Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Fine Particulate Matter, 50245-50252 [2024-12781]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50245-50252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-12781]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0539; FRL-11747-01-R9]


Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State 
Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Fine 
Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
partially approve and partially disapprove a revision to the Arizona 
state implementation plan (SIP) as meeting the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards''). As 
part of this action, the EPA is proposing to approve regulatory 
provisions into the Arizona SIP. The EPA is seeking public comment on 
this proposed action and will accept comments from the public on this 
proposal for the next 30 days.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2023-0539 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a 
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability 
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Dorantes, Geographic 
Strategies and Modeling Section (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3934, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The EPA's Approach To Reviewing Infrastructure SIPs
II. Background
    A. Statutory Framework
    B. Regulatory Background
III. State Submittals
    A. Infrastructure SIP Submittal
    B. Revised Rules and Regulations
IV. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals
    B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals
    C. Incorporation of Rules Into Arizona's State Implementation 
Plan
    D. Deferred Action
    E. Revising Air Quality Control Regions and Evaluating Emergency 
Episode Planning Requirements for PM2.5 in Arizona
    F. Request for Public Comments
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The EPA's Approach To Reviewing Infrastructure SIPs

    The EPA has historically referred to 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, the 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 CAA title I part 
D, ``regional haze SIP'' submittals required by EPA rule to address the 
visibility protection requirements of 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) of the Act requires that each State adopt and 
submit an infrastructure SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, and that the

[[Page 50246]]

EPA act on such SIP submittals. They are intended to address basic 
structural SIP requirements for 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.
    Herein, the EPA is acting on SIP submittals from Arizona that 
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) with respect to the primary and secondary 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Under section 110(a)(1), states are required to 
submit infrastructure SIPs within three 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). The statute directly imposes on States the duty to make these 
SIP submittals, and the requirement to make the submittals is not 
conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other than promulgating a 
new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 
``elements'' that each such infrastructure SIP submittal must address.
    CAA 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\ The 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, the 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, CAA 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 the 
EPA to interpret some CAA 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 the EPA has long noted that this literal 
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a 
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in CAA title I part D, 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 the 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, 
the 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 the 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, the 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, the EPA can 
elect to act on such submittals either individually or in a larger 
combined action.\4\ Similarly, the 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, the EPA has sometimes 
elected to act at different times on various elements and subelements 
of the same infrastructure SIP submittal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., 70 FR 25162, 25163-25165 (May 12, 2005), 
explaining the relationship between the timing requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I).
    \3\ The EPA notes that this ambiguity within CAA 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, for 
example, 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., the 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 NSR rule for PM2.5 
at 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013), and the EPA's final action on the 
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at 78 FR 4337 
(January 22, 2013).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee made a SIP 
revision to the EPA demonstrating that the State meets the 
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). The EPA 
proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) at 77 FR 
3213 (January 23, 2012) and took final action at 77 FR 14976 (March 
14, 2012). The EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all 
other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's 
December 14, 2007 submittal; see 77 FR 22533 (April 16, 2012) and 77 
FR 42997 (July 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also 
arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submittal requirements for 
different NAAQS. Thus, the EPA notes that not every element of section 
110(a)(2) would be relevant, 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, 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 new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when the EPA reviews other types of SIP submittals required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submittals, the 
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 emissions 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

[[Page 50247]]

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), the 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, the 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, the 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, the 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\ The 
EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 
13, 2013 (``2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance'').\8\ The EPA developed 
this document to provide States with up-to-date guidance for 
infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, 
the 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. The EPA also made 
recommendations about many specific subsections of CAA 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, the 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, the EPA reviews each 
infrastructure SIP submittal for compliance with the applicable 
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires the 
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 the EPA provides guidance or 
regulations pertaining to such submittals. The EPA elects to issue 
such guidance in order to assist States, as appropriate.
    \8\ Memorandum dated September 13, 2013, from Stephen D. Page, 
Director, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, U.S. EPA, 
Subject: ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2).''
    \9\ The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals to 
address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The 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, the 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 the EPA elects to provide 
guidance on a particular section has no impact on a State's CAA 
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, CAA 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, the 
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 the 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 the 
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, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP 
submittals with respect to the PSD program requirements in CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) focuses on the 
structural PSD program requirements contained in CAA title I part C and 
the 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 (GHG). 
By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include 
provisions that are not required under the EPA's regulations at 40 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 the EPA considers 
irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other CAA section 110(a)(2) elements, however, the EPA's review 
of a State's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the 
State's SIP meets basic 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, the 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, the 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 the 
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, the 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 (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA 
policies addressing such excess emissions; (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 the EPA; and (iii) existing provisions 
for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of 
the EPA's ``Final NSR

[[Page 50248]]

Improvement Rule.'' \10\ Thus, the 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.\11\ It 
is important to note that the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 
32526 (June 13, 2007).
    \11\ By contrast, the 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 the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's approach to reviewing infrastructure SIP submittals is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submittal. The 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 CAA 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 the EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 
SIP submittal. The EPA believes that a better approach is for States 
and the EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) 
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation 
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives simpler 
recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 
pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of CAA 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, the EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of CAA 
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 the EPA to take appropriately 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the 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.\12\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes the EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submittals.\13\ Significantly, the 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 the 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, the EPA believes that section 
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that the EPA relies upon 
in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See 76 FR 21639 (April 18, 
2011).
    \13\ The 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). The 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).
    \14\ See, e.g., the 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, 42344 (July 21, 2010) 
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 
4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Statutory Framework

    As described in the previous section, CAA section 110(a)(1) 
requires States to make a SIP submittal within three years after the 
promulgation of a new or revised primary NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) 
includes a list of specific elements that each infrastructure SIP 
submittal must include. 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.
     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 CAA 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 that it refers to permit programs required 
under 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 requirements for the 
nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the entirety of 
section 110(a)(2)(I). Additionally, this action does not address the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to contributions 
to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other States, 
referred to as ``prongs 1 and 2''

[[Page 50249]]

and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) pertaining to interference with visibility 
protection in other States, referred to as ``prong 4''. The EPA will 
take action on Arizona's SIP revision with respect to prongs 1, 2, and 
4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in a separate, future rulemaking.

B. Regulatory Background

    In January 2013, the EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for 
annual PM2.5, triggering a requirement for States to submit 
infrastructure SIPs. The EPA strengthened the primary annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level from 15 micrograms per 
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\, while maintaining 
the secondary standard.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 78 FR 3086, (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. State Submittals

A. Infrastructure SIP Submittal

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted 
two SIP revisions to address the infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
On December 11, 2015, ADEQ submitted the ``Arizona State Implementation 
Plan Revision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (``2015 PM2.5 I-SIP 
submittal'').\16\ On February 10, 2022, ADEQ submitted the ``State 
Implementation Plan Revision: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) for the 
2012 Fine Particulate & 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' (``2022 I-SIP 
supplement'').\17\ The submittals collectively address the 
infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as 
described by this proposed rule. We refer to them collectively herein 
as ``Arizona's 2012 PM2.5 I-SIP submittals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Letter dated December 11, 2015, from Eric Massey, Director, 
Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Arizona Infrastructure 
State Implementation Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
    \17\ Letter dated February 10, 2022, from Daniel Czecholinski, 
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Martha Guzman, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Submittal of the Arizona 
State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Sections 
110(a)(2) for the 2012 Fine Particulate and the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We find that Arizona's 2012 PM2.5 I-SIP submittals meet 
the procedural requirements for public participation under CAA section 
110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102.\18\ We also find that they meet the 
applicable completeness criteria in Appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. We 
are proposing to act on these submittals with respect to the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS except for those portions of the 2012 
PM2.5 I-SIP submittals addressing prongs 1, 2, and 4 of the 
interstate transport requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). We 
are also not taking action on the portions of the 2022 I-SIP supplement 
addressing the 2015 ozone NAAQS in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For the 2015 PM2.5 I-SIP submittal, ADEQ 
provided a 30-day public comment period that started on November 9, 
2015 and concluded on December 9, 2015, with a public hearing 
occuring on the same date. No comments were expressed during the 30-
day comment period nor at the public hearing. The details of this 
public comment period and hearing can be found in Appendix B of the 
2015 PM2.5 I-SIP submittal. Similarly, for the 2022 I-SIP 
supplement, ADEQ also provided a 30-day public comment between 
December 13, 2021, and January 13, 2022, with a public hearing 
occuring on January 13, 2022. ADEQ received no verbal or written 
comments on the 2022 I-SIP supplement. The details of this public 
comment period and hearing can be found in Appendix E to the 2022 I-
SIP supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Revised Rules and Regulations

1. Rules and Regulations Submitted by the State
    In a February 10, 2022 letter transmitting the 2022 I-SIP 
supplement, ADEQ included revised rules and regulations for 
incorporation by reference into the Arizona SIP. These submittals 
include: Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-220 ``Air Pollution 
Emergency Episodes,'' and the ``Procedures for the Prevention of 
Emergency Episodes;'' the Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 49-432(C), 
dealing with public availability of emissions records, Pinal County 
Code (PCC) 17.24.010 ``Confidentiality of trade secrets, sales data, 
and proprietary information,'' and Maricopa County Air Pollution 
Control Regulations, ``Regulation VI--Emergency Episodes Rule 600,'' 
(``Rule 600'').\19\ The EPA has already proposed to approve the revised 
ARS 49-432 and PCC 17.24.010 for incorporation into the Arizona SIP in 
a previous proposed rulemaking.\20\ AAC R18-2-220 and Rule 600 are 
included as part of the 2022 I-SIP supplement to satisfy the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS emergency episodes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ These submitted revised rules and regulations are included 
in Appendices C and D the 2022 I-SIP supplement.
    \20\ 87 FR 74349, December 5, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions
    The revised AAC R18-2-220 is intended to satisfy outstanding CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements by adding details of averaging time 
with alert, warning, emergency, and significant harm levels for 
PM2.5. Specifically, the averaging time is set to 24 hours, 
the alert level is set to 140.5 [micro]g/m\3\, the warning level is set 
to 210.5 [micro]g/m\3\, the emergency level is set to 280.5 [micro]g/
m\3\, and the significant harm level is set to 350.5 [micro]g/m\3\. 
These action levels are set in accordance with the recommendations in 
EPA's 2009 guidance on PM2.5 infrastructure SIPs (``2009 
PM2.5 I-SIP Guidance'').\21\ Furthermore, the ADEQ 
``Procedures for Prevention of Emergency Episodes'' incorporated by 
reference along with AAC R18-2-220 contains the specific actions and 
processes that the State must follow in the event of an air pollution 
event reaching the various thresholds. Additionally, Maricopa County 
Air Quality Department (MCAQD) amended Rule 600 to align the rule with 
the episode level criteria and significant harm levels listed in AAC 
R18-2-220 and the 2009 PM2.5 I-SIP Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) 
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

    We have evaluated Arizona's 2012 PM2.5 I-SIP submittals, 
the associated revised rules and regulations, and the existing 
provisions of the Arizona SIP for compliance with the infrastructure 
SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) and the applicable 
regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (``Requirements for Preparation, 
Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation Plans''). The technical 
support document (TSD) for this rulemaking is available in the docket 
and includes our detailed evaluation for these infrastructure SIP 
elements, rationale for our proposed actions, and our evaluation of 
various statutory and regulatory provisions identified and submitted by 
Arizona.

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals

    Based on the evaluation presented in this notice and in the 
accompanying TSD, the EPA proposes to approve Arizona's 2012 
PM2.5 I-SIP submittals with respect to the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS for the following CAA requirements. Proposed 
partial approvals are indicated by the parenthetical ``(in part).''
     110(a)(2)(A)--Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C)--Program for enforcement of control measures 
and regulation of new stationary sources (in part).
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Interference with PSD, or ``prong 3'' 
(in part).
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate pollution abatement, CAA 
section 126 (in part).

[[Page 50250]]

     110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International pollution abatement, CAA 
section 115.
     110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate resources and authority, conflict 
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
     110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency episodes.
     110(a)(2)(H)--Consultation with government officials.
     110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation with government officials, 
public notification, PSD, and visibility protection (in part).
     110(a)(2)(K)--Air quality modeling and submission of 
modeling data.
     110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities.
    Details about the partial approvals noted in this section are 
provided in Section IV.B of this notice regarding proposed partial 
disapprovals. The EPA is taking no action on prongs 1, 2, and 4 of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in this rulemaking.

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals

    The EPA proposes to partially disapprove Arizona's 2012 
PM2.5 I-SIP submittals with respect to the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS for the following Clean Air Act requirements.
     110(a)(2)(C)--Program for enforcement of control measures 
and regulation of new stationary sources (in part).
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Interference with PSD, or ``prong 3'' 
(in part).
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate pollution abatement, CAA 
section 126 (in part).
     110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation with government officials, 
public notification, PSD and visibility protection (in part).
    The EPA is proposing to partially disapprove Arizona's 2012 
PM2.5 I-SIP submittals with respect to the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS for these CAA requirements due to deficiencies 
with respect to PSD permitting of GHG in all permitting jurisdictions 
in Arizona and with respect to PSD permitting of all NSR-regulated 
pollutants in Pima County. The EPA's proposed disapprovals apply only 
to the portions of these requirements that relate to PSD permitting of 
GHG in all areas of Arizona and with respect to PSD permitting of all 
regulated pollutants in Pima County.
    Arizona's SIP does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory 
requirements for PSD permit programs under CAA title I, part C. Thus, 
Pima County currently implements the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 
52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants pursuant to a delegation 
agreement with the EPA, and all Arizona jurisdictions implement the 
Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for GHG because Arizona is 
prohibited by State law from regulating emissions of GHG. Although the 
Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD permitting for 
certain pollutants in certain areas of Arizona as described, these 
deficiencies are adequately addressed in both areas by existing Federal 
implementation plans (FIPs). If finalized, these partial disapprovals 
of Arizona's SIP would not create any new consequences for Arizona, the 
relevant county agencies, or the EPA, as Arizona and the county 
agencies already implement the EPA's Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 
52.21, pursuant to delegation agreements, for all regulated NSR 
pollutants. These partial disapprovals, if finalized, would also not 
result in any offset or highway sanctions, which are not triggered by 
disapprovals of infrastructure SIPs under CAA section 110(a)(2).

C. Incorporation of Rules Into Arizona's State Implementation Plan

    As part of our proposed approval of the Arizona infrastructure SIP 
submittal elements listed in Section IV.A, we are also proposing to 
approve two rules and one plan included with the 2022 I-SIP supplement 
for incorporation into the Arizona State SIP: the revised AAC R18-2-220 
``Air Pollution Emergency Episodes,'' submitted December 17, 2021, and 
the ``Procedures for the Prevention of Emergency Episodes'' submitted 
February 10, 2022, with the 2022 I-SIP supplement.\22\ Similarly, we 
are proposing approval of the revised Maricopa County Air Pollution 
Control Regulation VI, ``Emergency Episodes: Rule 600 Emergency 
Episodes,'' submitted on December 17, 2021, for incorporation into the 
State SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ADEQ's ``Procedures for the Prevention of Emegency 
Episodes'' are located in Appendix D to the 2022 I-SIP supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a general matter, rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA 
section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA 
requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP 
control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent 
or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). We have 
evaluated the ADEQ and MCAQD revised rules for compliance with CAA 
requirements for SIPs set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2) and for 
compliance with CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA sections 
110(l) and 193. In general, the rules strengthen the SIP for the 
reasons discussed in Section III.B.2 of this document and in our TSD. 
Based upon our analysis, we propose to find that AAC R18-2-220 ``Air 
Pollution Emergency Episodes,'' the ``Procedures for the Prevention of 
Emergency Episodes,'' and Maricopa County Rule 600 meet the 
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), and 193. Therefore, the 
EPA is proposing to approve the submitted revisions to AAC R18-2-220 
``Air Pollution Emergency Episodes,'' the ``Procedures for the 
Prevention of Emergency Episodes,'' and Maricopa County Rule 600 into 
the Arizona SIP.

D. Deferred Action

    The EPA will address the following Clean Air Act Requirements in 
separate rulemakings:
     110(a)(2)(D) (in part): Interstate Pollution Transport.
    [cir] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--significant contribution to a 
nonattainment area (prong 1).
    [cir] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--significant contribution to a maintenance 
area (prong 2).
    [cir] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--interference with visibility protection 
in Class I areas (prong 4).
    We note that the EPA intends to act on Prongs 1 and 2 of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a separate rulemaking. We intend to act on Prong 
4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) when we act on Arizona's plan addressing 
Regional Haze requirements for the second planning period.

E. Revising Air Quality Control Regions and Evaluating Emergency 
Episode Planning Requirements for PM2.5 in Arizona

    Section 51.150 provides criteria for the classification of areas 
for emergency episode planning purposes based on measured 
concentrations of ambient air pollutants, specifically sulfur oxides, 
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. The 
priority thresholds for classification of air quality control regions 
(AQCR) are listed at 40 CFR 51.150, and the specific classifications of 
AQCR in Arizona are listed at 40 CFR 52.121. Consistent with the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of an AQCR must rely on 
the most recent three years of air quality data. Under 40 CFR 51.151 
and 51.152, regions classified under the more stringent classifications 
of Priority I, IA, or II are required to have SIP-approved emergency 
episode contingency plans, while those classified Priority III are not 
required to have plans. We also interpret 40 CFR 51.153 as establishing 
the means for

[[Page 50251]]

States to review air quality data and request a higher or lower 
classification for any given region and as providing the regulatory 
basis for the EPA to reclassify such regions, as appropriate, under the 
authorities of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(G) and 301(a)(1).
    Arizona has six AQCRs: Maricopa Intrastate, which includes Maricopa 
County; Pima Intrastate, which includes Pima County; Northern Arizona 
Intrastate, which includes Apache, Coconino, Navajo, and Yavapai 
Counties; Mohave-Yuma Intrastate, which includes Mohave and Yuma 
Counties; Central Arizona Intrastate, which includes Gila and Pinal 
Counties; and Southeast Arizona Intrastate, which includes Cochise, 
Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz Counties.
    La Paz County is not listed within any of Arizona's AQCRs. This 
county composed the northern portion of Yuma County prior to its 
establishment in 1983. The constituent counties of Arizona's AQCRs in 
40 CFR 52.121 and the delimited boundaries listed in 40 CFR 81.268 
predate the incorporation of La Paz County.\23\ Since that time, 
neither 40 CFR 52.121 nor 40 CFR 81.268 have been revised to include 
this county. Therefore, we propose a revision to 40 CFR 52.121 to add 
La Paz County to the list of constituent counties for the Mohave-Yuma 
Intrastate AQCR, and to 40 CFR 81.268, we propose to add La Paz County 
to the delimited area of the Mohave-Yuma Intrastate AQCR.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 45 FR 7545 (February 4, 1980).
    \24\ The EPA has discussed the basis for these proposed 
amendments to 40 CFR 52.121 and 40 CFR 81.268 with ADEQ and the 
State's concurrence with these revisions will be included as a 
formal request letter in the docket for this rulemaking with our 
notice of final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's emergency episode regulations were promulgated before the 
agency's regulation of PM2.5 as a priority pollutant, and do 
not include concentrations for the priority classification based on 
PM2.5 concentrations in 40 CFR 51.150. As explained in our 
TSD, to determine the appropriate priority classifications for 
Arizona's AQCRs and any related emergency episode planning 
requirements, we followed the recommended threshold concentrations and 
corresponding priority classifications set forth in the EPA's 2009 
PM2.5 I-SIP Guidance. We evaluated the three most recent 
years of complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air 
monitoring data to yield maximum 24-hour PM2.5 
concentrations for each county; \25\ the maximum recorded 24-hour 
PM2.5 concentrations along with our proposed classifications 
for each AQCR are compiled in Table 16 of the TSD accompanying this 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ EPA AQS Daily Summary Report, AMP435, for 2020-2022 24-Hour 
PM2.5 Values for Arizona. Report accessed July 31, 2023, 
included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air quality data from 2020-2022 indicate the maximum 24-hour 
PM2.5 concentrations monitored in the Pima Intrastate, 
Northern Arizona Intrastate, Mohave-Yuma Intrastate, Central Arizona 
Intrastate, and Southeast Arizona Interstate AQCRs all fall below the 
Priority II minimum of 140.5 [micro]g/m\3\ for PM2.5 set 
forth in the 2009 PM2.5 I-SIP Guidance. However, the maximum 
24-hour concentration measured in the Maricopa Intrastate was 222.4 
[micro]g/m\3\, exceeding the minimum Priority I threshold of 210.5 
[micro]g/m\3\. Therefore, the Maricopa Intrastate AQCR is required to 
have an emergency episode plan for PM2.5. As mentioned in 
Section IV.C of this notice, ADEQ and Maricopa County have both 
submitted emergency episode plans, and we propose to find that these 
plans satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.152(a)-(b) and 110(a)(2)(G) 
of the CAA.

F. Request for Public Comments

    The EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed rulemaking. 
We will accept comments from the public for the next 30 days. We will 
consider any comments received before taking final action.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the ADEQ and MCAQD rules and plan listed and discussed in 
Section IV.C of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to 
make, these documents generally available electronically in the docket 
for this rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review State 
choices, and approve State choices, provided that they meet the 
criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely 
proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove a revision to 
the Arizona SIP as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 14094 (88 FR 21879, January 
21, 2011);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a State program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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 Clean Air Act.
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Adress Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean 
that ``no group of people should

[[Page 50252]]

bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, 
including those resulting from negative environmental consequences of 
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and 
policies.''
    The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice 
considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable 
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an 
evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider 
EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action described in this 
proposed rulemaking, this action is expected to have a neutral to 
positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration 
of EJ is not required as part of this proposed action, and there is no 
information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 
12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Dated: June 6, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-12781 Filed 6-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P