Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 40905 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

in the NPRM we offered to assist small 

entities in understanding the rule so 

that they could better evaluate its effects 

on them and participate in the 

rulemaking process. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

4. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520.). 

5. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000.00 (adjusted for inflation) 

or more in any one year. Though this 

rule would not result in such 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

The Coast Guard has analyzed this 

rule under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it would not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

The Coast Guard analyzed this rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. An 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this rule. 

This rule is categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph 34(g) of 

Figure 2–1 of the Commandant’s 

Instruction. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147 

Continental shelf, Marine safety, 

Navigation (water). 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 147 as follows: 

PART 147—SAFETY ZONES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 147 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 147.T17–0247 to read as 

follows: 

§ 147.T17–0247 Safety Zone; DRILL UNIT 

POLAR PIONEER, Outer Continental Shelf 

Drillship, Chukchi Sea, Alaska. 

(a) Description. The DRILL UNIT 

POLAR PIONEER will be engaged in 

exploratory drilling operations at 

various locations in the Chukchi Sea 

from July 1, 2015 through October 31, 

2015. The area that extends 500 meters 

from the outer edge of the DRILL UNIT 

POLAR PIONEER is a safety zone. 

Lawful demonstrations may be 

conducted outside of the safety zone. 

(b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or 

remain in this safety zone except the 

following: 

(1) An attending vessel; or 

(2) A vessel authorized by the 

Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard 

District, or a designated representative. 

Dated: June 17, 2015. 

Daniel B. Abel, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventeenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17129 Filed 7–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0297; FRL–9930–28– 

Region 9 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Lead 

and Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The 1978 Pb 

standard (1.5 mg/m3 as a quarterly average) was 

modified to a rolling 3 month average not to be 

exceeded of 0.15 mg/m3. EPA also revised the 

secondary NAAQS to 0.15 mg/m3 and made it 

identical to the revised primary standard. Id. 2See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, 

Regions 1–10 (October 14, 2011). 3 ‘‘DRAFT Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead 

(Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS),’’ June 17, 2011 version. 4See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 

from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air 

Directors, EPA Regions 1–10, ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2)’’ (referred to herein as ‘‘2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance’’). 5 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

6Preparation of guidance for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS was postponed given EPA’s 

reconsideration of the standard. See 78 FR 34183 

(June 6, 2013). 7See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 

from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air 

Directors, EPA Regions 1–10, ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2)’’ (referred to herein as ‘‘2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance’’). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Arizona to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and 2008 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each State adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA. We refer to such 

SIP revisions as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs 

because 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. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2015–0297. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publically available only at the hard 

copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material) and some may not be 

publically available in either location 

(e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (415) 947–4152, email: 

buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Proposed Action 

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

CAA section 110(a)(1) requires each 

state to submit to EPA, within three 

years after the promulgation of a 

primary or secondary NAAQS or any 

revision thereof, an infrastructure SIP 

revision that provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) sets the content requirements 

of such a plan, which generally relate to 

the information and authorities, 

compliance assurances, procedural 

requirements, and control measures that 

constitute the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a 

state’s air quality management program. 

These infrastructure SIP elements 

required by section 110(a)(2) are as 

follows: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• 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, prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD), and visibility 

protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submittal of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submittal deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These two 

elements are: (i) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to 

the extent it refers to permit programs 

required under part D (nonattainment 

new source review (NSR)), and (ii) 

section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D. As a result, this action does not 

address infrastructure for the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 

110(a)(2)(I). 

On November 12, 2008, the EPA 

issued a revised NAAQS for Pb.1 This 

action triggered a requirement for states 

to submit an infrastructure SIP to 

address the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years of 

issuance of the revised NAAQS. On 

October 14, 2011, EPA issued 

‘‘Guidance on Section 110 Infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS’’, referred 

to herein as EPA’s 2011 Pb Guidance.2

Depending on the timing of a given 

submittal, some states relied on the 

earlier draft version of this guidance, 

referred to herein as EPA’s 2011 Draft 

Pb Guidance.3 EPA issued additional 

guidance on infrastructure SIPs on 

September 13, 2013.4

On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for 8-hour Ozone.5 This 

action triggered a requirement for states 

to submit an infrastructure SIP to 

address the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years of 

issuance of the revised NAAQS. EPA 

did not, however, prepare guidance at 

this time for states in submitting I–SIP 

revisions for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.6

On September 13, 2013, EPA issued 

‘‘Guidance of Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2),’’ which provides advice 

on the development of infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (among 

other pollutants) as well as 

infrastructure SIPs for new or revised 

NAAQS promulgated in the future.7

The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has 

submitted infrastructure SIP revisions 

pursuant to EPA’s promulgation of the 

NAAQS addressed by this rule, 

including the following: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 40907 

8 In a separate rulemaking, EPA fully approved 

Arizona’s SIP to address the requirements regarding 

air pollution emergency episodes in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 77 

FR 62452 (October 15, 2012). Although ADEQ did 

not submit an analysis of Section 110(a)(2)(G) 

requirements, we discuss them in our technical 

support document (TSD), which is in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

9 ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the 2008 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS)’’ was signed on February 19, 

2015 but, as of June 29, 2015, has not yet published 

in the Federal Register. This action was proposed 

in the Federal Register on November 24, 2014 (79 

FR 69796). 

10EPA’s action on ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal was 

largely finalized as proposed, with the exception of 

certain changes in response to public comments. 

These changes resulted in our finding fewer bases 

for disapproval as compared with our proposed 

action on ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal and do not 

affect today’s final action on Arizona’s I–SIP 

submittals. 

• October 14, 2011—‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision under 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 

2008 Lead NAAQS,’’ to address all of 

the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, 

except for section 110(a)(2)(G),8 for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS (2011 Pb I–SIP 

Submittal). 

• December 27, 2012—‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision under 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 

2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ to address 

all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone 

NAAQS (2012 Ozone I–SIP Submittal). 

On February 19, 2015 EPA approved 

elements of the above submittals with 

respect to the 2008 Pb and 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS infrastructure 

requirements in CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (E), (F), (G), (H), (L) 

and (M).9 That action also explained 

that we would separately act on the 

permitting infrastructure SIP elements 

in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), 

and (K) in a subsequent rulemaking. 

These permit related elements are the 

subject of today’s final rule. 

In addition to the above 2011 and 

2012 infrastructure SIP submittals, 

ADEQ submitted ‘‘New Source Review 

State Implementation Plan Submission’’ 

on October 29, 2012, and 

‘‘Supplemental Information to 2012 

New Source Review State 

Implementation Plan Submission’’ on 

July 2, 2014 (NSR Submittals). In 

addition to addressing revisions to 

Arizona’s NSR program, these 

submissions also relate to our analysis 

of infrastructure SIP elements in CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K). 

II. Proposed Action 

On May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27127), EPA 

proposed to partially approve and 

partially disapprove Arizona’s 2011 Pb 

I–SIP Submittal and 2012 Ozone I–SIP 

Submittal with respect to the permitting 

infrastructure SIP elements in CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K). 

Our proposed action and associated 

technical support document (TSD) 

provide detailed discussion of Arizona’s 

demonstration for each element. 

Generally, we proposed a partial 

approval because the submittals show 

that Arizona largely fulfills the relevant 

infrastructure requirements. But we 

proposed a simultaneous partial 

disapproval because of these 

deficiencies: 

• With respect to § 110(a)(2)(C), EPA 

proposed to: (1) Disapprove the 2011 Pb 

and 2012 Ozone Infrastructure SIPs for 

ADEQ and Pinal County because the 

SIP-approved PSD programs lack certain 

‘‘structural’’ PSD program elements as 

identified in our TSD; and (2) 

disapprove both Infrastructure SIPs for 

Maricopa and Pima counties, which do 

not have SIP approved PSD programs. 

• With respect to the third prong of 

§ 110(a)(D)(i), EPA proposed to 

disapprove both Infrastructure SIPs 

regarding ‘‘structural’’ PSD 

requirements under § 110(a)(2)(C). 

• With respect to § 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 

EPA proposed to disapprove both 

Infrastructure SIPs with respect to 

Maricopa County and Pima County, 

which do not have SIP approved PSD 

programs. 

• With respect to § 110(a)(2)(J), we 

proposed to disapprove both Arizona 

Infrastructure SIPs for failure to fully 

satisfy the requirements of part C 

relating to PSD. 

• With respect to § 110(a)(2)(K), we 

proposed to disapprove both 

Infrastructure SIPs because ADEQ, 

Pinal, Pima, and Maricopa counties 

have not submitted adequate provisions 

or a narrative that explain how existing 

state and county law satisfy the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(K). 

III. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The public comment period on EPA’s 

proposed rule opened on May 12, 2015, 

the date of its publication in the Federal 

Register at 80 FR 27127, and closed on 

June 11, 2015. During this period, EPA 

did not receive any comments. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing our action 

as proposed. 

IV. Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3) and 

based on the evaluation and rationale 

presented in the proposed rule, the TSD 

and this final rule, EPA is partially 

approving the 2011 Pb I–SIP Submittal 

and the 2012 Ozone I–SIP Submittal 

with respect to the following 

infrastructure SIP requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program of enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): 

Interstate pollution transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): 

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, PSD, and visibility 

protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data. 

EPA is simultaneously partially 

disapproving the submittals because of 

deficiencies described in our proposed 

rule and TSD and summarized in the 

proposed rule section above. For all I– 

SIP elements that do not meet the CAA 

§ 110(a)(2) requirements there are 

existing FIPs in place, with the 

exception of the modeling requirements 

under CAA § 110(a)(2)(K) for Pinal 

County and ADEQ. To the extent our 

proposed approval or proposed 

disapproval of an I–SIP element relied 

on our March 18, 2015 proposed action 

on ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal, our final 

action on the I–SIP elements identified 

in this notice relies on our final action 

on ADEQ’s NSR SIP submittal, signed 

contemporaneously primarily in the 

form of a limited approval/limited 

disapproval.10 Furthermore, the partial 

disapprovals in this action do not result 

in sanctions under section 179 of the 

Act because infrastructure SIPs are not 

required under Title I, Part D of the Act. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP partial approvals/

partial disapprovals under section 110 

and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air 

Act do not create any new requirements 

but simply approve requirements that 

the State is already imposing. Therefore, 

because EPA’s approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the partial 

approval/partial disapproval action 

promulgated does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action approves pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires the 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 40909 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective August 13, 2015. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 14, 

2015. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Lead, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 29, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.123 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (o) and (p) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.123 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(o) 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: The 

SIPs submitted on October 14, 2011 and 

December 27, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) 

for all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

(p) 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS: The SIPs 

submitted on October 14, 2011 and 

December 27, 2012 are fully or partially 

disapproved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(ii), (J) and (K) 

for all portions of the Arizona SIP. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17057 Filed 7–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0082; FRL–9929–64– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California SIP, 

Ventura & Eastern Kern Air Pollution 

Control Districts; Permit Exemptions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the Ventura County 

Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control 

District (EKAPCD) portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions clarify, update, 

and revise exemptions from New Source 

Review (NSR) permitting requirements, 

for various air pollution sources. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

August 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0082 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lawrence Maurin, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3943, Maurin.Lawrence@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On April 14, 2015 (80 FR 19932), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rules 

into the California SIP. Table 1 lists the 

rules addressed by this proposal, 

including the dates they were revised by 

the local air agency and submitted by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revision 

date 

Submittal 

date 

VCAPCD ......................................................... 23 Exemptions from Permit ................................. 11/12/13 05/13/14 

EKAPCD ......................................................... 202 Permit Exemptions ......................................... 01/13/11 06/21/11 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES