Proposed Rule2024-12781
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Fine Particulate Matter
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
June 13, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 115 (Thursday, June 13, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)
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 <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 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81e5eef3e0eff5e4f2afece8e2e9e0e4edc1e4f1e0afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcd8d3ceddd2c8d9cf92d1d5dfd4ddd9d0fcd9ccdd92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>.
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
at 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013), and the EPA's final action on the
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international
pollution abatement.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government
agencies.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal
of modeling data.
<bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
<bullet> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, triggering a requirement for States to submit
infrastructure SIPs. The EPA strengthened the primary annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
On December 11, 2015, ADEQ submitted the ``Arizona State Implementation
Plan Revision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (``2015 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS as
described by this proposed rule. We refer to them collectively herein
as ``Arizona's 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS except for those portions of the 2012
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
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
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> infrastructure SIPs (``2009
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> I-SIP Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
We have evaluated Arizona's 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> I-SIP submittals with respect to the 2012
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the following CAA requirements. Proposed
partial approvals are indicated by the parenthetical ``(in part).''
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission limits and other control measures.
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for enforcement of control measures
and regulation of new stationary sources (in part).
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Interference with PSD, or ``prong 3''
(in part).
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate pollution abatement, CAA
section 126 (in part).
[[Page 50250]]
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International pollution abatement, CAA
section 115.
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate resources and authority, conflict
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency episodes.
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(H)--Consultation with government officials.
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation with government officials,
public notification, PSD, and visibility protection (in part).
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(K)--Air quality modeling and submission of
modeling data.
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting fees.
<bullet> 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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> I-SIP submittals with respect to the 2012
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the following Clean Air Act requirements.
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for enforcement of control measures
and regulation of new stationary sources (in part).
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Interference with PSD, or ``prong 3''
(in part).
<bullet> 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate pollution abatement, CAA
section 126 (in part).
<bullet> 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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> I-SIP submittals with respect to the 2012
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:
<bullet> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> as a priority pollutant, and do
not include concentrations for the priority classification based on
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
concentrations for each county; \25\ the maximum recorded 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> set
forth in the 2009 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, 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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a State program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<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 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 13, 2024.
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.