nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in
some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.\3\
This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated
requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must
determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a
particular infrastructure SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
\3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submittal of certain types of SIP submittals in designated
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section
182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submittal of emissions
inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are
necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submittal, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submittal in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submittals separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submittals to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submittals either
individually or in a larger combined action.\4\ Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submittal for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submittal. For example,
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submittal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
\5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27129]]
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submittal requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submittals for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submittal for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could
be very different for different pollutants, for example because the
content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal to meet
this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for
a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submittals required under
the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submittals, EPA also has
to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2)
that logically apply to these other types of SIP submittals. For
example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submittals
required by part D have to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of
section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submittals
must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding
enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submittals required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the air quality prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD
does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated
nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this
example illustrates, each type of SIP submittal may implicate some
elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submittal. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submittals against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submittals for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document
to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for
any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty
of states to make infrastructure SIP submittals to meet basic
structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submittals.\9\ The guidance also discusses the
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submittals need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submittal for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submittals. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, regardless of whether or
not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submittals. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
\8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
\9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submittals because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submittals
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C, title I of the Act and EPA's PSD
regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions
necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and
regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By
contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions
that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the
state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit
applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA
considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic
[[Page 27130]]
structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate
minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has a SIP-
approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the
pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an
infrastructure SIP submittal, however, EPA does not think it is
necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's
existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for
compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that
pertain to such programs.
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186,
December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submittal without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submittal
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submittal that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submittals is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submittal. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submittal is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submittal. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to
focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most
likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives simpler
recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS
pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect
visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal for any future
new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in
order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submittals.\12\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011.
\12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submittals related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR
34641, June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
\13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submittal from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344, July 21, 2010
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR
4540, January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Statutory Framework and Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
As discussed in Section A of this proposed rule, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years
after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision
thereof, an infrastructure SIP revision that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) sets the content requirements of such a plan, which generally
relate to the information and authorities, compliance assurances,
procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the
``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality management program. These
infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as
follows:
Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
[[Page 27131]]
Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international
pollution abatement.
Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government
agencies.
Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal
of modeling data.
Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: section
110(a)(2)(C), to the extent it refers to permit programs required under
CAA part D (nonattainment NSR), and section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to
the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this
action does not address infrastructure for the nonattainment NSR
portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).
C. Regulatory Background
2008 Pb NAAQS
On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for Pb.\14\ This
action triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure
SIP to address the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)
within three years. On October 14, 2011, EPA issued ``Guidance on
Section 110 Infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS'', referred to
herein as EPA's 2011 Pb Guidance.\15\ Depending on the timing of a
given submittal, some states relied on the earlier draft version of
this guidance, referred to herein as EPA's 2011 Draft Pb Guidance.\16\
EPA issued additional guidance on infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The 1978 Pb standard (1.5
[mu]g/m\3\ as a quarterly average) was modified to a rolling 3 month
average not to exceed 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA also revised the
secondary NAAQS to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ and made it identical to the
revised primary standard. Id.
\15\ See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division
Directors, Regions 1-10 (October 14, 2011).
\16\ ``DRAFT Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' June 17, 2011 version.
\17\ See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 from Stephen D.
Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Air Directors, EPA Regions 1-10, ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (referred to herein as
``2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 Ozone NAAQS
On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for 8-hour Ozone.\18\
This action triggered a requirement for states to submit an
infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2) within three years. EPA did not, however, prepare
guidance at this time for states in submitting infrastructure SIP
revisions for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.\19\ On September 13, 2013, EPA
issued ``Guidance of Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' which
provides advice on the development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008
ozone NAAQS (among other pollutants) as well as infrastructure SIPs for
new or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
\19\ Preparation of guidance for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS was
postponed given EPA's reconsideration of the standard. See 78 FR
34183 (June 6, 2013).
\20\ See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 from Stephen D.
Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Air Directors, EPA Regions 1-10, ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (referred to herein as
``2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Arizona's Submittals
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has
submitted several infrastructure SIP revisions pursuant to EPA's
promulgation of the Pb and ozone NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule,
including the following:
October 14, 2011--``Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2008 Lead
NAAQS,'' to address all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements,
except for section 110(a)(2)(G),\21\ for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (2011 Pb I-
SIP Submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ In a separate rulemaking, EPA fully approved Arizona's SIP
to address the requirements regarding air pollution emergency
episodes in CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. 77 FR 62452 (October 15, 2012). Although ADEQ did not submit
an analysis of Section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements, we discuss them in
our TSD, which is in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 27, 2012--``Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2008 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS,'' to address all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements
for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (2012 Ozone I-SIP Submittal).
On February 19, 2015 EPA approved elements of the above submittals
along with others with respect to the 2008 Pb and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (E), (F), (G), (H), (L) and (M).\22\ That action also explained
that we would separately act on the permitting infrastructure SIP
elements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K) in a
subsequent rulemaking. These permitting related provisions are the
subject of today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Arizona; Infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
was signed on February 19, 2015 but, as of April 30, 2015, has not
yet published in the Federal Register. This action was proposed in
the Federal Register on November 24, 2014 (79 FR 69796).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the above 2011 and 2012 infrastructure SIP
submittals, ADEQ submitted ``New Source Review State Implementation
Plan Submission'' on October 29, 2012, and ``Supplemental Information
to 2012 New Source Review State Implementation Plan Submission'' on
July 2, 2014 (NSR Submittals). In addition to addressing revisions to
Arizona's New Source Review (NSR) program, these submissions also
relate to infrastructure SIP elements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D), (J), and (K), which EPA is proposing action on in today's
rulemaking.
As discussed in our November 24, 2014 proposed action, and our
March 18, 2015 proposed action on Arizona's NSR Submittals,\23\ we have
found that the submittals we are acting on today fulfill the procedural
requirements for public participation and other completeness criteria
described in 40 CFR 51 Appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 80 FR 14044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA's Evaluation
EPA has evaluated the 2011 Pb I-SIP Submittal, the 2012 Ozone I-SIP
Submittal and the NSR Submittals, as well as existing provisions of the
Arizona SIP for compliance with the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
permit-related infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb and
ozone NAAQS:
[[Page 27132]]
Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources for the
2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Prongs 1 and 2: Interstate
transport--contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere
with maintenance by, any other State for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Prong 3: Interstate transport--
prevention of significant deterioration for the 2008 Pb and ozone
NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Prong 4: Interstate transport--
protection of visibility for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection for the
2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission
of modeling data for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
In general, the submittals demonstrate Arizona's compliance with
most of these permit-related infrastructure requirements by describing
appropriate existing requirements regarding new and modified stationary
source permits, interstate transport, consultation and air quality
modeling. CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any
other applicable requirement of the Act. We propose to determine that
our approval of these submittals with respect to the permit-related
infrastructure SIP elements would comply with CAA section 110(l)
because nothing in this approval would relax any existing SIP
requirement and the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the
on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment
of the NAAQS are met.
Based upon this analysis, EPA proposes to partially approve the
submittals with respect to the permit-related infrastructure SIP
requirements.
However, we have also identified several infrastructure SIP
requirements that Arizona has not demonstrated are fulfilled by the
submittals. EPA proposes to partially disapprove Arizona's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the 2008 Pb and 2008
Ozone NAAQS, as follows (details of the partial disapprovals and
partial approvals are presented after this list):
110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution transport.
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution abatement
and international air pollution.
110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of
modeling data.
PSD Programs
With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include
a program to provide for regulation of the modification and
construction of stationary sources, including a PSD program under part
C of title I, EPA is proposing to: (1) Disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012
Ozone Infrastructure SIP for ADEQ and Pinal County because the SIP-
approved PSD programs lack certain ``structural'' PSD program elements
as identified in our TSD, and (2) disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 Ozone
Infrastructure SIP for Maricopa and Pima counties, which do not have
SIP-approved PSD programs. We note that although the SIP remains
deficient with respect to PSD requirements in ADEQ, Pinal, Maricopa,
and Pima counties for I-SIP purposes, no further action is necessary
for these purposes because the Federal PSD program addresses the
deficiencies in all four areas. However, we do recommend SIP revisions
consistent with the CAA infrastructure SIP requirements.
With respect to the first two ``prongs'' of CAA section
110(a)(D)(i) (regarding significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in any other State), we are proposing
approval for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the reasons stated in our TSD. We
are not proposing any action today on the first two prongs for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS. With respect to the third prong, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone Infrastructure SIP for the
reasons discussed in our TSD regarding ``structural'' PSD requirements
under section 110(a)(2)(C). With respect to the fourth prong, EPA is
proposing approval for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA is not proposing any
action on prong four today for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and will address
this requirement in a subsequent rulemaking. Finally, with respect to
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA is proposing to
approve the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone Infrastructure SIP with respect to
ADEQ and Pinal County, which both implement SIP-approved PSD programs
that contain the required notice provisions, but to disapprove the SIP
with respect to Maricopa County and Pima County, which are subject to
the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21.
With respect to the requirement in 110(a)(2)(J) to ``meet the
applicable requirements of section 121 (relating to consultation),
section 127 (relating to public notification), and part C (relating to
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility
protection),'' we propose to find that Arizona meets the requirements
of sections 121 and 127 of the Clean Air Act but to disapprove it for
failure to fully satisfy the requirements of part C relating to PSD.
With respect to the requirement in 110(a)(2)(K) that the SIP
provide for specified air quality modeling and the submission of data
related to such air quality monitoring to the Administrator, we propose
to disapprove the 2011 Pb I-SIP and 2012 ozone I-SIP because ADEQ,
Pinal, Pima, and Maricopa counties have not submitted adequate
provisions or a narrative that explain how existing state and county
law satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(K). For Pima and Maricopa
counties, the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 addresses this
deficiency and therefore no further action is necessary. However, we do
recommend SIP revisions consistent with the CAA infrastructure SIP
requirements.
For all the elements that do not meet the CAA Section 110(a)(2)
requirements in today's proposed rule, there are existing FIPs in place
with the exception of the modeling requirements under CAA section
110(a)(2)(K) for Pinal County and ADEQ. We note that to the extent our
proposed approval or disapproval of an I-SIP element relies on our
March 18, 2015 proposed action on Arizona's NSR submittals, our final
action on the I-SIP elements identified in this notice is contingent
upon our taking final action on Arizona's NSR submittals to approve the
NSR submittals into the SIP, which may be in the form of a limited
approval/limited disapproval action, as proposed in our March 18, 2015
proposed action on those submittals.
Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains more details about
our evaluation and is available in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
IV. Proposed Action
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a partial approval of the submittals with respect to the
permit-related infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J) and (K) for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS. EPA is
simultaneously proposing a partial disapproval of the submittals
because of
[[Page 27133]]
deficiencies summarized above. If this partial disapproval is
finalized, sanctions will not be imposed under section 179 of the Act
because infrastructure SIPs are not required under Title 1, Part D of
the Act.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
because this proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP
revisions under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any
new information collection burdens but simply proposes to approve
certain State requirements, and to disapprove certain other State
requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule, we
certify that this proposed action will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA
section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to
disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. Therefore, this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed partial approval and
partial disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector. This action proposes to approve certain pre-existing
requirements, and to disapprove certain other pre-existing
requirements, under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this proposed
action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to
approve certain State requirements, and to disapprove certain other
State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
on which EPA is proposing action would not apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.
IV.G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This proposed partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA
section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but
simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to
disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the
SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
[[Page 27134]]
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to
requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 1, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-11340 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
