Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 11681 

1 IEPA has submitted additional SIP revision 

requests which will impact part 252. These 

submittals will be the subject of forthcoming EPA 

actions. 

permitting authorities, will enable 

permitting authorities to communicate 

permitting and other affected actions to 

the public more quickly and efficiently 

and will provide cost savings over 

newspaper publication. EPA further 

anticipates that e-access will expand 

access to permit-related documents. A 

full description of the e-notice and eaccess provisions are contained in 

EPA’s October 18, 2016, rulemaking (81 

FR 71613). 

II. Analysis of Illinois’ E-Notice Rule 

Revisions 

IEPA revised Chapter 35 Illinois 

Administrative Code (IAC) part 252, 

Public Participation in the Air Pollution 

Control Permit Program, to incorporate 

EPA’s amendments to the Federal 

public notice regulations discussed 

above. Specifically, IEPA revised 35 IAC 

252 section 201, ‘‘Notice and 

Opportunity to Comment’’ and section 

204, ‘‘Availability of Documents’’. 

IEPA’s revisions to 35 IAC 252 section 

201 add language to allow for the use of 

e-notice for certain air permit hearings, 

including those regarding major 

stationary source construction and 

modification (IEPA’s nonattainment 

NSR program), CAA Permit Program 

permits (IEPA’s title V program), and 

others, by providing notice to the public 

by prominent placement at a dedicated 

page on IEPA’s website. Revisions to 

part 252 section 204 specify the location 

of certain permitting documents and 

allow a copy of the draft permit to be 

placed on a dedicated page on IEPA’s 

website for the duration of the public 

comment period. 

IEPA’s regulations were the subject of 

a public hearing on January 11, 2018 

and were adopted on August 17, 2018 

with an effective date of August 1, 2018. 

EPA received IEPA’s SIP submittal on 

August 27, 2020. Based on a review of 

the proposed revisions, EPA has 

preliminarily determined that IEPA’s 

revisions meet the requirements of the 

Federal e-notice provisions.1

III. What Action is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve IEPA’s 

August 27, 2020 SIP program revisions 

addressing public notice requirements 

for CAA permitting. EPA has 

preliminarily concluded that the State’s 

submittal meets the plan revisions 

requirements of CAA section 110 and 

the implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

51.161, 40 CFR 70.4 and 70.7. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, 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, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revisions to 35 IAC part 252 section 201 

‘‘Notice and Opportunity to Comment’’ 

and section 204, ‘‘Availability of 

Documents’’, effective August 1, 2018. 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

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 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, Administrative 

practice and procedure, Incorporation 

by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Operating permits, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 22, 2021. 

Cheryl Newton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03982 Filed 2–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0013; FRL–10019– 

66–Region 9] 

Air Plan Limited Approval, Limited 

Disapproval; Arizona; Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

portion of a state implementation plan 

(SIP) submission made by the State of 

Arizona to address Moderate area 

nonattainment plan requirements for 

purposes of the 1987 24-hour national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for particulate matter less than 10 

microns in diameter (PM10). The SIP 

submission includes an amended statute 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11682 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1On December 21, 2015, Arizona submitted the 

West Pinal County PM10 Plan, intended to address 

the Moderate area nonattainment requirements, to 

the EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP. The rules 

addressed in this proposed rule were included as 

part of Appendix G to this plan submission. We 

have previously acted on the additional rules 

contained in Appendix G (82 FR 20267, May 1, 

2017), and have proposed action on the remainder 

of the submission in a separate Federal Register 

proposed rule. 86 FR 1347 (January 8, 2021). 

2The title of the new rule R18–2–611 was 

mistakenly labeled as ‘‘Definitions for R18–2– 

611.01’’ in the submitted strikeout version of the 

rule. See page GVI–19. Since this new rule also 

applies to AAC R18–2–611.02 and R18–2–611.03, a 

correction to the title of the new AAC 18–2–611 

was made in the codified version of the rule. See 

April 13, 2017 Email from N. Muilenberg, ADEQ to 

N. Levin, EPA, Re_quick question on title for R18– 

2–611.pdf. 

and certain state rules that govern 

emissions of particulate matter (PM) 

from agricultural activity. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2021–0013 at http://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3848 or by 

email at levin.nancy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submission 

A. What did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of the statute 

and rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules and statutory revisions? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the statute 

and rules? 

B. Do the statute and rules meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

C. What are the deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Statute and Rules 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submission 

A. What did the State submit? 

The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) made a 

SIP submission to address emissions of 

PM from certain emission sources 

located in the West Pinal County PM10

nonattainment area of Arizona.1 In this 

submission, the ADEQ seeks to revise 

the existing EPA-approved SIP for 

Arizona by modifying an existing state 

statutory provision and adding related 

regulatory requirements specific to the 

West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment 

area. Table 1 lists the statute and rules 

addressed in this proposed rule along 

with the date of submission and the 

effective dates of the respective 

elements of the SIP submission. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED STATUTE AND RULES

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Statute title Effective Submitted 

ARS section 49–457 ........................ Agricultural best management practices committee; members; powers; 

permits; enforcement; preemption; definitions.

12/31/15 12/21/15 

Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) AAC Title Amended/ 

Effective 

Submitted 

AAC R18–2–611 .............................. Definitions for R18–2–611.01 2 ................................................................. 07/02/15 12/21/15 

AAC R18–2–611.03 ......................... Agricultural PM General Permit for Animal Operations; Pinal County PM 

Nonattainment Area.

07/02/15 12/21/15 

On March 21, 2016, the EPA 

determined that the SIP revisions 

submitted by the ADEQ and listed in 

Table 1 met the completeness criteria in 

40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which 

must be met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of the statute 

and rules? 

We approved an earlier version of 

ARS section 49–457 into the SIP on June 

29, 1999 (64 FR 34726). There are no 

previous versions of AAC R18–2–611 

‘‘Definitions for R18–2–611.01’’ or AAC 

R18–2–611.03 ‘‘Agricultural PM General 

Permit for Animal Operations; Pinal 

County PM Nonattainment Area’’ in the 

SIP. 

We note that on October 11, 2001, we 

approved AAC R18–2–611, 

‘‘Agricultural PM–10 General Permit; 

Maricopa PM10 Nonattainment Area’’ 

into the Arizona SIP, which applies to 

Maricopa County commercial farmers 

(crop operations). See 66 FR 51869 

(October 11, 2001). The December 21, 

2015 submittal of rule AAC R18–2–611, 

‘‘Definitions for R18–2–611.01’’ is a 

separate rule that applies to certain 

animal operations in Maricopa County 

and West Pinal County PM10

nonattainment areas, among other areas, 

and was not submitted to replace the 

existing SIP-approved rule AAC R18–2– 

611, ‘‘Agricultural PM–10 General 

Permit; Maricopa PM10 Nonattainment 

Area.’’ If the EPA approves the new rule 

AAC R18–2–611, ‘‘Definitions for R18– 

2–611.01’’ into the Arizona SIP, there 

will be two different rules in the SIP 

with the same number, but they would 

be differentiated by their different titles 

and dates. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules and statutory revisions? 

Emissions of PM, including PM10, 

contribute to effects that are harmful to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 11683 

3This submission also expands the regulated area 

to any portion of area A that is located in a county 

with a population of two million or more persons. 

Area A is defined in ARS section 49–451. 

4The West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment area 

was classified as Moderate (40 CFR 81.303) on May 

31, 2012 (77 FR 32024) and subsequently 

reclassified, by operation of law, to Serious on June 

24, 2020 (85 FR 37756). 

5 86 FR 1347 (January 8, 2021). 

6AAC R18–2–611.03 paragraphs A and B. 

