Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27127 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile Organic 

Compounds. 

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

Dated: April 29, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11338 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0297; FRL–9927–54– 

Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Lead 

and Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (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 2008 Lead (Pb) and 2008 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each State adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS. We refer 

to such SIP revisions as ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

SIPs because they are intended to 

address basic structural SIP 

requirements for each new or revised 

NAAQS including, but not limited to, 

legal authority, regulatory structure, 

resources, permit programs, monitoring 

and modeling necessary to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0297, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at buss.jeffrey@

epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning 

Office (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 

94105. 

4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey 

Buss, Air Planning Section (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 

Francisco, California 94105. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0297. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through www.regulations.gov or email 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

anonymous access system, which means 

EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to EPA 

without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection during normal business 

hours. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (415) 947–4152, email: 

buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27128 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 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 SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

2See, 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, at 25163–25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

3EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submittal 

of certain types of SIP submittals in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submittal of emissions inventories for the ozone 

NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

4See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 78 FR 

4337, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

5On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. EPA’s Approach to the Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

B. Statutory Framework and Scope of 

Infrastructure SIPs 

C. Regulatory Background 

II. Arizona’s Submittals 

III. EPA’s Evaluation 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. EPA’s Approach to the Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

EPA is acting upon several SIP 

submittals from Arizona that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submittal of this type arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submittals ‘‘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),’’ and 

these SIP submittals are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submittals, and 

the requirement to make the submittals 

is not conditioned upon EPA’s taking 

any action other than promulgating a 

new or revised NAAQS. Section 

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

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submittal must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submittals made for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submittals. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submittal from submittals 

that are intended to satisfy other SIP 

requirements under the CAA, such as 

‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment 

SIP’’ submittals to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA, ‘‘regional 

haze SIP’’ submittals required by EPA 

rule to address the visibility protection 

requirements of CAA section 169A, and 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

permit program submittals to address 

the permit requirements of CAA, title I, 

part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submittals. 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 program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.1 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains ambiguities concerning what is 

required for inclusion in an 

infrastructure SIP submittal. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submittals 

for a given new or revised NAAQS. One 

example of ambiguity is that section 

110(a)(2) requires that ‘‘each’’ SIP 

submittal must meet the list of 

requirements therein, while EPA has 

long noted that this literal reading of the 

statute is internally inconsistent and 

would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.2 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submittals to 

address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submittal of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.3 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submittal. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

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

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submittal, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submittal in a 

single action. Although section 110(a)(1) 

directs states to submit ‘‘a plan’’ to meet 

these requirements, EPA interprets the 

CAA to allow states to make multiple 

SIP submittals separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for the same 

NAAQS. If states elect to make such 

multiple SIP submittals to meet the 

infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA 

can elect to act on such submittals 

either individually or in a larger 

combined action.4 Similarly, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow it to take 

action on the individual parts of one 

larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submittal for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submittal. For example, EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submittal.5

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27129 

6For 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. 

7EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submittals. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submittals. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

8 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

9EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submittals to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

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

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submittal 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, 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. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submittals for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submittal for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants, for example 

because the content and scope of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submittal to 

meet this element might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS 

than for a minor revision to an existing 

NAAQS.6

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submittals required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submittals, EPA also has to identify and 

interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submittals. For 

example, section 172(c)(7) requires that 

attainment plan SIP submittals required 

by part D have to meet the ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ of section 110(a)(2). 

Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP 

submittals must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding 

enforceable emission limits and control 

measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

regarding air agency resources and 

authority. By contrast, it is clear that 

attainment plan SIP submittals required 

by part D would not need to meet the 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 

pertains to the air quality prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) program 

required in part C of title I of the CAA, 

because PSD does not apply to a 

pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submittal may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

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

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submittal. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submittals against the 

list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but 

only to the extent each element applies 

for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submittals for particular 

elements.7 EPA most recently issued 

guidance for infrastructure SIPs on 

September 13, 2013 (2013 Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance).8 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate guidance for infrastructure SIPs for 

any new or revised NAAQS. Within this 

guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submittals to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submittals.9 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submittals need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submittal for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submittals. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submittals to ensure that the state’s SIP 

appropriately addresses the 

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

and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a 

variety of ways by which states can 

appropriately address these substantive 

statutory requirements, depending on 

the structure of an individual state’s 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., 

whether permits and enforcement 

orders are approved by a multi-member 

board or by a head of an executive 

agency). However they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submittals because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submittals with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C, title I of the Act and 

EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural PSD 

program requirements include 

provisions necessary for the PSD 

program to address all regulated sources 

and regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, 

structural PSD program requirements do 

not include provisions that are not 

required under EPA’s regulations at 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

51.166 but are merely available as an 

option for the state, such as the option 

to provide grandfathering of complete 

permit applications with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the 

latter optional provisions are types of 

provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on 

assuring that the state’s SIP meets basic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27130 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

10By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submittal that contained a legal deficiency, such as 

a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM 

events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

11For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 76 FR 21639, 

April 18, 2011. 

12EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submittals related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 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). 

13See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submittal 

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). 

structural requirements. For example, 

section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, 

the requirement that states have a 

program to regulate minor new sources. 

Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state 

has a SIP-approved minor NSR program 

and whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submittal, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submittal is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

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’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP submittal 

without scrutinizing the totality of the 

existing SIP for such potentially 

deficient provisions and may approve 

the submittal even if it is aware of such 

existing provisions.10 It is important to 

note that EPA’s approval of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal should not 

be construed as explicit or implicit reapproval of any existing potentially 

deficient provisions that relate to the 

three specific issues just described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submittals is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submittal. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submittal is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations 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. These provisions, 

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 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submittal. EPA believes that a better 

approach is for states and EPA to focus 

attention on those elements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to 

warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives 

simpler recommendations with respect 

to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 

pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal 

for any future new or revised NAAQS 

for carbon monoxide need only state 

this fact in order to address the visibility 

prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow EPA to take appropriately 

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 to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.11 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submittals.12

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

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

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies 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 an 

infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.13

B. Statutory Framework and Scope of 

Infrastructure SIPs 

As discussed in Section A of this 

proposed rule, CAA section 110(a)(1) 

requires each state to submit to EPA, 

within three years after the 

promulgation of a primary or secondary 

NAAQS or any revision thereof, an 

infrastructure SIP revision that provides 

for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of such NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) sets the content 

requirements of such a plan, which 

generally relate to the information and 

authorities, compliance assurances, 

procedural requirements, and control 

measures that constitute the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ of a state’s air quality 

management program. These 

infrastructure SIP elements required by 

section 110(a)(2) are as follows: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27131 

14 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The 1978 Pb 

standard (1.5 mg/m3 as a quarterly average) was 

modified to a rolling 3 month average not to exceed 

0.15 mg/m3. EPA also revised the secondary NAAQS 

to 0.15 mg/m3 and made it identical to the revised 

primary standard. Id. 

15See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, 

Regions 1–10 (October 14, 2011). 

16 ‘‘DRAFT Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead 

(Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS),’’ June 17, 2011 version. 

17See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 

from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air 

Directors, EPA Regions 1–10, ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2)’’ (referred to herein as ‘‘2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance’’). 

18 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

19Preparation of guidance for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS was postponed given EPA’s 

reconsideration of the standard. See 78 FR 34183 

(June 6, 2013). 

20See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 

from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air 

Directors, EPA Regions 1–10, ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2)’’ (referred to herein as ‘‘2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance’’). 

21 In a separate rulemaking, EPA fully approved 

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 62452 (October 15, 2012). Although ADEQ did 

not submit an analysis of Section 110(a)(2)(G) 

requirements, we discuss them in our TSD, which 

is in the docket for this rulemaking. 

22 ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the 2008 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS)’’ was signed on February 19, 

2015 but, as of April 30, 2015, has not yet published 

in the Federal Register. This action was proposed 

in the Federal Register on November 24, 2014 (79 

FR 69796). 

23 80 FR 14044. 

• 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, PSD, and visibility 

protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submittal 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 submittal deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These two 

elements are: section 110(a)(2)(C), to the 

extent it refers to permit programs 

required under CAA part D 

(nonattainment NSR), and section 

110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D. As a result, this action does not 

address infrastructure for the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 

110(a)(2)(I). 

C. Regulatory Background 

2008 Pb NAAQS 

On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for Pb.14 This action 

triggered a requirement for states to 

submit an infrastructure SIP to address 

the applicable requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) within three years. On 

October 14, 2011, EPA issued 

‘‘Guidance on Section 110 Infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS’’, referred 

to herein as EPA’s 2011 Pb Guidance.15

Depending on the timing of a given 

submittal, some states relied on the 

earlier draft version of this guidance, 

referred to herein as EPA’s 2011 Draft 

Pb Guidance.16 EPA issued additional 

guidance on infrastructure SIPs on 

September 13, 2013.17

2008 Ozone NAAQS 

On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for 8-hour Ozone.18

This action triggered a requirement for 

states to submit an infrastructure SIP to 

address the applicable requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2) within three 

years. EPA did not, however, prepare 

guidance at this time for states in 

submitting infrastructure SIP revisions 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.19 On 

September 13, 2013, EPA issued 

‘‘Guidance of Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2),’’ which provides advice 

on the development of infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (among 

other pollutants) as well as 

infrastructure SIPs for new or revised 

NAAQS promulgated in the future.20

II. Arizona’s Submittals 

The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has 

submitted several infrastructure SIP 

revisions pursuant to EPA’s 

promulgation of the Pb and ozone 

NAAQS addressed by this proposed 

rule, including the following: 

• October 14, 2011—‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision under 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 

2008 Lead NAAQS,’’ to address all of 

the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, 

except for section 110(a)(2)(G),21 for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS (2011 Pb I–SIP 

Submittal). 

• December 27, 2012—‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision under 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 

2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ to address 

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

requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone 

NAAQS (2012 Ozone I–SIP Submittal). 

On February 19, 2015 EPA approved 

elements of the above submittals along 

with others with respect to the 2008 Pb 

and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (L) and (M).22 That action also 

explained that we would separately act 

on the permitting infrastructure SIP 

elements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D), (J), and (K) in a subsequent 

rulemaking. These permitting related 

provisions are the subject of today’s 

proposal. 

In addition to the above 2011 and 

2012 infrastructure SIP submittals, 

ADEQ submitted ‘‘New Source Review 

State Implementation Plan Submission’’ 

on October 29, 2012, and 

‘‘Supplemental Information to 2012 

New Source Review State 

Implementation Plan Submission’’ on 

July 2, 2014 (NSR Submittals). In 

addition to addressing revisions to 

Arizona’s New Source Review (NSR) 

program, these submissions also relate 

to infrastructure SIP elements in CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K), 

which EPA is proposing action on in 

today’s rulemaking. 

As discussed in our November 24, 

2014 proposed action, and our March 

18, 2015 proposed action on Arizona’s 

NSR Submittals,23 we have found that 

the submittals we are acting on today 

fulfill the procedural requirements for 

public participation and other 

completeness criteria described in 40 

CFR 51 Appendix V. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA has evaluated the 2011 Pb I–SIP 

Submittal, the 2012 Ozone I–SIP 

Submittal and the NSR Submittals, as 

well as existing provisions of the 

Arizona SIP for compliance with the 

following CAA section 110(a)(2) permitrelated infrastructure SIP requirements 

for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27132 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified 

stationary sources for the 2008 Pb and 

ozone NAAQS. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Prongs 1 

and 2: Interstate transport—contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other State for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Prong 3: 

Interstate transport—prevention of 

significant deterioration for the 2008 Pb 

and ozone NAAQS. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Prong 4: 

Interstate transport—protection of 

visibility for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation 

with government officials, public 

notification, PSD, and visibility 

protection for the 2008 Pb and ozone 

NAAQS. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS. 

In general, the submittals demonstrate 

Arizona’s compliance with most of 

these permit-related infrastructure 

requirements by describing appropriate 

existing requirements regarding new 

and modified stationary source permits, 

interstate transport, consultation and air 

quality modeling. CAA section 110(l) 

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. We propose to 

determine that our approval of these 

submittals with respect to the permitrelated infrastructure SIP elements 

would comply with CAA section 110(l) 

because nothing in this approval would 

relax any existing SIP requirement and 

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. 

Based upon this analysis, EPA 

proposes to partially approve the 

submittals with respect to the permitrelated infrastructure SIP requirements. 

However, we have also identified 

several infrastructure SIP requirements 

that Arizona has not demonstrated are 

fulfilled by the submittals. EPA 

proposes to partially disapprove 

Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

with respect to the 2008 Pb and 2008 

Ozone NAAQS, as follows (details of the 

partial disapprovals and partial 

approvals are presented after this list): 

• 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified 

stationary sources. 

• 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate 

pollution transport. 

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

pollution abatement and international 

air pollution. 

• 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation 

with government officials, public 

notification, PSD, and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling 

and submission of modeling data. 

PSD Programs 

With respect to the requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a 

program to provide for regulation of the 

modification and construction of 

stationary sources, including a PSD 

program under part C of title I, EPA is 

proposing to: (1) Disapprove the 2011 

Pb and 2012 Ozone Infrastructure SIP 

for ADEQ and Pinal County because the 

SIP-approved PSD programs lack certain 

‘‘structural’’ PSD program elements as 

identified in our TSD, and (2) 

disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 Ozone 

Infrastructure SIP for Maricopa and 

Pima counties, which do not have SIPapproved PSD programs. We note that 

although the SIP remains deficient with 

respect to PSD requirements in ADEQ, 

Pinal, Maricopa, and Pima counties for 

I–SIP purposes, no further action is 

necessary for these purposes because 

the Federal PSD program addresses the 

deficiencies in all four areas. However, 

we do recommend SIP revisions 

consistent with the CAA infrastructure 

SIP requirements. 

With respect to the first two ‘‘prongs’’ 

of CAA section 110(a)(D)(i) (regarding 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in any other State), we are 

proposing approval for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS for the reasons stated in our 

TSD. We are not proposing any action 

today on the first two prongs for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS. With respect to 

the third prong, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone 

Infrastructure SIP for the reasons 

discussed in our TSD regarding 

‘‘structural’’ PSD requirements under 

section 110(a)(2)(C). With respect to the 

fourth prong, EPA is proposing approval 

for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA is not 

proposing any action on prong four 

today for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 

will address this requirement in a 

subsequent rulemaking. Finally, with 

respect to the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2011 Pb and 

2012 ozone Infrastructure SIP with 

respect to ADEQ and Pinal County, 

which both implement SIP-approved 

PSD programs that contain the required 

notice provisions, but to disapprove the 

SIP with respect to Maricopa County 

and Pima County, which are subject to 

the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 

52.21. 

With respect to the requirement in 

110(a)(2)(J) to ‘‘meet the applicable 

requirements of section 121 (relating to 

consultation), section 127 (relating to 

public notification), and part C (relating 

to prevention of significant deterioration 

of air quality and visibility protection),’’ 

we propose to find that Arizona meets 

the requirements of sections 121 and 

127 of the Clean Air Act but to 

disapprove it for failure to fully satisfy 

the requirements of part C relating to 

PSD. 

With respect to the requirement in 

110(a)(2)(K) that the SIP provide for 

specified air quality modeling and the 

submission of data related to such air 

quality monitoring to the Administrator, 

we propose to disapprove the 2011 Pb 

I–SIP and 2012 ozone I–SIP because 

ADEQ, Pinal, Pima, and Maricopa 

counties have not submitted adequate 

provisions or a narrative that explain 

how existing state and county law 

satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(K). 

For Pima and Maricopa counties, the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 

addresses this deficiency and therefore 

no further action is necessary. However, 

we do recommend SIP revisions 

consistent with the CAA infrastructure 

SIP requirements. 

For all the elements that do not meet 

the CAA Section 110(a)(2) requirements 

in today’s proposed rule, there are 

existing FIPs in place with the 

exception of the modeling requirements 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for 

Pinal County and ADEQ. We note that 

to the extent our proposed approval or 

disapproval of an I–SIP element relies 

on our March 18, 2015 proposed action 

on Arizona’s NSR submittals, our final 

action on the I–SIP elements identified 

in this notice is contingent upon our 

taking final action on Arizona’s NSR 

submittals to approve the NSR 

submittals into the SIP, which may be 

in the form of a limited approval/

limited disapproval action, as proposed 

in our March 18, 2015 proposed action 

on those submittals. 

Our Technical Support Document 

(TSD) contains more details about our 

evaluation and is available in the public 

docket for this rulemaking. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing 

a partial approval of the submittals with 

respect to the permit-related 

infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J) and (K) for 

the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS. EPA is 

simultaneously proposing a partial 

disapproval of the submittals because of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27133 

deficiencies summarized above. If this 

partial disapproval is finalized, 

sanctions will not be imposed under 

section 179 of the Act because 

infrastructure SIPs are not required 

under Title 1, Part D of the Act. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. because this 

proposed partial approval and partial 

disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA 

section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply proposes to approve 

certain State requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule, we 

certify that this proposed action will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed partial SIP 

approval and partial SIP disapproval 

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

but simply proposes to approve certain 

State requirements, and to disapprove 

certain other State requirements, for 

inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it 

affords no opportunity for EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

Therefore, this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

action does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

action proposes to approve certain preexisting requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other pre-existing 

requirements, under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

proposed action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to approve certain 

State requirements, and to disapprove 

certain other State requirements, for 

inclusion into the SIP and does not alter 

the relationship or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP on which EPA is 

proposing action would not apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed action. 

IV.G. Executive Order 13045, Protection 

of Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 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 Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed partial 

approval and partial disapproval under 

CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

proposes to approve certain State 

requirements, and to disapprove certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27134 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See generally Hearings on the Rehabilitation and 

Colonization of Hawaiians and Other Proposed 

Amendments to the Organic Act of the Territory of 

Hawai’i before the House Committee on the 

Territories, H.R. Rep. No. 839, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 

at 4 (1920) (Sen. John H. Wise testified, ‘‘The 

Hawaiian people are a farming people and 

fishermen, out-of-door people, and [being] frozen 

out of their lands . . . is one of the reasons why 

the Hawaiian people are dying. Now, the only way 

to save them, I contend, is to take them back to the 

lands and give them the mode of living that their 

ancestors were accustomed to and in that way 

rehabilitate them.’’). 

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 proposed 

action is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Lead, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 1, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11340 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

43 CFR Parts 47 and 48 

RIN 1090–AA98 

Land Exchange Procedures and 

Procedures To Amend the Hawaiian 

Homes Commission Act, 1920 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule would remove 

ambiguities the State of Hawai‘i faces in 

administration of the Hawaiian Homes 

Commission Act. It would facilitate the 

goal of the rehabilitation of the Native 

Hawaiian community, including the 

return of native Hawaiians to the land, 

consistent with the Hawaiian Homes 

Commission Act, the State of Hawai‘i 

Admission Act, and the Hawaiian Home 

Lands Recovery Act. The rule clarifies 

the land exchange process, the 

documents required, and the respective 

responsibilities of the Department of the 

Interior, the Department of Hawaiian 

Home Lands, and other entities engaged 

in land exchanges of Hawaiian home 

lands. It also clarifies the documents 

required and the responsibilities of the 

Secretary of the Interior in the approval 

process for proposed amendments by 

the State of Hawai‘i to the Hawaiian 

Homes Commission Act, 1920, as 

amended. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before July 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the rulemaking by either of the 

methods listed below. Please use 

Regulation Identifier Number 1090– 

AA98 in your message. 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

instructions on the Web site for 

submitting comments. 

2. U.S. mail, courier, or hand delivery: 

Office of Native Hawaiian Relations, 

Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ka‘i‘ini Kimo Kaloi, Director, Office of 

Native Hawaiian Relations, telephone 

(202) 208–7462. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In 1921, Congress enacted the 

Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 

(HHCA), 42 Stat. 108, to provide a 

homesteading program for native 

Hawaiians by placing approximately 

200,000 acres of land (known as 

Hawaiian home lands) into trust. The 

HHCA and the Hawaiian Home Lands 

Trust are administered by the 

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 

(DHHL), an agency of the State of 

Hawai‘i. The HHCA provides the DHHL 

the authority to propose to the Secretary 

of the Interior the exchange of Hawaiian 

home lands for land privately or 

publicly owned in furtherance of the 

purposes of the HHCA. 

The Hawaiian Homes Commission 

Act, among other things, created a series 

of funds HHCA section 213, 42 Stat. 108 

(as amended). The intent of one of these 

funds is the ‘‘rehabilitation of native 

Hawaiians,’’ which includes the 

rehabilitation of ‘‘the educational, 

economic, political, social, and cultural 

processes by which the general welfare 

and conditions of native Hawaiians are 

thereby improved and perpetuated.’’ Id. 

The Department of the Interior 

interprets the term ‘‘rehabilitation’’ to 

include political, cultural and social 

reorganization that would facilitate the 

stated goals of rehabilitation.1 By 

providing a clear process for the 

Department’s review and approval of 

land exchanges and HHCA 

amendments, this regulation will further 

the goals of the HHCA, including 

rehabilitation. 

In 1959, Congress enacted the Hawai‘i 

Admission Act, 73 Stat. 4, to admit the 

State of Hawai‘i into the United States. 

In compliance with the Hawai‘i 

Admission Act, and as a compact 

between the State of Hawai‘i and the 

United States relating to the 

management and disposition of the 

Hawaiian home lands, the State of 

Hawai‘i adopted the HHCA, as 

amended, as a law of the State through 

Article XII of the Constitution of the 

State. Because Congress in the HHCA 

section 223 reserved the right to alter, 

amend, or repeal Title 2 of the HHCA, 

section 4 of the Hawai‘i Admission Act 

provides that the HHCA is subject to 

amendment or repeal by the State of 

Hawai‘i only with the consent of the 

United States. Recognizing, however, 

that it was granting the State 

administrative authority, Congress in 

section 4 also provided exceptions 

within which the State could amend 

certain administrative provisions of the 

HHCA without the consent of the 

United States. 

During the territorial period of 

Hawai‘i, the HHCA was included in the 

compilation of the Revised Laws of 

Hawai‘i. Following Hawai‘i’s statehood, 

the HHCA was not repealed and 

remains in effect with elements of both 

Federal and State law. The compilation 

of the HHCA was removed from the text 

of the United States Code and inserted 

into a note in the Code, recognizing the 

State’s authority to amend provisions of 

the HHCA that do not alter the 

responsibilities of the United States or 

infringe upon its interests or the 

interests of the beneficiaries. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS