Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44555 

21As this analysis focused on interstate transport, 

EPA did not evaluate the impact of Arizona 

emissions on maintenance receptors within 

Arizona. (EPA has not identified any nonattainment 

receptors in Arizona.) 

receptors’’ all monitoring sites in the 

western states that had recorded PM2.5

design values above the level of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) 

during the 2006–2008 and/or 2007–2009 

periods but below this standard during 

the 2008–2010 period. See section IV of 

the TSD for more information regarding 

EPA’s methodology for selection of 

maintenance receptors. All of the 

maintenance receptors in the western 

states are located in California, Utah, 

and Arizona. EPA therefore evaluated 

the potential for transport of Arizona 

emissions to the maintenance receptors 

located in California and Utah.21 As 

detailed in the TSD, EPA believes that 

the following factors support a finding 

that emissions from Arizona do not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in either state: 

(1) Technical information indicating 

that elevated PM2.5 levels at these 

maintenance receptors are 

predominantly caused by local emission 

sources, and (2) technical information 

indicating that the dominant air flows 

across California are from the west to 

the east. 

Based on this evaluation of Arizona’s 

PM2.5 Transport Analysis and additional 

technical information, EPA proposes to 

conclude that emissions of direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors from sources in 

the State of Arizona do not interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards in any other state and 

that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

therefore does not require Arizona to 

adopt additional controls for purposes 

of implementing the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. 

C. Section 110(l) of the Act 

Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits 

EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act. 

The PM2.5 Transport Analysis contains 

no regulatory provisions and does not 

affect any requirement in Arizona’s 

applicable implementation plan. We 

propose to determine that our approval 

of the PM2.5 Transport Analysis would 

comply with CAA section 110(l) 

because the proposed SIP revision 

would not interfere with the on-going 

process for ensuring that requirements 

for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS 

are met. The SIP revision does not alter 

any provisions in the SIP as EPA has 

concluded, based on its supplemental 

analysis, that the existing SIP is 

sufficient to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Our TSD contains a 

more detailed discussion of our 

evaluation. 

IV. Proposed Action 

Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 

Act, EPA is proposing to approve a SIP 

revision submitted by the State of 

Arizona on October 14, 2009 and to 

determine, based on that submission 

and additional EPA analysis, that 

emissions from Arizona sources do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by any other 

state. Accordingly, we propose to 

conclude that the existing SIP is 

adequate to address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) for the 2006 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS 

or standard) for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) and that additional control 

measures in Arizona are not necessary 

for this purpose. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this proposal and will accept comments 

until the date noted in the DATES section 

above. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 20, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18545 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398; FRL–9707–5] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

State Board Requirements for Ozone 

and Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a State 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1The 8-hour averaging period replaced the 

previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

2The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), based on the 

3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5

concentrations from single or multiple communityoriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 mg/m3, based on the 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

at each population-oriented monitor within an area 

(62 FR 38652). 

3The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for 

PM2.5 from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3 was published in 

the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144). 

4See Memorandum from David O. Bickart to 

Regional Air Directors, ‘‘Guidance to States for 

Meeting Conflict of Interest Requirements of 

Section 128,’’ Suggested Definitions, March 2, 1978. 

5 If EPA finalizes this action, the proposed 

interpretations will supersede (to the extent that 

they are inconsistent with) interpretations 

suggested in the 1978 guidance, at least for 

Arizona’s SIP. 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Arizona to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 

NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5). EPA is proposing to approve the 

state’s provisions regarding disclosure 

of potential conflicts of interest under 

128(a)(2), but is proposing to 

disapprove, on narrow grounds, their 

128(a)(1) provisions regarding board 

composition because these provisions 

do not apply to enforcement orders. We 

encourage the State to submit a revised 

SIP to address this very narrow 

deficiency, and we stand ready to work 

with the State to develop a revised plan. 

We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0398, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: r9_airplanning@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Rory Mays (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

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

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., 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: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, 

mays.rory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Regulatory History 

B. EPA Guidance 

II. The State’s Submittal 

III. EPA’s Evaluation 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Regulatory History 

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for ozone1 and a new 

NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5).2 EPA subsequently revised the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 

21, 2006.3 Each of these actions 

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 new or revised NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that each such plan 

submission must meet, including 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which requires 

compliance with the requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. 

On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into 

a Consent Decree with EarthJustice that 

obligated EPA to make official findings 

in accordance with section 110(k)(1) of 

the CAA as to whether states had made 

required complete SIP submissions, 

pursuant to sections 110(a)(1) and (2), 

by December 15, 2007 for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and by October 5, 

2008 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

made such findings for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008 (73 

FR 16205) and for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS on October 22, 2008 (73 FR 

62902). In each case, EPA found that 

Arizona had failed to make a complete 

submittal to satisfy the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

The State board SIP provisions in 

section 128 require each state to submit 

a SIP that contains requirements that (1) 

any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under the 

CAA shall have at least a majority of 

members who represent the public 

interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA; and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by 

members of such board or body or the 

head of an executive agency with 

similar powers be adequately disclosed. 

42 U.S.C. 7428. 

B. EPA Guidance 

In 1978, EPA issued a guidance 

memorandum recommending ways 

States could meet the requirements of 

section 128 (‘‘1978 Guidance’’), 

including suggested interpretations of 

certain terms in section 128.4 EPA has 

not issued further guidance or 

regulations of general applicability on 

the subject since that time. However, as 

part of our proposals on other recent 

infrastructure actions, EPA has 

proposed certain interpretations of 

section 128 and invited comment on 

these interpretations. See, e.g., EPA’s 

proposed rule on infrastructure SIP 

requirements for Hawaii (77 FR 21913, 

April 12, 2012). We are now proposing 

these same interpretations in relation to 

the Arizona infrastructure SIP.5

II. The State’s Submittals 

On October 14, 2009, ADEQ 

submitted the ‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision under 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44557 

6 In a separate rulemaking, EPA proposed to fully 

approve 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 21911 (April 12, 2012). 

7See letter dated October 14, 2009, from Eric C. 

Massey, Air Quality Director, ADEQ, to Laura 

Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9. 

8Under EPA’s ‘‘parallel processing’’ procedure, 

EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with 

the State’s proposed rulemaking. If the State’s 

proposed plan is changed, EPA will evaluate that 

subsequent change and may publish another notice 

of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is 

made, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the 

plan after responding to any submitted comments. 

Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only 

after the plan has been fully adopted by Arizona 

and submitted formally to EPA for approval into the 

SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3. 

We note that because ADEQ’s rulemaking process 

here is solely for purposes of adopting the 2012 

Supplement as a SIP revision under CAA section 

110 and not for purposes of revising any of the 

statutes or regulations contained therein, we do not 

expect any significant changes between the 

proposed and final plans. 

9See letter dated June 1, 2012, from Eric C. 

Massey, Air Quality Director, ADEQ, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

10See letter dated June 14, 2012, from Eric C. 

Massey, Air Quality Director, ADEQ, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

11Copies of these Arizona statutes are included 

in the 2012 Supplement, which is available in the 

docket for this action and online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0398. 

12Our Technical Support Document (TSD) 

describes our evaluation in more detail and is 

available in the public docket for this rulemaking, 

which may be accessed online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0398. 

and 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ to 

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

requirements except for section 

110(a)(2)(G) 6 for these three NAAQS 

(‘‘2009 Infrastructure Submittal’’).7 The 

2009 Infrastructure Submittal includes 

public process documentation 

(including public comments) and 

evidence of adoption. 

On June 1, 2012, ADEQ submitted the 

‘‘Proposed Supplement to the Arizona 

State Implementation Plan under Clean 

Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2): 

Implementation of [1997 PM2.5 and 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS], Parallel Processing Version’’ 

(‘‘2012 Supplement’’). The 2012 

Supplement includes a number of 

statutes and regulations that are 

currently effective under State law but 

that have not been adopted specifically 

for submittal to EPA as a SIP revision 

under CAA section 110. By letter dated 

June 1, 2012, ADEQ submitted 

unofficial copies of these statutes and 

regulations to EPA with a request for 

‘‘parallel processing’’ 8 and stated its 

intention to submit these statutes and 

regulations as a formal SIP submittal, 

following reasonable notice and public 

hearings, by late August 2012.9 ADEQ 

amended this request by letter dated 

June 14, 2012, to remove several statutes 

and regulations from the 2012 

Supplement.10

We are proposing to act on the 2009 

Infrastructure Submittal, as 

supplemented and amended by the 2012 

Supplement. We refer to the 2009 

Infrastructure Submittal and 2012 

Supplement collectively as the ‘‘2009 

Infrastructure SIP.’’ 

III. EPA’s Evaluation 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements are 

satisfied, EPA must determine whether 

the State SIP has adequate board 

composition and disclosure 

requirements under section 128 of the 

CAA. In their 2009 Infrastructure 

Submittal and 2012 Supplement, 

Arizona submitted unofficial copies of 

Title 38, Chapter 3, Article 8 Conflict of 

Interest of Officers and Employees 

provisions to address the section 128 

requirements. The June 2012 

Supplement also included Arizona 

Revised Statute § 49–478, which 

addresses compositional requirements 

for county hearing boards. We are 

proposing to approve these statutory 

provisions into the SIP as nonregulatory materials.11

A. Evaluation of 128(a)(1) Board 

Composition Requirements 

As explained further in our Technical 

Support Document (TSD),12 Arizona has 

four heads of executive agencies that 

approve permits and enforcement orders 

under the Clean Air Act: the Director of 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ), and the Control Officer 

of each of the following three agencies: 

Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department (AQD), Pima County 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ), and Pinal County Air Quality 

Control District (AQCD). Permit and 

enforcement order appeals at the state 

level are heard by an administrative law 

judge in Arizona’s Office of 

Administrative Hearings, while those at 

the county level are heard by an Air 

Quality Hearing Board in each 

respective county (Maricopa, Pima, and 

Pinal). The only boards in Arizona that 

approve permits and enforcement orders 

are the Air Quality Hearing Boards in 

Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties, 

which may hear permit and 

enforcement order appeals and take 

actions to sustain, modify, or reverse 

(for permits) or affirm or modify (for 

enforcement orders) the actions of each 

county’s respective Control Officer. 

These boards are subject to the board 

membership requirements of section 

128(a)(1). 

ARS 49–478(B) establishes the 

compositional requirements of the 

county Air Quality Hearing Boards, 

namely that they consist of five 

members and that ‘‘[a]t least three 

members shall not have a substantial 

interest, as defined in section 38–502, in 

any person required to obtain a permit 

pursuant to [Title 49, Chapter 3 (‘‘Air 

Quality’’), Article 3 (‘‘County Air 

Pollution Control’’)].’’ It is important to 

note that while this statute explicitly 

addresses interests in persons required 

to obtain permits, it does not address 

‘‘substantial interest’’ with respect to 

interests in persons subject to 

enforcement orders. 

Pima County Code 17.04.190 

(‘‘Composition’’) generally mirrors the 

language or ARS 49–478 but also 

includes the following requirement in 

subsection B: ‘‘At least a majority of the 

hearing board members shall not 

individually have a substantial interest 

in an emission source subject to permits 

or enforcement orders issued pursuant 

to this title. Substantial interest means 

any interest other than a remote interest 

as defined in A.R.S. 38–502, paragraph 

10.’’ Thus, this local regulation extends 

the majority membership requirement of 

ARS 49–478 to interests in persons 

subject to enforcement orders. However, 

this regulation has not been submitted 

for incorporation into the Arizona SIP. 

Maricopa County Air Pollution 

Control Regulation, Rule 100, Section 

108 also mirrors the language of ARS 

49–478 but its majority membership 

requirement is limited to substantial 

interests ‘‘in any person required to 

obtain an air pollution permit’’ (i.e., it 

does not address persons subject to 

enforcement orders). Arizona’s 2009 

Infrastructure Submittal and 2012 

Supplement did not cite any such 

provisions for Pinal County. 

ARS 49–478 in conjunction with the 

definitions of ‘‘substantial interest’’ and 

‘‘remote interest’’ in ARS 38–502, which 

we propose to approve into the Arizona 

SIP, satisfy the ‘‘public interest’’ and 

‘‘significant income’’ requirements of 

CAA section 128(a)(1) for the county 

boards, but only with respect to 

interests in persons subject to permits. 

ARS 49–478 does not specifically 

reference interests in persons subject to 

enforcement orders. We view this as a 

very narrow deficiency in the State SIP 

but one that nonetheless compels 

disapproval of the State’s 128(a)(1) 

board composition provisions. 

EPA takes very seriously a proposal to 

disapprove a state plan, as we believe 

that it is preferable, and preferred in the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act, that 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

13Copies of these Arizona statutes and 

regulations are included in the 2012 Supplement, 

which is available in the docket for this action and 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398. 

these requirements be implemented 

through state plans. A state plan need 

not contain exactly the same provisions 

that EPA might require, but EPA must 

be able to find that the state plan is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act. Further, EPA’s oversight role 

requires that it assure consistent 

implementation of Clean Air Act 

requirements by states across the 

country, even while acknowledging that 

individual decisions from source to 

source or state to state may not have 

identical outcomes. In this instance, we 

believe that the 2009 Infrastructure SIP 

mostly meets the requirements of 

128(a)(1) with respect to significant 

income and representing the public 

interest, except that the submitted 

provisions do not specifically address 

‘‘substantial interest’’ with respect to 

interests in persons subject to 

enforcement orders. As a result, EPA 

believes this proposed disapproval is 

the only path that is consistent with the 

Act at this time. Based on the content 

of Pima County Code 17.04.190, we 

believe that this narrow deficiency can 

be cured by Maricopa and Pinal 

counties amending their regulations to 

mirror Pima County Code 17.04.190, 

and by ADEQ submitting such amended 

regulations for Pima, Maricopa, and 

Pinal counties as a SIP revision. 

B. Evaluation of 128(a)(2) Disclosure 

Requirements 

Arizona’s statutes governing 

disclosure of interests are found in ARS 

Title 38, Chapter 3, Article 8, which 

ADEQ submitted as a revision to the 

Arizona SIP. As further explained in our 

TSD, the conflict of interest 

requirements under Article 8 apply to 

all those individuals that approve 

permits and enforcement orders in the 

first instance or on appeal, including the 

Director of ADEQ, the administrative 

law judges of the state Office of 

Administrative Hearings, the Air 

Pollution Control Officers of the three 

relevant counties (Maricopa, Pima, and 

Pinal), and the members of the Air 

Quality Hearing Boards in each of the 

three counties. 

ARS 38–503 is the heart of the 

disclosure provisions in Article 8. In 

particular, ARS 38–503(B) reads as 

follows: ‘‘Any public officer or 

employee who has, or whose relative 

has, a substantial interest in any 

decision of a public agency shall make 

known such interest in the official 

records of such public agency and shall 

refrain from participating in any manner 

as an officer or employee in such 

decision.’’ We interpret ‘‘any decision of 

a public agency’’ to include both permit 

and enforcement order approvals. ARS 

38–502(3) defines ‘‘make known’’ as 

filing a paper or a copy of relevant 

meeting minutes that fully discloses a 

substantial interest and such filings 

must be maintained in a special file 

open to public inspection pursuant to 

ARS 38–509. 

The disclosure of ‘‘a substantial 

interest in any decision of a public 

agency’’ covers a wide array of potential 

conflicts, because ‘‘remote interest’’ is 

narrowly defined, and Article 8 applies 

to all individuals that approve permits 

and enforcement orders under the CAA. 

Thus, upon Article 8 being approved 

into the Arizona SIP, the State and 

counties of Arizona will meet the CAA 

section 128(a)(2) requirement that ‘‘any 

potential conflicts of interest * * * be 

adequately disclosed.’’ 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA has evaluated the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP and the existing 

provisions of the Arizona SIP for 

compliance with the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Our TSD 

contains more detailed evaluations and 

is available in the public docket for this 

rulemaking, which may be accessed 

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

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012– 

0398. 

Based upon this analysis, EPA 

proposes to approve Arizona’s 2009 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

following infrastructure SIP 

requirements: 

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

128(a)(2) relating to potential conflicts 

of interest by members of any state 

board or body. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

approve into the SIP certain statutory 

provisions included in the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP, as discussed in the 

TSD: 13

• ARS Title 38, Chapter 3, Article 8 

(‘‘Conflict of Interest of Officers and 

Employees’’) 

• ARS 49–435 (‘‘Hearings on orders of 

abatement’’) 

• ARS 49–461 (‘‘Violations; order of 

abatement’’) 

• ARS 49–478 (‘‘Hearing board’’) 

• ARS 49–482 (‘‘Appeals to hearing 

board’’) 

• ARS 49–490 (‘‘Hearings on orders of 

abatement’’) 

Simultaneously, we are proposing to 

disapprove Arizona’s 2009 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

following infrastructure SIP 

requirements: 

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

128(a)(1) relating to ‘‘significant 

income’’ and representing the ‘‘public 

interest’’ board composition 

requirements for Pima, Maricopa, and 

Pinal counties. 

As explained more fully in the TSD, 

we are proposing to disapprove the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to this 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because the Arizona SIP 

does not fully satisfy the statutory 

requirements for board composition 

under section 128(a)(1) of the Act. 

Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits 

EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act. 

The portion of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the 

2009 Infrastructure SIP that we are 

proposing to approve, as explained in 

the TSD, would improve the SIP by 

replacing obsolete statutes or 

regulations and by updating the state 

and local agencies’ SIP implementation 

and enforcement authorities. We 

propose to determine that our approval 

of this element of the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP would comply with 

CAA section 110(l) because the 

proposed SIP revision would not 

interfere with the on-going process for 

ensuring that requirements for RFP and 

attainment of the NAAQS are met, and 

the submitted SIP revision clarifies and 

updates the SIP. Our TSD contains a 

more detailed discussion of our 

evaluation. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D, title 

I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or 

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a 

sanctions clock. The 2009 Infrastructure 

SIP was not submitted to meet either of 

these requirements. Therefore, any 

action we take to finalize the described 

partial disapprovals will not trigger 

mandatory sanctions under CAA section 

179. 

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) 

provides that EPA must promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

within two years after finding that a 

State has failed to make a required 

submission or disapproving a State 

implementation plan submission in 

whole or in part, unless EPA approves 

a SIP revision correcting the 

deficiencies within that two-year 

period. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 44559 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

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, because this 

proposed partial approval and partial 

disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA 

section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply proposes to approve 

certain State requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

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 

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. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this 

proposed action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed 

rule does not impose any requirements 

or create impacts on small entities. This 

proposed partial SIP approval and 

partial SIP disapproval under CAA 

section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new requirements but simply 

proposes to approve certain State 

requirements, and to disapprove certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no 

opportunity for EPA to fashion for small 

entities less burdensome compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

Therefore, this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

action 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 

action proposes to approve certain preexisting requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other 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 

proposed action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), 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.’’ 

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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to approve certain 

State requirements, and to disapprove 

certain other State requirements, for 

inclusion into the SIP and does not alter 

the relationship or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP on which EPA is 

proposing action would not apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

under CAA section 110 will not in-andof itself create any new regulations but 

simply proposes to approve certain 

State requirements, and to disapprove 

certain other State requirements, for 

inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (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(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Under EPA’s ‘‘parallel processing’’ procedure, 

EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with 

the State’s proposed rulemaking. If the State’s 

proposed rule is changed, EPA will evaluate that 

subsequent change and may publish another notice 

of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is 

made, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the 

rule after responding to any submitted comments. 

Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only 

after the rule has been fully adopted by Nevada and 

submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this proposed 

action is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 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 

proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 20, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18547 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0556; FRL–9706–7] 

Revisions to the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan, Washoe County 

Air Quality District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Washoe County District 

Board of Health (WCDBOH) portion of 

the Nevada State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) that EPA expects to be submitted 

by the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NVDEP). 

These revisions concern regulations 

regarding compliance with permit 

conditions, recordkeeping, source 

sampling and testing, and statements of 

compliance with 40 CFR part 70 

permits. These regulations generally 

regulate emissions of criteria pollutants 

such as volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and 

particulate matter (PM). This proposed 

approval is based upon proposed 

regulations submitted by NVDEP and an 

accompanying request that EPA proceed 

with SIP review while the State and 

local agencies complete their public 

review and agency adoption processes. 

EPA will not take final action on these 

regulations until NVDEP submits the 

final adopted versions to EPA as a 

revision to the Nevada SIP. Final EPA 

approval of the regulations and 

incorporation of them into the Nevada 

SIP would make them federally 

enforceable under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

August 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0556, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., 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: 

Cynthia Allen, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4120, allen.cynthia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

By letter dated July 5, 2012, NVDEP 

submitted to EPA on behalf of 

WCDBOH, unofficial copies of several 

rules, with a request for approval of 

these provisions into the SIP by parallel 

processing.1 See July 5, 2012 letter to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, from 

Colleen Cripps, Administrator, NVDEP. 

Table 1 lists the four rules addressed by 

this proposal. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS