Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 89351 

2BlackRock, Inc., 179 FERC ¶ 61,049 (2022) 

(Christie, Comm’r, concurring at P 3) (BlackRock 

Concurrence), available at https://www.ferc.gov/ 

news-events/news/commissioner-christiesconcurrence-blackrocks-authorization-buy-votingsecurities. 

3 You can see the extent of these investment 

managers’ holdings through the quarterly reports 

the Commission receives as part of the requirements 

associated with section 203(a)(2) blanket 

authorizations. See, e.g., BlackRock, Quarterly 

Report, Docket No. EC16–77–002 (filed Nov. 15, 

2023) (detailing holdings in several publicly traded 

holding companies with public utility subsidiaries). 

4See BlackRock Concurrence at PP 4–5. 

5See, e.g., Testimony of Commissioner Mark C. 

Christie, Oversight of FERC: Adhering to a Mission 

of Affordable and Reliable Energy for America, 

United States House of Representatives (June 12, 

2023), available at https://www.ferc.gov/media/ 

testimony-commissioner-mark-c-christie-oversightferc-adhering-mission-affordable-and; Written 

Testimony of Commissioner Mark Christie Before 

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

United States Senate (Sept. 27, 2021), available at 

https://cms.ferc.gov/media/written-testimonycommissioner-mark-christie-committee-energy-andnatural-resources-united. 

6See, e.g., Transactions Subject to FPA Section 

203, Order No. 669, 113 FERC ¶ 61,315 (2005), 

order on reh’g, Order No. 669–A, 115 FERC 

¶ 61,097, order on reh’g, Order No. 669–B, 116 

FERC ¶ 61,076 (2006). 

utility meets its own public service 

obligations. That is why this proceeding 

is so essential, to explore those issues 

and determine whether the 

Commission’s own regulations and 

regulatory practices are still sufficient to 

protect the interests of the customers of 

public utility companies which, again, 

are likely to be monopoly providers of 

a vital public service such as electrical 

power. 

2. As I mentioned in my concurrence

to an earlier order extending BlackRock, 

Inc.’s (BlackRock) blanket authorization 

under section 203 of the Federal Power 

Act (FPA),2 it simply is no longer a 

credible assertion that investment 

managers, like BlackRock, State Street 

Corporation, and The Vanguard Group, 

Inc., are always or should be assumed 

to be merely passive investors. These 

investment managers are often the three 

biggest investors in publicly traded 

companies across the U.S. economy, 

including the utility industry, and wield 

significant financial power by virtue of 

their investments.3 These investment 

managers may occasionally use that 

financial power to push various types of 

policy agendas, agendas that may 

ultimately conflict with the utility’s 

public service obligations to its 

customers.4 Or, totally different from 

any policy goal, the threat may come 

from a private equity investor’s attempt 

to turn a quick profit on a short-term 

trade by undercutting utility practices 

that are designed to serve its retail 

customers over the long term, not the 

short-term interests of the private equity 

investor. 

3. One focus recently, and rightfully

so, has been on ‘‘ESG’’ (environmental, 

social, and governance-related) 

corporate initiatives, with huge asset 

managers pushing policy decisions that 

should be left to elected legislators. For 

example, I have pointed out the 

reliability problems that will result from 

premature dispatchable generation 

retirements that may come from these 

initiatives.5 Decisions on the 

appropriate generation resources mix for 

a public utility with a state-granted 

franchise are policy decisions for state 

policymakers, not huge Wall Street asset 

managers. 

4. But let us be clear—‘‘ESG’’ investor

activity is simply a symptom of a larger, 

more pernicious threat that has always 

existed in the utility industry: improper 

investor influence and control over 

public utilities. Large investors can and 

do force utilities to make decisions that 

are contrary to their public service 

obligations to their retail customers. 

This, among other related concerns, is 

exactly why Congress enacted a suite of 

consumer protection statutes, including 

the FPA almost 100 years ago. 

Congress’s subsequent revisions to the 

FPA over the years, such as by the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, signal the 

ongoing importance of consumer 

protection in the Commission’s 

regulatory responsibilities, including 

under section 203. Congress may have 

directed the Commission to streamline 

its regulations to facilitate greater 

investments in the utility industry, such 

as through section 203 blanket 

authorizations,6 but that streamlining 

does not, and should never, come at 

expense of protecting consumers. 

Indeed, it is the Commission’s task to 

balance these two competing 

responsibilities and to continue to 

revisit and evaluate that balance. So I 

fully agree that this NOI is timely and 

compelling and I look forward to 

moving forward on it. 

For these reasons, I respectfully 

concur. 

Mark C. Christie, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28665 Filed 12–22–23; 2:00 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0590; FRL–11615– 

01–R9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; YoloSolano Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

through parallel processing, state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

from the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD or 

‘‘District’’) to address Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requirements related to 

the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS or 

‘‘standards’’). These revisions concern 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

from biomass boilers, and also address 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements for major sources 

of NOX in the portion of the Sacramento 

Metro, CA, nonattainment area that is 

subject to YSAQMD jurisdiction. We are 

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 26, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2023–0590 at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
89352 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1Letter dated April 11, 2018, from Elizabeth J. 

Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region 

IX, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB. A 

‘‘negative declaration’’ is an assertion by a state or 

district that a nonattainment area contains no 

sources covered by a particular control techniques 

guidelines (CTG) document. 

2Letter dated August 23, 2018, from Elizabeth J. 

Adams, Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region 

IX, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB. 

3 ‘‘Parallel processing’’ refers to a process 

established under section 2.3 of Appendix V to 40 

CFR part 51 that utilizes concurrent state and 

federal proposed rulemaking actions. Generally, the 

state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or 

other revisions to the EPA before conducting its 

public hearing and completing its public comment 

process under state law. The EPA reviews this 

proposed state or district action and prepares a 

notice of proposed rulemaking under federal law. 

In some cases, the EPA publishes its notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register during 

the same timeframe that the state or District is 

holding its own public hearing and public comment 

process. If, after completing its public comment 

process and after the EPA’s public comment process 

has run, the state materially changes its final SIP 

submission to the EPA from the initial proposed 

submission, the EPA evaluates those changes and 

decides whether to publish another notice of 

proposed rulemaking in light of those changes or to 

proceed to taking final action on its proposed action 

with a description of the state’s changes. Any final 

rulemaking action by the EPA will occur only after 

the state formally adopts and submits its final 

submission to the EPA. 

4 88 FR 42252. 

5 77 FR 39181. The EPA published a correcting 

amendment on March 28, 2018 (83 FR 13190) that 

corrected an error in the regulatory text of the July 

2, 2012 final action. 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with a 

disability 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: 

Eugene Chen, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street (AIR–3–3), San 

Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 

947–4304 or by email at chen.eugene@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What documents did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of the 

submitted documents? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

documents? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the 

submitted documents? 

B. Do the submitted documents meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What documents did the State 

submit? 

Table 1 lists the documents addressed 

by this proposal with the dates that they 

were adopted by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS

Local agency Document/ 

rule No. Document title Revised Submitted 

YSAQMD .......... .................... Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Analysis for the 2008 Federal Ozone Standard (‘‘2017 RACT SIP’’).

09/13/2017 11/13/2017 

YSAQMD .......... 2.43 Biomass Boilers (public draft version submitted for parallel processing) ................ .................... 11/27/2023 

On September 13, 2017, the YSAQMD 

adopted the ‘‘Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Analysis for 

the 2008 Federal Ozone Standard’’ 

(‘‘2017 RACT SIP’’) to demonstrate that 

its stationary sources are subject to 

RACT rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. On November 13, 2017, the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

submitted the 2017 RACT SIP to the 

EPA for approval as a revision to the 

California SIP. The EPA determined that 

the negative declarations portion of the 

2017 RACT SIP met the SIP submittal 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix V on April 11, 2018.1 The 

EPA determined that the remaining 

elements of the 2017 RACT SIP met the 

SIP completeness criteria on August 23, 

2018.2

On November 27, 2023, CARB 

submitted a public draft version of 

amendments to Rule 2.43, ‘‘Biomass 

Boilers,’’ along with a request for 

parallel processing.3 The EPA has 

reviewed the submitted public draft 

version of Rule 2.43 and finds that it 

fulfills the completeness criteria of 

appendix V, with the exception of the 

requirements of paragraphs 2.1(e)– 

2.1(h), which do not apply to rules 

submitted for parallel processing. 

CARB’s November 27, 2023 letter states 

that the YSAQMD Governing Board was 

scheduled to consider adoption of the 

amended rule on December 13, 2023, 

and that if it was approved, CARB 

would submit the final package to the 

EPA as a revision to the SIP. While our 

evaluation of Rule 2.43 herein is based 

on the public draft of the rule submitted 

by CARB on November 27, 2023, the 

YSAQMD Governing Board has since 

approved the rule amendments from 

this draft, and the EPA is now awaiting 

the final rule submittal from CARB. 

B. Are there other versions of the 

submitted documents? 

On June 30, 2023, we took final action 

to partially approve and partially 

disapprove the 2017 RACT SIP.4 Our 

partial disapproval related solely to the 

RACT element for major sources of NOX

that we are now proposing to approve 

in this action. 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 2.43 into the SIP on July 2, 2012.5

The District adopted amendments to the 

SIP-approved version of Rule 2.43 on 

April 12, 2023, and CARB submitted 

these amendments to the EPA on June 

8, 2023. We will consider this earlier 

submittal to be superseded, by the time 

of our final action, by the version of 

Rule 2.43 that has been submitted for 

parallel processing once it is submitted 

to the EPA as a SIP revision. Therefore, 

we are proposing to act only on the 

version of the rule submitted on 

November 27, 2023, which includes all 

revisions made in the June 8, 2023 

submittal. However, we have reviewed 

materials provided with the June 8, 

2023 submittal, and our evaluation 

below considers the amendments made 

in that version of the rule. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

documents? 

Emissions of NOX contribute to the 

production of ground-level ozone, smog 

and particulate matter (PM), which 

harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires states to submit plans that 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. In addition, CAA sections 

182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs for 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

‘‘Moderate’’ or higher implement RACT 

for any category of sources covered by 

a control techniques guidelines (CTG) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 89353 

6May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088). 

7 2017 RACT SIP, pages 5 and 45. 

8 ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of 

EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend 

Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During 

Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ 80 

FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). 

9 88 FR 42252. See also TSD for that action, which 

is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

10The amendments require that these records be 

submitted to the EPA via the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or an 

analogous EPA electronic submission system. 

CEDRI is an internet-based service maintained by 

the EPA that allows regulated sources to submit 

various reports for purposes of demonstrating 

compliance with federal requirements. In addition 

to regulated sources, state and local agency 

personnel may create user accounts on CEDRI and 

access the information submitted by sources located 

within their agency’s jurisdiction. Additional 

information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ 

electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri. 

document and for any major source of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or 

NOX. The YSAQMD regulates the Yolo 

and Solano County portions of the 

Sacramento Metro, CA, ozone 

nonattainment area, which is classified 

as ‘‘Severe’’ nonattainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS.6 Therefore, the 

YSAQMD must, at a minimum, ensure 

that all categories of sources covered by 

a CTG document and all major sources 

of VOCs or NOX within the District 

implement RACT-level controls. Any 

stationary source that emits or has the 

potential to emit at least 25 tons per 

year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX in a Severe 

ozone nonattainment area is considered 

a major stationary source. 

The YSAQMD relies upon Rule 2.43 

to implement RACT for major sources of 

NOX.7 As we explained in our June 30, 

2023 final action on the 2017 RACT SIP, 

the current SIP-approved version of 

Rule 2.43 contains a provision that 

explicitly exempts affected units from 

complying with rule standards during 

periods of startup and shutdown and 

does not provide for an alternative 

emission limitation during such 

periods. This provision is inconsistent 

with the EPA’s Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction (SSM) Policy as established 

in the EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action.8

This deficiency was the basis for our 

disapproval of the major source NOX

element of the 2017 RACT SIP. The Rule 

2.43 amendments adopted on April 12, 

2023, are intended to address this by 

establishing numeric NOX and carbon 

monoxide (CO) limits that apply during 

periods of startup and shutdown. The 

Rule 2.43 amendments that YSAQMD 

has proposed, will also establish 

additional recordkeeping and periodic 

reporting requirements. Our technical 

support document (TSD) has more 

detailed information about these rule 

revisions. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the 

submitted documents? 

Rules in the SIP 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). 

Generally, SIP rules must require the 

implementation of RACT for each 

category of sources covered by a CTG, 

as well as each major source of NOX or 

VOC in ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as Moderate or higher (see 

CAA section 182(b)(2)). The YSAQMD 

regulates a portion of an ozone 

nonattainment area classified as 

‘‘Severe’’ for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and is therefore responsible for ensuring 

the applicable sources implement 

RACT-level controls for that ozone 

standard. The YSAQMD relies upon 

Rule 2.43 to require the applicable 

sources to implement RACT-level 

controls to fulfill the requirements 

associated with the major source NOX

element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

We note that the April 12, 2023 

amendments to Rule 2.43 also establish 

emission standards for CO, which is not 

an ozone precursor, and therefore we 

are not assessing in this action whether 

the CO standard implements RACTlevel controls. As a result, we have not 

evaluated CO emission standards in 

Rule 2.43 for stringency, but we have 

evaluated them under the enforceability 

and SIP relaxation criteria. 

B. Do the submitted documents meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

In our June 30, 2023 final action on 

the 2017 RACT SIP, we evaluated the 

stringency of the 90 parts per million 

(ppm) (24-hour block average) NOX

emissions limit established by the SIPapproved version of Rule 2.43.9

However, the 90 ppm limit did not 

apply during periods of startup and 

shutdown. As a result, we determined 

that the emission limits in SIP-approved 

Rule 2.43 achieve RACT-level 

stringency but found that the lack of a 

continuous emissions limit that applies 

at all times (including periods of startup 

and shutdown) precluded us from 

determining that Rule 2.43 implemented 

RACT. We have not identified any 

information since our June 30, 2023 

approval to alter our evaluation of the 

stringency of the SIP-approved NOX

emission limits. 

The April 12, 2023 amendments to 

Rule 2.43 established a NOX limit of 215 

ppm on a 24-hour block average that 

applies during periods of startup and 

shutdown. We consider this emission 

limit to be consistent with the use of 

either combustion controls or good 

combustion practices that are the most 

stringent control measures that can be 

feasibly utilized during periods of 

startup and shutdown. In addition, the 

YSAQMD identified other California air 

district rules for biomass boilers and 

indicated that these rules either 

exempted periods of startup and 

shutdown or had startup/shutdown 

limits that are less stringent than those 

in Rule 2.43. This supports an EPA 

determination that the amended rule 

establishes a RACT-level of control. 

Finally, we determined that the 

amended Rule 2.43 is consistent with 

each of the seven specific criteria 

recommended in the EPA’s SSM Policy 

as appropriate considerations for 

developing emission limitations in SIP 

provisions applicable during startup 

and shutdown. Additional information 

regarding our evaluation of Rule 2.43 

with the seven criteria is discussed in 

greater detail in our TSD for this action. 

The Rule 2.43 amendments adopted 

by YSAQMD on December 13, 2023, 

explicitly require that the results of any 

relative accuracy test audit (RATA) 

performed be maintained by the source 

as required records, and will also 

establish a requirement for the owner/ 

operator of an affected source to submit 

all records required by the 

recordkeeping provisions of the rule to 

the EPA at least once every six 

months.10 These reporting provision 

amendments will assist in ensuring 

compliance with emission standards 

and other rule requirements, and will 

also ensure that Rule 2.43 is enforceable 

by the District and the EPA as well as 

by members of the public. 

Based on the stringency of the 

existing SIP-approved NOX limits, 

combined with the NOX limits 

established for periods of startup and 

shutdown, we propose to approve Rule 

2.43 as complying with EPA’s SSM 

policy and as implementing RACT for 

this source category. As discussed 

previously, the absence of an emission 

limit during startup and shutdown was 

the basis for our disapproval of the 

major source NOX element of the 2017 

RACT SIP. Since we are proposing to 

determine that Rule 2.43 satisfies the 

requirement to implement RACT, we are 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
89354 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

also proposing to determine that the 

District implements RACT for major 

sources of NOX associated with the 

area’s Severe classification for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

The existing SIP-approved version of 

the rule contains several monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

provisions, including a requirement to 

operate continuous emission monitoring 

systems (CEMS) for NOX and CO; 

performance specification and 

calibration requirements for the CEMS; 

and requirements to maintain daily logs 

of emissions, fuel usage, and startup/ 

shutdown durations. The amendments 

adopted on December 13, 2023 establish 

a new requirement for all records 

required by this rule to be submitted to 

the EPA at least once every six months. 

We consider these provisions adequate 

to ensure that compliance with rule 

requirements can be clearly determined, 

and that the rule is enforceable by the 

District and the EPA, as well as by 

members of the public. We are also 

proposing to determine that our 

approval of these amendments would 

comply with CAA section 110(l) 

because the proposed SIP revision 

would not interfere with any applicable 

CAA requirements. In addition, CAA 

section 193 does not apply to this action 

because Rule 2.43 is not a SIP-approved 

control requirement that was in effect 

before November 15, 1990. Additional 

information regarding our evaluation is 

discussed in greater detail in our TSD 

for this action. 

C. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to approve 

Rule 2.43, as amended on April 12, 

2023, and as further amended on 

December 13, 2023, into the California 

SIP. Based on our discussion in Section 

II.B of this document, we propose to 

determine that Rule 2.43 as amended 

will comply with the EPA’s SSM policy 

and other applicable CAA requirements 

and will implement RACT for this 

source category. In addition, we propose 

to approve the major source NOX RACT 

element of the 2017 RACT SIP. Because 

our proposed approval relies upon our 

evaluation of the public draft version of 

the Rule 2.43 amendments, 

subsequently adopted on December 13, 

2023, but not yet formally submitted by 

CARB, we will not take final action 

until these amendments are submitted 

to us as a revision to the California SIP. 

If Rule 2.43 is not submitted in the form 

adopted on December 13, 2023, we will 

reconsider our proposed action 

accordingly. We will accept comments 

from the public on this proposal until 

January 26, 2024. If we take final action 

to approve the submitted documents, 

our final action will incorporate this 

rule into the federally enforceable SIP. 

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 

YSAQMD Rule 2.43, ‘‘Biomass Boilers,’’ 

amended on December 13, 2023, which 

regulates NOX and CO emissions from 

biomass-fueled boilers. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

materials available through https:// 

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 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provision of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 740(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s 

role is to review state choices, and 

approve those choices if they meet the 

minimum criteria of the Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it proposes to approve a state 

program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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. 

In addition, 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. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The State did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA did not perform an 

EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in 

this action. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 89355 

1ADEQ submitted the amendment to MCAQD 

Rule 100 electronically on August 23, 2023. ADEQ’s 

submittal letter is dated August 23, 2023. 

2See 87 FR 8418 (February 15, 2022). 

Dated: December 20, 2023. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28525 Filed 12–26–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0599; FRL–11591– 

01–R9] 

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department (MCAQD) portion 

of the Arizona State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern a 

rule that includes definitions for certain 

terms that are necessary for the 

implementation of local rules that 

regulate sources of air pollution. We are 

proposing to approve the rule under the 

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

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 26, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2023–0599 at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with a 

disability 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: Kira 

Wiesinger, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3827 or by 

email at wiesinger.kira@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. The EPA’s Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the date that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to the 

EPA. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local 

agency Rule No. Rule title Revised Submitted on 

MCAQD 100 ...................................................................... General Provisions and Definitions ..................... 8/9/2023 1 8/23/2023 

Under CAA section 110(k)(1), the EPA 

must determine whether a SIP submittal 

meets the minimum completeness 

criteria established in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V for an official SIP submittal 

on which the EPA is obligated to take 

action. We find that the ADEQ’s August 

23, 2023 SIP submittal for MCAQD Rule 

100 meets the completeness criteria in 

40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which 

must be met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this 

rulemaking? 

We approved an earlier version of 

MCAQD Rule 100 into the SIP on 

February 15, 2022.2 The Maricopa 

County Board of Supervisors adopted 

revisions to the SIP-approved version on 

August 9, 2023, and the ADEQ 

submitted them to us on August 23, 

2023. If we take final action to approve 

the August 9, 2023 version of Rule 100, 

this version will replace the previously 

approved version of this rule in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

The purpose of the submitted rule 

revisions is to clarify and update 

definitions in Rule 100 of the Maricopa 

County portion of the Arizona SIP as 

part of the MCAQD’s Title V permit 

program revision. Revisions include the 

following, but a more complete list and 

discussion can be found in the technical 

support document (TSD) for this action 

found in the docket: 

• The addition of definitions for the 

terms ‘‘alternative operating scenario’’ 

and ‘‘business day or working day’’ and 

a revision of the definition of ‘‘major 

source.’’ A definition for the term 

‘‘alternative operating scenario’’ was 

added to allow MCAQD Title V permit 

applications the opportunity to submit 

an alternative operating scenario for 

their source. The ‘‘major source’’ 

definition has been revised to make it 

consistent with the Title V permit 

program definition of ‘‘major source,’’ 

by including language describing a 100 

tons per year emission threshold. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the 

rulemaking? 

Rules in the SIP 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1