Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 38239 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule 

involves the establishment of a Special 

Local Regulation. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping, 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: U.S.C. 1233. 

2. Add § 100.1310 to read as follows: 

§ 100.1310 Special Local Regulation, 

Underwater Music Festival, Carr Inlet, Cutts 

Island, WA 

(1) Effective Period. This rule is 

effective annually during the 

Underwater Music Festival which 

typically occurs in late July or early 

August. 

(2) Regulated Area. The following 

area is specified as a regulated area: All 

waters encompassed within one 

nautical mile of Cutts Island, WA 

located at approximately 47°19′15′′ N, 

122°41′15′′ W. 

(3) Special Local Regulations. 

(a) The Coast Guard will maintain a 

patrol consisting of Coast Guard vessels 

for the duration of this event. The Coast 

Guard Patrol of this area is under the 

direction of the Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander who is empowered to 

control the movement of vessels inside 

the boundaries of the regulation during 

the time in which this regulation is in 

effect. The Patrol Commander may be 

assisted by other federal, state, and local 

law enforcement agencies. 

(b) Vessels are required to transit the 

regulated area at the minimum speed 

necessary to maintain course, unless 

required to maintain speed by the 

Navigation Rules, and shall proceed as 

directed by the Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander. 

(c) Only vessels authorized by the 

Patrol Commander or other law 

enforcement agencies shall be permitted 

to engage in towing. 

(d) No more than six vessels are 

permitted to raft together. 

(e) Any person swimming or 

otherwise entering the water shall 

remain within 10 feet of a vessel or 

shore. 

(4) Notice of Enforcement. The 

Captain of the Port will provide notice 

of the enforcement of this Special Local 

Regulation by all appropriate means to 

ensure the widest dissemination among 

the affected segments of the public, as 

practicable; such means of notification 

may include but are not limited to, 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local 

Notice to Mariners. 

Dated: May 28, 2012. 

K.A. Taylor, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Thirteenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15640 Filed 6–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0398; FRL–9692–5] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure 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 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Arizona to 

address 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 

September 18, 2008 and October 14, 

2009, the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

submitted a revision to Arizona’s SIP, 

which describes the State’s provisions 

for implementing, maintaining, and 

enforcing the standards listed above. On 

June 1, 2012, ADEQ submitted a 

supplement to these SIP revisions, 

including certain statutory and 

regulatory provisions. We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 27, 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. 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38240 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 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, Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket #EPA– 

R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on 

proposals for three states in Region 5). 

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 

A. Statutory Framework 

B. Regulatory History 

C. Scope of the Infrastructure SIP 

Evaluation 

II. The State’s Submittal 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Framework 

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

states to make a SIP submission ‘‘within 

3 years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ that provides for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 

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

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must meet. Many of the 

section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to 

the general information and authorities 

that constitute the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a 

state’s air quality management program 

and SIP submittals that address these 

requirements are referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ These 

infrastructure SIP elements include: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified 

stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate 

pollution transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local and 

regional government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation 

with government officials, public 

notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

relate to part D of title I of the CAA, and 

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (i) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs required under part D 

(nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR)), and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), 

pertaining to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). 

B. Regulatory History 

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for ozone 1 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. 

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) for the relevant 

pollutant. On September 8, 2011, EPA 

found that Arizona had failed to make 

a complete submittal to satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 

55577). 

C. Scope of the Infrastructure SIP 

Evaluation 

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various 

states across the country. Commenters 

on EPA’s recent proposals for some 

states raised concerns about EPA 

statements that it was not addressing 

certain substantive issues in the context 

of acting on those infrastructure SIP 

submissions.4 Those commenters 

specifically raised concerns involving 

provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements in other proposals that 

it would address two issues separately 

and not as part of actions on the 

infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, or malfunction at sources, 

that may be contrary to the CAA and 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess 

emissions (‘‘SSM’’); and (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIP 

approved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’). EPA notes that there are 

two other substantive issues for which 

EPA likewise stated in other proposals 

that it would address the issues 

separately: (i) Existing provisions for 

minor source new source review 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs (‘‘minor source NSR’’); and (ii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs that 

may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). In light of the comments, EPA 

believes that its statements in various 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 38241 

5For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that 

states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must 

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

6For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in 

order to determine such basic points as what 

constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g., ‘‘Rule 

To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the 

NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

7See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63–65 (May 12, 

2005) (explaining relationship between timing 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 

110(a)(2)(I)). 

8For example, EPA issued separate guidance to 

states with respect to SIP submissions to meet 

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

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, ‘‘Guidance for State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet 

Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, 

Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006. In addition, 

EPA bifurcated the action on these ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ provisions within section 110(a)(2) and 

in most instances, substantive administrative 

actions occurred on different tracks with different 

schedules. 

9For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to these four individual 

issues should be explained in greater 

depth. 

EPA intended the statements in other 

proposals concerning these four issues 

merely to be informational, and to 

provide general notice of the potential 

existence of provisions within the 

existing SIPs of some states that might 

require future corrective action. EPA did 

not want states, regulated entities, or 

members of the public to be under the 

misconception that the Agency’s 

approval of the infrastructure SIP 

submission of a given state should be 

interpreted as a reapproval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist 

buried in the larger existing SIP for such 

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that 

some states may have existing SIPapproved SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing State provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at facilities.’’ EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, 

that ‘‘EPA plans to address such State 

regulations in the future.’’ EPA made 

similar statements, for similar reasons, 

with respect to the director’s discretion, 

minor source NSR, and NSR Reform 

issues. EPA’s objective was to make 

clear that approval of an infrastructure 

SIP for these NAAQS should not be 

construed as explicit or implicit 

reapproval of any existing provisions 

that relate to these four substantive 

issues. 

Unfortunately, the commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 

other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA’s 

intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the 

potential for certain types of 

deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to 

prevent any misunderstanding that it 

was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to 

convey its position that the statute does 

not require that infrastructure SIPs 

address these specific substantive issues 

in existing SIPs and that these issues 

may be dealt with separately, outside 

the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submission of a state. 

To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply 

that it was not taking a full final agency 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to any 

substantive issue that EPA considers to 

be a required part of acting on such 

submissions under section 110(k) or 

under section 110(c). Given the 

confusion evidently resulting from 

EPA’s statements in those other 

proposals, however, we want to explain 

more fully the Agency’s reasons for 

concluding that these four potential 

substantive issues in existing SIPs may 

be addressed separately from actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements 

provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a 

wide variety of disparate provisions, 

some of which pertain to required legal 

authority, some of which pertain to 

required substantive provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.5 Some of the elements of 

section 110(a)(2) are relatively 

straightforward, but others clearly 

require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give 

specific meaning for a particular 

NAAQS.6

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

provides that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission 

must meet the list of requirements 

therein, EPA has long noted that this 

literal reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent, insofar as section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP 

submissions in section 110(a)(1).7 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. Likewise, 

EPA has previously decided that it 

could take action on different parts of 

the larger, general ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

for a given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on all subsections.8 Finally, EPA 

notes that not every element of section 

110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as 

relevant, or relevant in the same way, 

for each new or revised NAAQS and the 

attendant infrastructure SIP submission 

for that NAAQS. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that might be 

necessary for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be 

very different than what might be 

necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, 

the content of an infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element from a 

state might be very different for an 

entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.9

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), and this also 

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, 

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part 

C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency 

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38242 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director, Air 

Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ‘‘2007 

Guidance’’). 

11 Id. at page 2. 

12 Id. at attachment A, page 1. 

13 Id. at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised 

by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to 

some substantive issues indicate that the statute is 

not so ‘‘self explanatory,’’ and indeed is sufficiently 

ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order 

to explain why these substantive issues do not need 

to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs 

and may be addressed at other times and by other 

means. 

14See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ from William T, 

Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, dated 

September 25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 Guidance’’). 

15EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 76 FR 21639 (April 

18, 2011). 

SIP submission may implicate some 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), 

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance making recommendations for 

the infrastructure SIP submissions for 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.10 Within this 

guidance document, EPA described the 

duty of states to make these submissions 

to meet what the Agency characterized 

as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for 

SIPs, which it further described as the 

‘‘basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards.’’ 11 As 

further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, 

‘‘attachment A’’ to the guidance 

document included a short description 

of the various elements of section 

110(a)(2) and additional information 

about the types of issues that EPA 

considered germane in the context of 

such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment 

A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an 

interpretation of’’ the requirements, and 

was merely a ‘‘brief description of the 

required elements.’’ 12 EPA also stated 

its belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

States to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 13 For the 

one exception to that general 

assumption, however, i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much 

more specific recommendations. But for 

other infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

for certain elements of the submittals for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed 

that each State would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to 

refine the scope of a State’s submittal 

based on an assessment of how the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) should 

reasonably apply to the basic structure 

of the State’s SIP for the NAAQS in 

question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.14 In the 

2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were 

not germane to the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Significantly, neither the 

2007 Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance 

explicitly referred to the SSM, director’s 

discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR 

Reform issues as among specific 

substantive issues EPA expected states 

to address in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations 

with respect to how states might address 

such issues even if they elected to do so. 

The SSM and director’s discretion 

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and the minor source NSR and NSR 

Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and 

the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did 

not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a 

substantive submission to address these 

specific issues in existing SIP provisions 

in the context of the infrastructure SIPs 

for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 

Guidance merely indicated its belief 

that the states should make submissions 

in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. EPA believes that states can 

establish that they have the basic SIP 

structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the 

existing SIP. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable, because it would not be 

feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require a comprehensive review of 

each and every provision of an existing 

SIP merely for purposes of assuring that 

the state in question has the basic 

structural elements for a functioning SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS. Because 

SIPs have grown by accretion over the 

decades as statutory and regulatory 

requirements under the CAA have 

evolved, they may include some 

outmoded provisions and historical 

artifacts that, while not fully up to date, 

nevertheless may not pose a significant 

problem for the purposes of 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of a new or revised 

NAAQS when EPA considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the 

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow the 

Agency to take appropriate tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or otherwise to 

comply with the CAA.15 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 38243 

16EPA has recently utilized this authority to 

correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions 

related to PSD programs. See, ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) 

to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

17EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010)(proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011)(final disapproval of such provisions). 

18See letter dated September 18, 2008, from 

Stephen A. Owens, Air Quality Director, ADEQ, to 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9. 

19 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). 

20See letter dated October 14, 2009, from Eric C. 

Massey, Air Quality Director, ADEQ, to Laura 

Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9. 

21Under 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. 

22See letter dated June 1, 2012, from Eric C. 

Massey, Air Quality Director, ADEQ, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

23See letter dated June 14, 2012, from Eric C. 

Massey, Air Quality Director, ADEQ, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

24See email dated June 14, 2012, from Danielle 

Dancho, ADEQ, to Jeanhee Hong, EPA Region 9. 

approvals of SIP submissions.16

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP is not 

the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP 

problems does not preclude the 

Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.17

II. The State’s Submittals 

On September 18, 2008, ADEQ 

submitted the ‘‘Analysis of Clean Air 

Act Section 110(a)(2) Air Quality 

Control Program Elements for Arizona— 

PM2.5,’’ to address several elements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS (‘‘2008 Infrastructure 

Analysis’’).18 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 

and 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ to 

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

requirements except for section 

110(a)(2)(G) 19 for these three NAAQS 

(‘‘2009 Infrastructure Analysis’’).20 The 

2009 Infrastructure Analysis 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’’ 21 and stated its 

intention to submit these statutes and 

regulations as a formal SIP submittal, 

following reasonable notice and public 

hearings, by late August 2012.22 ADEQ 

amended this request by letter dated 

June 14, 2012, to remove several statutes 

and regulations from the 2012 

Supplement.23 With respect to two Pima 

County regulations included in the 2012 

Supplement (rules 17.12.040 and 

17.24.040), ADEQ has informed us that 

it is awaiting confirmation that the Pima 

County Department of Environmental 

Quality (PCDEQ) will commence a local 

rulemaking process to adopt these 

regulations as SIP revisions under CAA 

section 110 and thereafter submit the 

rules to ADEQ for transmittal to EPA.24

In a separate proposal published in 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

proposing to approve these Pima County 

regulations, among others, into the 

Arizona SIP contingent upon ADEQ’s 

submittal of them as fully adopted SIP 

revisions. See ‘‘Revisions to the Arizona 

State Implementation Plan, Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department, and Pima County 

Department of Environmental Quality,’’ 

proposed rule, signed June 15, 2012. 

Because the 2009 Infrastructure 

Analysis includes comprehensive 

updates to and essentially supersedes 

the 2008 Infrastructure Analysis, we are 

proposing to act on the 2009 

Infrastructure Analysis, as 

supplemented and amended by the 2012 

Supplement. We refer to the 2009 

Infrastructure Analysis and 2012 

Supplement collectively as the ‘‘2009 

Infrastructure SIP.’’ Although we are 

proposing to act only on the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP, we have reviewed 

materials provided in the 2008 

Infrastructure Analysis to the extent 

applicable to our evaluation. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and 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) 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Our Technical Support 

Document (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 the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

following infrastructure SIP 

requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources. 

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

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i): Adequate 

resources and legal authority. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii): State 

oversight of local or regional 

government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials 

and public notification. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38244 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

25Copies 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. 

26See fn. 24, above. 

27See 59 FR 1730 (January 12, 1994) and 

‘‘Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the 

Regulations for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between 

U.S. EPA and MC,’’ executed November 22, 1993; 

‘‘Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the 

Regulations for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between 

U.S. EPA and Pima County Air Quality Control 

District,’’ executed April 14, 1994. 

28For PM–10 and GHGs, ADEQ implements the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 pursuant to 

delegation agreements executed in 1999 and 2011, 

respectively. 40 CFR 52.37; ‘‘Agreement for 

Delegation of Authority of the PM–10 Regulations 

for Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air 

Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between EPA and Arizona 

DEQ,’’ executed March 12, 1999’’; ‘‘U.S. EPAArizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Agreement for Delegation of Authority to Issue and 

Modify Greenhouse Gas Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Permits Subject to 40 CFR 52.21,’’ 

executed March 30, 2011. 

29For GHGs, Pinal County implements the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 pursuant to 

a delegation agreement executed in 2011. 40 CFR 

52.37; ‘‘U.S. EPA-Pinal County Air Quality Control 

District Agreement for Delegation of Authority to 

Issue and Modify Greenhouse Gas Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Permits Subject to 40 CFR 

52.21,’’ executed August 10, 2011. 

30On April 10, 2012, ADEQ submitted draft PSD 

program regulations to EPA with a request for 

‘‘parallel processing’’ under 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V. We intend to act on this PSD submittal 

expeditiously upon receipt of an official SIP 

revision containing ADEQ’s fully adopted PSD 

regulations. 

31EPA’s action on this element of the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP is not subject to the same consent 

decree and settlement agreement deadlines that 

apply to our action on most other elements of the 

2009 Infrastructure SIP. See Consent Decree entered 

October 20, 2011 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 

Case No. 3:11–cv–00190 (paragraph 22) and 

Settlement Agreement executed November 30, 2011 

in Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 3:10–cv–04060 

(paragraph 8(a)). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

approve into the SIP certain statutory 

and regulatory provisions included in 

the 2009 Infrastructure SIP, as discussed 

in the TSD.25 With respect to the 

requirements for stationary source 

monitoring and reporting in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F), our proposed 

approval is contingent upon receipt of 

fully adopted versions of the two Pima 

County regulations discussed above, 

which must go through a local SIP 

rulemaking process before ADEQ 

submits them to EPA as SIP revisions.26

We propose, in the alternative, to 

disapprove the 2009 Infrastructure SIP 

with respect to the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) in Pima County, if 

ADEQ does not submit these regulations 

as SIP revisions following all required 

procedures before we take final action 

on the 2009 Infrastructure SIP. 

Simultaneously, we are proposing to 

disapprove the 2009 Infrastructure SIP 

with respect to the following 

infrastructure SIP requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Permit program for regulation of new 

and modified stationary sources under 

part C of title I of the Act (PSD). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): 

Provisions to prohibit interference with 

other states’ PSD measures. 

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

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): PSD. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data. 

As explained more fully in the TSD, we 

are proposing to disapprove the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to these 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 

because the Arizona SIP does not fully 

satisfy the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

programs under part C, title I of the Act. 

Both the Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department (MCAQD) and the Pima 

County Department of Environmental 

Quality (PDEQ) currently implement the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 

for all regulated NSR pollutants, 

pursuant to delegation agreements with 

EPA. 40 CFR 52.144.27 Accordingly, 

although the Arizona SIP remains 

deficient with respect to PSD 

requirements in both Maricopa and 

Pima counties, these deficiencies are 

adequately addressed in both areas by 

the Federal PSD program. ADEQ 

implements a SIP-approved PSD 

program for all regulated NSR pollutants 

except for PM–10 and GHGs 28 (48 FR 

19878, May 3, 1983), and the Pinal 

County Air Quality Control District 

(PCAQCD) implements a SIP-approved 

PSD program for all regulated NSR 

pollutants except for GHGs 29 (61 FR 

15717, April 9, 1996, as amended by 65 

FR 79742, December 20, 2000). EPA 

understands that both ADEQ and the 

PCAQCD intend to submit, in the near 

future, PSD SIP revisions addressing the 

deficiencies identified in our TSD.30

We are not proposing to act today on 

those elements of the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP that address the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

of the Act regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in any 

other State (referred to as ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ provisions). EPA previously 

approved Arizona’s interstate transport 

SIP as satisfying the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007). 

For purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

EPA intends to propose action on the 

interstate transport element of the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP in a subsequent 

rulemaking and to take final action on 

this element of the SIP by September 30, 

2012, consistent with the terms of the 

consent decree entered October 20, 2011 

in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, Case 

No. 3:11–cv–00190. 

Additionally, we are not proposing to 

act today on those elements of the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP that address the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act regarding 

interference with measures to protect 

visibility in other states.31 EPA intends 

to act on these visibility-related 

elements of the 2009 Infrastructure SIP 

in a subsequent rulemaking that will 

address the requirements of the 

Regional Haze program, under the terms 

of a separate consent decree. 

Finally, we are not proposing to act 

today on the portion of the 2009 

Infrastructure SIP that addresses 

requirements respecting state boards 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). We 

will propose action on this element in 

a subsequent rulemaking. 

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. 

All of the elements 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 these elements 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 38245 

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. 

IV. 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 SIP disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply disapproves certain 

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 action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act will not in-andof itself create any new requirements 

but simply disapproves certain 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. 

The fact that the Clean Air Act 

prescribes that various consequences 

(e.g., higher offset requirements) may or 

will flow from this disapproval does not 

mean that EPA either can or must 

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this action. 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 

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 

disapprove 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 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 disapproves certain 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 EPA is proposing 

to disapprove 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 

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 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 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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

EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with 

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

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 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this 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 

rulemaking. 

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: June 15, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15732 Filed 6–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0470; FRL–9692–4] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department, and Pima County 

Department of Environmental Quality 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 

Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department (MCAQD), and Pima 

County Department of Environmental 

Quality (PCDEQ) portions of the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

that EPA expects to be submitted by 

ADEQ. These revisions concern 

regulations that require monitoring and 

reporting of volatile organic compounds 

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

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

stationary sources. This proposed 

approval is based upon proposed 

regulations submitted by ADEQ 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 ADEQ submits the 

final adopted versions to EPA as a 

revision to the Arizona SIP. Final EPA 

approval of the regulations and 

incorporation of them into the Arizona 

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 

July 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0470, 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: 

Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4118, Kay.Rynda@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 June 1, 2012, ADEQ 

submitted to EPA on behalf of ADEQ, 

MCAQD, and PCDEQ, unofficial copies 

of several rules and statutes, with a 

request for approval of these provisions 

into the SIP by parallel processing.1 See 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS