Proposed Rule2022-20135
Air Plan Approval; California; San Diego Air Pollution Control District; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 19, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act"), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing full approval of revisions to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from architectural coating operations. We are proposing a full approval of the amended SDCAPCD and SJVUAPCD architectural coatings rules because they meet all the applicable requirements. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 180 (Monday, September 19, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57161-57165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20135]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0318; FRL-10004-01-R9]
Air Plan Approval; California; San Diego Air Pollution Control
District; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing full approval of revisions to the
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) and San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from
architectural coating operations. We are proposing a full approval of
the amended SDCAPCD and SJVUAPCD architectural coatings rules because
they meet all the applicable requirements. We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0318 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
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: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3024 or by
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4e8c5dec5d6d1d78ac5d6cacbc8c0e4c1d4c58ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2fed3c8d3c0c7c19cd3c0dcddded6f2d7c2d39cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittals
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. What are the rule deficiencies?
D. The EPA's Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
E. Proposed Action and Public Comments
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittals
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
[[Page 57162]]
Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted/amended/
Local agency Rule No. Rule title revised Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDCAPCD............... 67.0.1 Architectural Coatings............. 2/10/2021 4/20/2021, as an
(effective for attachment to a
state law letter dated 4/
purposes on 1/1/ 16/2021.
2022).
SJVUAPCD.............. 4601 Architectural Coatings............. 4/16/2020 4/23/2020, as an
(effective upon attachment to a
adoption but the letter of the
new or revised same date.
VOC content
limits were
effective 1/1/
2022).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The submittal for SDCAPCD Rule 67.0.1 became complete by operation
of law on October 20, 2021. On June 29, 2020, the EPA determined that
the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4601 met the completeness criteria in
40 CFR part 51, appendix V.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter from Elizabeth J. Adams, Director, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB, dated June 29, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
We approved an earlier version of SDCAPCD Rule 67.0.1 into the SIP
on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68320). The SDCAPCD adopted revisions to Rule
67.0.1 on February 10, 2021, and the revisions became effective as a
matter of state law on January 1, 2022. CARB submitted the amended rule
to the EPA on April 20, 2021, as an attachment to a letter dated April
16, 2021. If we take final action to approve the February 10, 2021
version of Rule 67.0.1, it will replace the previously-approved version
of the rule in the SDCAPCD portion of the applicable California SIP.
We approved an earlier version of SJVUPACD Rule 4601 into the SIP
on November 8, 2011 (76 FR 69135). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to
Rule 4601 on April 16, 2020 (effective upon adoption), and CARB
submitted the amended rule to us on April 23, 2020, as an attachment to
a letter of the same date. If we take final action to approve the April
16, 2020 version of Rule 4601, it will replace the previously-approved
version of the rule in the SJVUAPCD portion of the applicable
California SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level
ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control VOC emissions. Architectural coatings are
coatings that are applied to stationary structures and their
accessories. They include house paints, stains, industrial maintenance
coatings, traffic coatings, and many other products. VOCs are emitted
from the coatings during application and curing, and from the
associated solvents used for thinning and clean-up.
SDCAPCD Rule 67.0.1 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4601 regulate VOC emissions
from architectural coatings. The rules were updated to conform to
CARB's Suggested Control Measures (SCM) for Architectural Coatings, May
2019. More specifically, to conform with CARB's 2019 update of the SCM
for architectural coatings, SDCAPCD and SJVUAPCD added certain new
categories of coatings, tightened VOC limits for certain other
categories of coatings, added new limits for colorants, updated test
methods, and clarified and tightened certain definitions and
administrative requirements. SDCAPCD estimates that aligning Rule
67.0.1 with the CARB 2019 SCM for architectural coatings will reduce
VOC emissions by approximately 0.22 tons per day (tpd) in San Diego
County.\2\ SJVUAPCD estimates that aligning Rule 4601 with the CARB
2019 SCM will reduce VOC emissions in San Joaquin Valley by
approximately 0.30 tpd.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ SDCAPCD, Agenda Item, February 10, 2021, Subject: Noticed
Public Hearing--Adoption of Amendments to Rule 67.0.1--Architectural
Coatings (Districts: All), Attachment C, Incremental Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis, Proposed Amended Rule 67.0.1--Architectural
Coatings, page C-1.
\3\ SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to
Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) April 16, 2020, pages 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both rules were also amended to include provisions to address
contingency measure requirements for nonattainment areas with respect
to ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). With respect
to contingency provisions, the air districts amended their respective
architectural coatings rules to include new sections that would remove
the rules' small container exemptions (SCE) (i.e., one liter or less)
for certain types of coatings within 60 days of the EPA's determination
that the area failed to meet a reasonable further progress (RFP)
milestone or to attain the ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date. As originally submitted, the
contingency provision in the SJVUAPCD architectural coatings rule
(section 4.3 of Rule 4601) included language that was inconsistent with
the requirements for contingency measures in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) and inconsistent with the intent of the SJVUAPCD's Board in
adopting the provision. However, the SJVUAPCD has subsequently made an
administrative correction to the rule text to clarify the contingency
measure provision consistent with the SJVUAPCD's Board's intent and has
submitted the revised rule to the EPA to replace the earlier submitted
version.\4\ For this proposed action, we are basing our evaluation on
the SJVUAPCD architectural coatings rule as corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter from Sheraz Gill, Deputy Air Pollution Control
Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Doris Lo, Manager, EPA Region IX, dated August
5, 2022. CARB submitted the corrected version of the rule to EPA
electronically on August 11, 2022, to replace to earlier version of
the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDCAPCD estimates that removing the SCE for certain coatings will
reduce VOC emissions by approximately 0.72 tons per day (tpd) in San
Diego County.\5\ SJVUAPCD estimates that removing the SCE for certain
coatings will reduce VOC emissions in San Joaquin Valley by
approximately 0.65 tpd.\6\ The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs)
have more information about these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ SDCAPCD, 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County (October 2020),
Attachment O (Contingency Measures for San Diego County), page O-1.
\6\ SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to
Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) April 16, 2020, pages 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
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 are also evaluating whether the
rules meet the requirements for contingency measures specified in CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).
[[Page 57163]]
Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of
VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see
CAA section 182(b)(2)). San Diego County and San Joaquin Valley have
been designated as Severe or Extreme nonattainment areas for the 2008
and 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (see 40
CFR 81.305).\7\ Because there is no relevant EPA CTG document for
architectural coatings and because there are no major architectural
coating sources within San Diego County or San Joaquin Valley,
architectural coatings are not subject to RACT requirements. However,
as nonattainment areas for ozone, San Diego County and San Joaquin
Valley are subject to the requirement to implement all reasonably
available control measures (RACM) as needed to attain the 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates. Guidance and policy
documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation
and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants
include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ San Joaquin Valley is also designated as Moderate
nonattainment for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and Serious
nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and is
thus subject to the requirement to implement reasonably available
control measures (RACM) and best available control measures (BACM).
However, VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to ambient
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. See
85 FR 17382, at 17394 (March 27, 2020) (proposed approval of state's
precursor demonstration for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in San
Joaquin Valley), finalized at 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020); and 86 FR
49100, at 49109 (September 1, 2021) (proposed approval of state's
precursor demonstration for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in San
Joaquin Valley).Thus, submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4601 does not need to
meet the requirements for RACM or BACM with respect to the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings, 40 CFR 59, Subpart D.
5. California Air Resources Board (CARB) Suggested Control Measure
for Architectural Coatings, May 2019.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
We have evaluated the enforceability of submitted SDCAPCD Rule
67.0.1 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4601 with respect to applicability and
exemptions; standard of conduct and compliance dates; sunset
provisions; discretionary provisions; and test methods, recordkeeping
and reporting, and have concluded that both rules continue to be
enforceable for the purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
We have also determined that the submitted rules implement RACM-
level controls for this particular area source because the VOC content
limits are more stringent than the corresponding federal requirements
in Table 1 to Subpart D of 40 CFR part 59, ``Content Limits for
Architectural Coatings,'' and are consistent with CARB's 2019 SCM.
Third, we have found that, because the submitted rules tighten VOC
content limits for certain coating categories and restrict certain
existing exemptions, they would not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP)
or any other requirement of the CAA, and as such, may be approved under
CAA sections 110(l) and 193.
Lastly, we have reviewed the specific new provisions in submitted
SDCAPCD Rule 67.0.1 (paragraph (b)(6)) and submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4601
(section 4.3) that are intended to address contingency measure
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. As noted previously, the
contingency measure in both rules is the removal of the SCE for certain
coating categories within 60 days if the EPA makes certain final
determinations.
Under the CAA, ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2
as ``Serious'' or above must include in their SIPs contingency measures
consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). CAA section 172(c)(9)
requires states with nonattainment areas to provide for the
implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails
to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
Such measures must be included in the SIP as contingency measures to
take effect in any such case without further action by the state or the
EPA. Section 182(c)(9) requires states to provide contingency measures
in the event that an ozone nonattainment area fails to meet any
applicable RFP milestone.
Contingency measures are additional controls or measures to be
implemented in the event the area fails to make RFP or to attain the
NAAQS by the attainment date. Contingency measures must be designed so
as to be implemented prospectively; already-implemented control
measures may not serve as contingency measures even if they provide
emissions reductions beyond those needed for any other CAA purpose.\8\
The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures,
specify a schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measure
will be implemented without significant further action by the state or
the EPA.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir.
2016).
\9\ See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005); see also 2008 Ozone
SRR, 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a
specific amount of emissions reductions that implementation of
contingency measures must achieve, but the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements
Rule (SRR) reiterates the EPA's guidance recommendation that
contingency measures should provide for emissions reductions
approximately equivalent to one year's worth of RFP, thus amounting to
reductions of 3 percent of the baseline emissions inventory for the
nonattainment area.\10\ In a decision published in August 2021 in the
AIR v. EPA case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
remanded the EPA's approval of ozone contingency measures for the San
Joaquin Valley and held that, under EPA's current guidance, the surplus
emissions reductions from already-implemented measures cannot be relied
upon to justify the approval of a contingency measure that would
achieve far less than one year's worth of RFP as sufficient by itself
to meet the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9) for the nonattainment area.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 80 FR 12264 at 12285 (March 6, 2015).
\11\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937
(9th Cir. 2021) (``AIR v. EPA'' or ``AIR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the submitted rules in light of the
requirements for contingency measures summarized above, we find that
the contingency measure in paragraph (b)(6) of submitted SCDAPCD Rule
67.0.1 meets the applicable requirements for such measures in CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) because the removal of the SCE for
certain coating categories is not required as RACT or RACM or for any
other CAA purpose; paragraph (b)(6) includes an appropriate triggering
mechanism (i.e., EPA final
[[Page 57164]]
determinations of failures to meet an RFP milestone or to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates); paragraph (b)(6) specifies a
schedule for implementation (i.e., the SCE for the subject coatings
expires 60 days after EPA final determination); and paragraph (b)(6) is
designed to take effect (once triggered) without further significant
action by the District, CARB or the EPA.
We have conducted a similar review of section 4.3 of submitted
SJVUAPCD Rule 4601 and find that it meets the applicable requirements
for contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). That
is, we find that removal of the SCE as provided in section 4.3 of
submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4601 is not otherwise required under the CAA
and thus is eligible as a contingency measure and that section 4.3
specifies an appropriate schedule for implementation (i.e., 60 days
from EPA final rulemaking) and is designed to take effect (once
triggered) without further significant action by the District, CARB or
the EPA.
Lastly, we have reviewed the Districts' estimate of the emissions
reductions that can be expected if the contingency measure provisions
(paragraph (b)(6) of submitted SDCAPCD Rule 67.0.1 and section 4.3 of
submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4601) are triggered and find the estimates to
be reasonable and adequately documented. The emissions reductions
associated with the contingency measure provisions can be taken into
account by the EPA when determining whether the State and Districts
have fully met the requirements for San Diego County and the San
Joaquin Valley with respect to the contingency measure requirements
under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). The EPA expects to make the
determinations with respect to the area-wide contingency measure SIP
requirements in separate rulemakings.
The TSDs have more information on our evaluation of the two
submitted architectural coatings rules.
C. What are the rule deficiencies?
We have not identified any deficiencies that would prevent approval
of the two amended architectural coatings rules.
D. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
The TSDs include the EPA's recommendations for the next time the
local agencies modify the rules.
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act, and for the reasons given
above, the EPA is proposing a full approval of submitted SDCAPCD Rule
67.0.1 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4601. For both submitted rules, our proposed
action is based on our finding that the non-contingency-related
amendments meet all applicable CAA requirements. With respect to the
contingency measure provisions in the submitted rules, our proposed
action is based on our finding that the provisions have the necessary
attributes of contingency measures under the CAA. Thus, we are
approving the provisions as contingency measures for the two areas for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
We are not making any determination at this time as to whether
these individual contingency measures are sufficient in themselves for
their respective nonattainment areas to fully comply with the
contingency measure requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9). We will be taking action on the contingency measure SIP
elements for these areas in separate rulemakings and will be taking
into account the emissions reductions associated with the contingency
provisions in the submitted rules at that time. Regardless of whether
the contingency measure SIP elements are subsequently approved or
disapproved, we find that the contingency provisions in the submitted
rules strengthen the SIP for their respective nonattainment areas. We
will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 19,
2022.
If finalized as proposed, this action would incorporate the
submitted architectural coatings rules into the SIP and the submitted
rules would replace the corresponding existing SIP versions of the
rules in the California SIP.
III. 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 SDCAPCD Rule 67.0.1 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4601, which regulate
VOC emissions from architectural coatings. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, 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 approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
<bullet> 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> 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
<bullet> The state did not evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in
the record inconsistent with the stated goals 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 proposed 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).
[[Page 57165]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 12, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-20135 Filed 9-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 19, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.