7 Id. at paragraphs H and J. 

8 Id. at paragraphs I, J, and K. 

human health and the environment, 

including premature mortality, 

aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, decreased lung 

function, visibility impairment, and 

damage to vegetation and ecosystems. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) 

requires states to have SIPs that provide 

for attainment, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the PM10 NAAQS, 

including the adoption and 

implementation of regulations to control 

PM emissions in designated PM10

nonattainment areas. ADEQ’s 

submission addresses emissions from 

certain sources of PM10 emissions 

through a statutory provision and 

several regulations. 

First, this submission would revise 

the existing SIP-approved version of 

ARS section 49–457 by, among other 

things, expanding the definition of 

‘‘regulated agricultural activities’’ to 

include activities of dairies, beef 

feedlots, poultry facilities, and swine 

facilities. It would also expand the 

definition of ‘‘regulated area’’ to apply 

to any PM10 nonattainment areas 

designated by the EPA on or after June 

1, 2009, which includes the West Pinal 

County PM10 nonattainment area.3 It 

would preempt ‘‘further regulation’’ of 

regulated agricultural activities by other 

jurisdictions (e.g., counties, cities, and 

towns). 

Second, this submission would add 

new regulations to the Arizona SIP, 

applicable to the West Pinal County 

PM10 nonattainment area. AAC R18–2– 

611.03 requires that commercial dairy 

operations, beef cattle feedlots, poultry 

facilities, and swine facilities 

implement best management practices 

(BMPs) to reduce PM10 emissions from 

those sources. The new AAC R18–2–611 

provides definitions for AAC R18–2– 

611.03 and other animal operations 

BMP rules. 

The EPA’s technical support 

documents (TSDs) have more 

information about the statute and rules. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the statute 

and rules? 

SIP rules must meet applicable 

substantive requirements, e.g., must be 

sufficiently stringent (see CAA sections 

172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)), 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). 

States must adopt and implement 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), including reasonably available 

control technology (RACT), in Moderate 

PM10 nonattainment areas (see CAA 

sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)).4

The EPA has addressed the State’s 

nonattainment plan SIP submission for 

the West Central Pinal PM10 area with 

respect to the RACM/RACT requirement 

in a separate proposed action.5

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate control rules 

submitted for PM10 nonattainment areas, 

including enforceability, revision/ 

relaxation, and rule stringency 

requirements, include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised 

January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little 

Bluebook). 

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious 

PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and 

Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 

Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum 

to the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 

16, 1994). 

6. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA 

452/R–93–008, April 1993. 

7. ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background Document 

and Technical Information Document for 

Best Available Control Measures,’’ EPA 450/ 

2–92–004, September 1992. 

B. Do the statute and rules meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

The revised statute and rules largely 

meet the evaluation criteria, with the 

exception of the specific deficiencies 

identified in section II.C below. 

With respect to enforceability, AAC 

R18–2–611.03 states clear requirements, 

specifying that animal operators ‘‘shall 

implement’’ or ‘‘shall apply and 

maintain’’ BMPs.6 The rule is clear 

about what is required of sources, and 

it establishes recordkeeping 

requirements requiring operators to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

agricultural BMP (AgBMP) 

requirements.7 The rule also provides in 

paragraph N that ‘‘[t]he Director shall 

document noncompliance with this 

section before issuing a compliance 

order,’’ and in paragraph O that ‘‘[a] 

commercial animal operator who is not 

in compliance with this Section is 

subject to the provisions in A.R.S. § 49– 

457(I), (J), and (K).’’ 

Paragraphs I, J, and K of ARS section 

49–457 provide a mechanism for the 

ADEQ director to revoke the agricultural 

general permit for an operator. These 

paragraphs set out a three-step process 

that the director may take if the director 

determines that a person who is engaged 

in a regulated activity is not in 

compliance with the agricultural PM 

general permit. First, for persons not 

previously subject to a compliance 

order, the director may issue an order 

requiring compliance with the general 

permit and specifying a period of not 

less than 60 days for the operator to 

submit a plan to the appropriate natural 

resource conservation district 

identifying the BMPs the operator will 

use to comply with the general permit. 

If noncompliance is repeated or 

continues, the director may issue a 

second order, requiring the submission 

of a plan to the ADEQ, within a 

specified period of time of not less than 

60 days, specifying the BMPs the 

operator will use to comply with the 

general permit. Third, if the operator is 

still not complying with the terms of the 

agricultural general permit, the director 

may revoke the general permit with 

respect to that operator, and require that 

the operator obtain an individual 

permit, pursuant to ARS section 49– 

426.8

Because the provisions in paragraphs 

I, J, and K refer to the ‘‘director,’’ the 

EPA understands that these provisions 

relate only to authorities of the ADEQ 

director. Provided that the statute and 

rules do not preclude enforcement of a 

violation of the terms of an agricultural 

general permit outside of the provisions 

in these paragraphs, states may elect to 

provide a specific means and process by 

which the director may revoke the 

agricultural general permit with respect 

to a particular operator. 

Based on our review of the 

submission and the State’s general 

enforcement authority, the EPA 

concludes that the procedure laid out in 

paragraphs I, J, and K does not 

inappropriately constrain the State’s 

own authority to enforce a violation of 

an agricultural general permit. The EPA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11684 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

9Approved into the SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 

FR 66398). 10Parallel provisions are included for 

enforcement at the County level. See ARS sections 

49–510, 49–511, 49–512 and 49–513, also approved 

into the SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66398). 

11 86 FR 1347 (January 8, 2021). 

12 In addition, the inclusion of this provision in 

the SIP may introduce some uncertainty in the 

regulated community regarding what requirements 

are applicable. The EPA does not understand the 

submitted revision to ARS section 49–457 as 

requesting to remove any potentially preempted 

rules from the SIP, or otherwise impacting the 

enforceability of such rules that are already SIPapproved. The EPA understands the provision as 

stating that certain provisions are preempted as a 

matter of state law. Accordingly, the EPA’s 

proposed limited approval and limited disapproval 

of ARS section 49–457 would not remove any such 

rules from the SIP, ‘‘preempt’’ them in any way as 

a matter of federal law, or otherwise impact their 

federal enforceability. If the State wishes to remove 

particular requirements from the SIP, it should 

submit a request, pursuant to section 110 of the Act, 

requesting that specifically-identified provisions be 

removed. 

notes that in addition to ARS section 

49–457, the ADEQ has additional 

enforcement authorities, including those 

laid out in ARS sections 49–460, 49– 

461, 49–462, and 49–463.9 These 

provisions provide the ADEQ with 

broad enforcement authority, including 

the authority to serve an order of 

abatement, or file a complaint in state 

court seeking penalties or injunctive 

relief against any person who ‘‘has 

violated or is in violation of any 

provision of this article, any rule 

adopted pursuant to this article or any 

requirement of a permit issued pursuant 

to this article.’’ 10 Because ARS section 

49–457 is included in the same article 

as these broad enforcement authorities, 

the EPA interprets Arizona law as 

providing adequate authority to the 

ADEQ to enforce a violation of an 

agricultural general permit issued 

pursuant to ARS section 49–457 without 

invoking the procedures set out in 

paragraphs I, J, and K. The EPA is not 

aware of any provisions of state law to 

the contrary. 

Accordingly, the EPA concludes that 

the submitted rules and statutory 

amendments contain clear and 

enforceable requirements, and that the 

State possesses adequate authority to 

enforce the requirements for the 

agricultural general permit as set out in 

the submitted rules. If approved into the 

SIP, the submitted rules will be 

enforceable by the EPA, and by citizens 

through section 304 of the Act. 

Moreover, the procedures laid out in 

paragraphs I, J, and K do not affect the 

ability of the EPA and the public to 

enforce violations of ARS section 49– 

457 and the submitted rules. The EPA 

interprets those provisions to be 

specifications on ADEQ’s exercise of its 

own enforcement discretion, setting out 

a procedure for revoking a permit, 

separate from the State’s general 

enforcement authority. Neither EPA nor 

citizen suit plaintiffs are required to 

follow the same three-step process if 

they seek to enforce in the event of 

alleged violations. 

With respect to the criterion of 

stringency, because the rules and 

revised statute were submitted as part of 

a PM10 Moderate area nonattainment 

plan, they are subject to the section 

172(c)(1) RACM/RACT requirement. As 

discussed above, the EPA generally 

evaluates whether a state has met the 

RACM/RACT requirement for PM10 in 

the context of its evaluation of the entire 

nonattainment plan SIP submission 

because the RACM/RACT analysis is 

interrelated with other nonattainment 

plan elements such as reasonable 

further progress and the modeled 

attainment demonstration. Accordingly, 

we are not evaluating the submitted 

statute and rules for RACM/RACT level 

stringency in this action since we have 

addressed the RACM/RACT 

requirement for the West Pinal County 

PM10 nonattainment area in a separate 

proposal.11

With respect to the evaluation 

criterion regarding SIP revisions, section 

110(l) of the CAA provides that ‘‘[t]he 

Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress . . . or any 

other applicable requirement of [the 

Act].’’ Approving the submitted statute 

and rules into the SIP would expand the 

applicability of ARS section 49–457 to 

additional parts of the State, including 

the West Pinal County PM10

nonattainment area, and would add new 

BMP requirements to animal operations 

in Pinal County. These changes would 

strengthen the SIP by regulating a 

broader class of sources, in a larger 

portion of the State. However, the 

submitted statute and rules also contain 

deficiencies that would interfere with 

applicable requirements of the Act. 

These deficiencies are identified in the 

following section of this proposed rule 

and described in detail in the TSDs 

contained in the docket for this action. 

C. What are the deficiencies? 

The submitted provisions do not 

satisfy the requirements of section 110 

and part D of title I of the Act and 

prevent full approval of the statutory 

revision and rules. We propose a limited 

disapproval of the statutory revision and 

rules based on the following 

deficiencies: 

1. Subsection O of revised ARS 

section 49–457 may relax the SIP by 

preempting, as a matter of state law, 

more stringent existing SIP-approved 

rules. Although such preemption could 

not remove the preempted rules from 

the SIP without an EPA action under 

section 110(k) of the Act, the 

preemption of these rules as a matter of 

state law would render state authority 

for the preempted rules insufficient 

under section 110(a)(2).12

2. Section H of revised ARS section 

49–457 exempts a person who is subject 

to an agricultural general permit from 

the permitting requirement in ARS 

section 49–426. The scope of the 

exemption in subsection H for Maricopa 

County is bounded by a rule that is not 

in the SIP (nor has it been submitted to 

the EPA for SIP approval). Specifically, 

AAC R18–2–611.01, the animal 

operations AgBMP rule for Maricopa 

County, is not in the SIP, and the 

exemption in subsection H is based on 

a source being subject to the permit that 

is established under this rule. This 

would allow changes to the scope of the 

exemption, and thus changes to the SIP, 

without the process required by section 

110 of the Act. 

3. The exemption in subsection H of 

revised ARS section 49–457 is not 

limited to minor sources and could 

exempt a major stationary source from 

CAA New Source Review (NSR) and 

title V permitting requirements. 

4. The exemption in subsection H of 

revised ARS section 49–457 is 

overbroad because although it is 

triggered by the ability to emit PM10, the 

exemption itself is not clearly limited to 

requirements under the PM10 NAAQS 

and could apply to other criteria 

pollutants as well. 

5. The exemption in subsection H of 

revised ARS section 49–457 may 

exempt non-fugitive emissions from 

review under the ADEQ minor NSR 

program, without a showing that such 

exemption would be inconsequential to 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

6. Paragraph K of AAC R18–2–611.03 

provides that a person may develop 

different PM-reducing management 

practices than those contained in the 

rule, and may ‘‘submit such practices 

that are proven effective through onoperation demonstration trials to the 

[AgBMP] Committee.’’ The paragraph 

states that ‘‘new best management 

practices shall not become effective 

unless submitted as described in A.R.S. 

§ 49–457(L).’’ Subpart L of A.R.S. 

section 49–457 states that any approved 

modifications to the BMPs shall be 

submitted to the EPA as a revision to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 11685 

SIP. Including this provision in the SIP 

would allow a new BMP to ‘‘become 

effective’’ in the SIP-approved rule 

simply upon submission of the 

modifications to the EPA and without 

the actual SIP revision required under 

CAA section 110. This constitutes 

inappropriate director’s discretion. A 

state may modify its rules and submit 

those to the EPA as potential revisions 

of the SIP, or it may provide that 

substantive changes to a SIP-approved 

rule become effective upon EPA 

approval into the SIP, but it may not 

effectively modify the SIP-approved rule 

by simply submitting the changes to the 

EPA for evaluation. 

The deficiencies with the statute and 

rules are described in greater detail in 

the TSDs. 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Statute and Rules 

The TSDs describe additional 

revisions that we recommend if the 

State elects to modify the statute and 

rules to make them appropriate for full 

approval as part of the Arizona SIP. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

Despite the deficiencies identified 

above, the EPA believes that the Arizona 

SIP would be strengthened by the 

addition of the statutory revision and 

rules. A limited approval of the 

provisions would place new control 

requirements on a category of sources 

that have a substantial emission impact 

in the West Pinal PM10 nonattainment 

area. Although the statutory revision 

and rules also introduce problematic 

provisions regarding preemption and 

permitting exemptions, the EPA 

anticipates that the expansion of control 

requirements to this important class of 

sources will provide an emissions 

reduction benefit in excess of any 

emissions increase that may result from 

the preemption and permitting 

deficiencies. Therefore, as authorized by 

the grant of authority to approve and 

disapprove SIP submissions contained 

in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are 

proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the State’s 

nonattainment plan SIP submission 

with respect to the revision of the 

existing SIP approved version of ARS 

section 49–457 and the inclusion of new 

rules AAC R18–2–611 and R18–2– 

611.03 into the SIP. 

The proposed limited approval and 

limited disapproval would put the 

entirety of the submitted statutory 

revision and rules in the SIP, including 

those provisions identified as deficient. 

It would simultaneously disapprove the 

deficiencies enumerated in section II.C. 

and would start sanction and Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) clocks for 

these deficiencies, as detailed below. 

If we finalize a limited disapproval, 

CAA section 110(c) would require the 

EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than 

two years after the disapproval unless 

the State submits, and we approve, a 

subsequent SIP submission that corrects 

the deficiencies identified in the final 

action. 

In addition, a final limited 

disapproval would trigger the offset 

sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) 18 

months after the effective date of a final 

limited disapproval, and the highway 

funding sanction in CAA section 

179(b)(1) six months after the offset 

sanction is imposed. A sanction will not 

be imposed if the EPA determines that 

a subsequent SIP submission corrects 

the deficiencies identified in our final 

action before the applicable deadline. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the rules and statute described in Table 

1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

materials available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive orders can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11686 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: February 16, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03482 Filed 2–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0674; FRL–10020– 

67–Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; YoloSolano Air Quality Management 

District; Graphic Arts Printing 

Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from 

graphic arts printing operations. We are 

proposing to approve a local rule to 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2020–0674 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Law or Shaye Hong, EPA Region 

IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone at (415) 947–4126 or 

(415) 947–4104, or by email at 

Law.Nicole@epa.gov or Hong.Shaye@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. The EPA’s Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

revised by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revised Submitted 

YSAQMD ................................ 2.29 Graphic Arts Printing Operations ............................................ 07/11/2018 08/20/2018 

On August 23, 2018, the EPA 

determined that the submittal for 

YSAQMD Rule 2.29 met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 2.29 into the SIP on August 21, 

1998 (63 FR 44792). The YSAQMD 

adopted revisions to the SIP-approved 

version on August 13, 1997, and May 

14, 2008, but those revisions were never 

submitted to the EPA. We have 

evaluated and compared the most recent 

submittal to the existing SIP approved 

version of Rule 2.29. If we take final 

action to approve the August 23, 2018 

version of Rule 2.29, this version will 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS