[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 37 (Friday, February 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11681-11686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03482]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (PM<INF>10</INF>). 
The SIP submission includes an amended statute

[[Page 11682]]

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2beb7a4bbbcfcbcb3bcb1ab92b7a2b3fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="157970637c7b3b7b747b766c557065743b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 21, 2015, Arizona submitted the West Pinal 
County PM<INF>10</INF> 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).

                                      Table 1--Submitted Statute and Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS)                   Statute title                Effective       Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS section 49-457.........................  Agricultural best management               12/31/15        12/21/15
                                              practices committee; members;
                                              powers; permits; enforcement;
                                              preemption; definitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Administrative Code (AAC)            AAC Title..........................        Amended/       Submitted
                                                                                       Effective
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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         07/02/15        12/21/15
                                              Animal Operations; Pinal County PM
                                              Nonattainment Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
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 PM<INF>10</INF>, contribute to effects 
that are harmful to

[[Page 11683]]

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 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS, including the adoption and implementation of 
regulations to control PM emissions in designated PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment areas. ADEQ's submission addresses emissions from certain 
sources of PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas designated by the 
EPA on or after June 1, 2009, which includes the West Pinal County 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area.\3\ It would preempt ``further 
regulation'' of regulated agricultural activities by other 
jurisdictions (e.g., counties, cities, and towns).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, this submission would add new regulations to the Arizona 
SIP, applicable to the West Pinal County PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> area with respect to the RACM/RACT requirement in a 
separate proposed action.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The West Pinal County PM<INF>10</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate control rules 
submitted for PM<INF>10</INF> 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. Sec.  49-457(I), (J), and (K).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ AAC R18-2-611.03 paragraphs A and B.
    \7\ Id. at paragraphs H and J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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

[[Page 11684]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Approved into the SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66398).
    \10\ Parallel 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
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 PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area in a separate 
proposal.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 86 FR 1347 (January 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 SIP-approved. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>10</INF>, the exemption itself is not clearly limited to 
requirements under the PM<INF>10</INF> 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 on-operation 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. Sec.  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

[[Page 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
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/laws-regulations/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.

[[Page 11686]]

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>