Environmental Protection Agency December 3, 2019 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment and identified by EPA ICR No. 1632.06 and OMB Control No. 2070-0133, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2020. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve two state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of California addressing the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and one SIP revision regarding a permit rule. These SIP revisions address the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD or District) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD or District) portions of the California SIP. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and its implementing regulations.

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on submissions from the State of New Mexico and the City of AlbuquerqueBernalillo County that are intended to demonstrate that the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain interstate transport requirements of the CAA for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These submissions address interstate transport, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which requires each state's SIP to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. The EPA is proposing to approve these submittals based on the conclusion that New Mexico will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes a procedural rule intended to streamline and modernize part of the Agency's permitting process by creating a new, time-limited alternative dispute resolution process (ADR process) as a precondition to judicial review. Under this proposal, the parties in the ADR process may agree by unanimous consent to either extend the ADR process or proceed with an appeal before the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). If the parties don't agree to proceed with either the ADR process or an EAB appeal, the permit would become final and could be challenged in federal court. EPA also proposes to amend the current appeal process to clarify the scope and standard of EAB review, remove a provision authorizing participation in appeals by amicus curiae, and eliminate the EAB's authority to review Regional permit decisions on its own initiative, even absent an appeal. To promote internal efficiencies, EPA also proposes to establish a 60-day deadline for the EAB to issue a final decision once an appeal has been fully briefed and argued and to limit the length of EAB opinions to only as long as necessary to address the issues raised in an appeal; EPA also proposes to limit the availability of extensions to file briefs. The proposed rule would apply to permits issued by or on behalf of EPA under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act. In addition to these permit appeal reforms, EPA proposes several additional reforms designed to provide tools to better allow the Administrator to exercise his or her statutory authority together with appropriate checks and balances on how the Board exercises its delegated authority. In this vein, EPA proposes to set twelve-year terms for EAB Judges, which the Administrator may renew at the end of that twelve-year period or reassign the Judge to another position within EPA. EPA also proposes a new process to identify which EAB opinions will be considered precedential. Finally, EPA proposes a new mechanism by which the Administrator, by and through the General Counsel, can issue a dispositive legal interpretation in any matter pending before the EAB.