Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21911 

exception, the proposed revisions to 25 

Pa. Code 127, Subchapter B meet or 

exceed Federal requirements. EPA is 

proposing to grant limited approval to 

the Pennsylvania SIP revision, which 

was submitted on April 14, 2009. EPA 

is soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

IV. 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. 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 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, this proposed action 

regarding streamlining amendments to 

Pennsylvania’s plan approval process 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 28, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8852 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0244; FRL–9657–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Arizona; Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Arizona to address the requirements 

regarding air pollution emergency 

episodes in Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

section 110(a)(2)(G). Section 

110(a)(2)(G) of the Act requires that each 

SIP provide for authority comparable to 

that in section 303 of the Act and 

adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority. EPA is 

proposing to approve Arizona’s SIP 

revision as meeting the authority and 

contingency plans for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS or standards). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0244, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Jeffrey Buss (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: 

Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4152, 

buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1See transmittal letter dated August 15, 1994, 

from Edward Z. Fox, Director, ADEQ, to Felicia 

Marcus, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 

IX, with attachments. We note that although the 

subject line of the transmittal letter identifies this 

SIP submittal as related to ‘‘New Source Review 

and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/ 

PSD) Program for Major Sources and Major 

Modifications and New Source Review (NSR) for 

Minor Sources,’’ Attachment 6 of this submittal 

includes the Arizona Emergency Episode Plan, 

which is not related to NSR or PSD. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP Revision 

A. SIP Procedural Requirements 

B. Substantive Emergency Episode Plan 

Requirements 

C. Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act 

III. EPA’s Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

revised primary and secondary NAAQS 

for ozone which set the acceptable level 

of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm), averaged over an 8- 

hour period. 62 FR 38856; 40 CFR 50.10. 

This proposed action is in response to 

the promulgation of these ozone 

standards. 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to address a new 

or revised NAAQS within three years 

after promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

elements that these SIPs must address, 

as applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(G) regarding authority to 

address air pollution emergency 

episodes and adequate contingency 

plans to implement such authority 

(Emergency Episode Plans). EPA last 

approved an Emergency Episode Plan 

requirement into the Arizona SIP on 

September 28, 1982 (47 FR 42572). 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued a 

guidance memorandum that provides 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet, among other 

things, the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-Hour ozone 

standards. See Memorandum from 

William T. Harnett, EPA Air Quality 

Policy Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions I–X, ‘‘Guidance on 

SIP Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards,’’ October 2, 2007 

(2007 Guidance). 

This proposed action addresses only 

Arizona’s submittal to satisfy the 

Emergency Episode Plan requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and does 

not apply to the remaining 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP elements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. We intend to evaluate 

and act upon Arizona’s SIP submittal 

addressing these additional 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

separate actions. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP Revision 

A. SIP Procedural Requirements 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

section 110(l) require that each revision 

to a SIP be adopted by the state after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

EPA has promulgated specific 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 

These requirements include publication 

of notices, by prominent advertisement 

in the relevant geographic area, of a 

public hearing on the proposed 

revisions, a public comment period of at 

least 30 days, and an opportunity for a 

public hearing. 

On August 15, 1994, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) submitted section 220 of 

Chapter 2, Title 18 of the Arizona 

Administrative Code (R18–2–220), ‘‘Air 

pollution emergency episodes’’ 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Arizona 

Emergency Episode Plan’’) to EPA for 

approval as part of the Arizona SIP.1

ADEQ’s August 15, 1994 submittal 

includes public process documentation 

for the Arizona Emergency Episode 

Plan, among other regulations. In 

addition, the SIP revision includes 

documentation of a duly noticed public 

hearing held on August 9, 1994 on the 

proposed version of the Arizona 

Emergency Episode Plan. We find that 

the process followed by ADEQ in 

adopting the Arizona Emergency 

Episode Plan complies with the 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions under CAA section 110 and 

EPA’s implementing regulations. 

B. Substantive Emergency Episode Plan 

Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA 

requires that each SIP provide for 

authority comparable to that in CAA 

section 303 (‘‘Emergency Powers’’) and 

adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority. EPA’s 

implementing regulations in 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart H (‘‘Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes’’), 

establish a ‘‘priority’’ classification 

system under which each region in a 

state is classified separately for each of 

the following criteria pollutants, based 

on ambient concentrations of the 

pollutant: sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

particulate matter of 10 microns or less 

(PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), and ozone. Subpart H 

specifies the requirements that each 

contingency plan must meet, based on 

the priority classification of the area in 

which it applies. See 40 CFR 51.152. 

Subpart H also requires that each 

contingency plan for a ‘‘priority I’’ area 

provide, at a minimum, for taking action 

necessary to prevent ambient pollutant 

concentrations at any location in such 

region from reaching specified 

‘‘significant harm levels’’ (SHL). 40 CFR 

51.151. The SHL for ozone is 1,200 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) or 

0.6 ppm over a 2-hour average. Id. 

EPA’s 2007 Guidance addressed, 

among other things, the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2007 

Guidance stated that the SHL for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS would 

remain unchanged as 0.60 ppm over a 

2-hour average, as indicated in 40 CFR 

section 51.151, and that the existing 

ozone-related provisions of 40 CFR part 

51, subpart H remained appropriate for 

purposes of implementing the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. See 2007 

Guidance at 5. We have evaluated the 

Arizona Emergency Episode Plan in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 51, subpart H, as applicable for 

ozone purposes, consistent with EPA’s 

recommendations in the 2007 Guidance. 

Based on this evaluation, we propose to 

fully approve the Arizona Emergency 

Episode Plan as satisfying the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Our technical support document (TSD), 

which is available in the docket for 

today’s proposed rule, contains a more 

detailed discussion of our evaluation. 

C. Sections 110(l) and 193 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. 

Section 193 of the Act prohibits the 

modification, in a nonattainment area, 

of any SIP-approved control 

requirement in effect before November 

15, 1990, unless the modification 

‘‘insures equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions of such air pollutant.’’ 

The Arizona Emergency Episode Plan 

is substantively identical to the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) rule currently 

approved into Arizona’s SIP (R9–3–219, 

‘‘Air pollution emergency episodes’’), 

which EPA approved in 1982 (47 FR 

42572, September 28, 1982), with one 

exception which makes it more 

stringent than the SIP program. We 

propose to determine that our approval 

of this submittal would comply with 

CAA section 110(l), because the 

proposed SIP revision would not 

interfere with the ongoing process for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21913 

ensuring that requirements for RFP and 

attainment of the NAAQS are met, and 

the submitted SIP revision is more 

stringent than the rule previously 

approved into the SIP. We also propose 

to determine that our approval of the 

submittal would comply with CAA 

section 193, to the extent it applies, 

because the SIP revision would insure 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of ozone precursors 

compared to the SIP-approved rule. Our 

TSD contains a more detailed 

discussion of our evaluation. 

III. EPA’s Proposed Action 

Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 

Act, EPA is proposing to approve the 

SIP revision submitted by ADEQ on 

August 15, 1994, as meeting all 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this proposal and will accept comments 

until the date noted in the DATES section 

above. 

IV. 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 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 29, 2012. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8837 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0228; FRL–9657–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Hawaii; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Hawaii 

pursuant to the requirements of Section 

110(a)(1) and (2) 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). Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires that each State adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. On 

December 14, 2011, the Hawaii 

Department of Health (HDOH) 

submitted a revision to Hawaii’s SIP, 

which describes the State’s provisions 

for implementing, maintaining, and 

enforcing standards listed above. We are 

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0228, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: richmond.dawn@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Dawn Richmond, 

Air Planning Office (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: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

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

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS