[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 37 (Friday, February 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11681-11686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03482]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0013; FRL-10019-66-Region 9]
Air Plan Limited Approval, Limited Disapproval; Arizona; Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of a portion of a state
implementation plan (SIP) submission made by the State of Arizona to
address Moderate area nonattainment plan requirements for purposes of
the 1987 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10).
The SIP submission includes an amended statute
[[Page 11682]]
and certain state rules that govern emissions of particulate matter
(PM) from agricultural activity.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0013 at http://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3848 or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submission
A. What did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of the statute and rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and statutory
revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the statute and rules?
B. Do the statute and rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. What are the deficiencies?
D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Statute and Rules
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submission
A. What did the State submit?
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) made a SIP
submission to address emissions of PM from certain emission sources
located in the West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment area of
Arizona.\1\ In this submission, the ADEQ seeks to revise the existing
EPA-approved SIP for Arizona by modifying an existing state statutory
provision and adding related regulatory requirements specific to the
West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment area. Table 1 lists the
statute and rules addressed in this proposed rule along with the date
of submission and the effective dates of the respective elements of the
SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On December 21, 2015, Arizona submitted the West Pinal
County PM10 Plan, intended to address the Moderate area
nonattainment requirements, to the EPA as a revision to the Arizona
SIP. The rules addressed in this proposed rule were included as part
of Appendix G to this plan submission. We have previously acted on
the additional rules contained in Appendix G (82 FR 20267, May 1,
2017), and have proposed action on the remainder of the submission
in a separate Federal Register proposed rule. 86 FR 1347 (January 8,
2021).
Table 1--Submitted Statute and Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Statute title Effective Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS section 49-457......................... Agricultural best management 12/31/15 12/21/15
practices committee; members;
powers; permits; enforcement;
preemption; definitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) AAC Title.......................... Amended/ Submitted
Effective
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAC R18-2-611.............................. Definitions for R18-2-611.01 \2\... 07/02/15 12/21/15
AAC R18-2-611.03........................... Agricultural PM General Permit for 07/02/15 12/21/15
Animal Operations; Pinal County PM
Nonattainment Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 21, 2016, the EPA determined that the SIP revisions
submitted by the ADEQ and listed in Table 1 met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The title of the new rule R18-2-611 was mistakenly labeled
as ``Definitions for R18-2-611.01'' in the submitted strikeout
version of the rule. See page GVI-19. Since this new rule also
applies to AAC R18-2-611.02 and R18-2-611.03, a correction to the
title of the new AAC 18-2-611 was made in the codified version of
the rule. See April 13, 2017 Email from N. Muilenberg, ADEQ to N.
Levin, EPA, Re_quick question on title for R18-2-611.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Are there other versions of the statute and rules?
We approved an earlier version of ARS section 49-457 into the SIP
on June 29, 1999 (64 FR 34726). There are no previous versions of AAC
R18-2-611 ``Definitions for R18-2-611.01'' or AAC R18-2-611.03
``Agricultural PM General Permit for Animal Operations; Pinal County PM
Nonattainment Area'' in the SIP.
We note that on October 11, 2001, we approved AAC R18-2-611,
``Agricultural PM-10 General Permit; Maricopa PM10
Nonattainment Area'' into the Arizona SIP, which applies to Maricopa
County commercial farmers (crop operations). See 66 FR 51869 (October
11, 2001). The December 21, 2015 submittal of rule AAC R18-2-611,
``Definitions for R18-2-611.01'' is a separate rule that applies to
certain animal operations in Maricopa County and West Pinal County
PM10 nonattainment areas, among other areas, and was not
submitted to replace the existing SIP-approved rule AAC R18-2-611,
``Agricultural PM-10 General Permit; Maricopa PM10
Nonattainment Area.'' If the EPA approves the new rule AAC R18-2-611,
``Definitions for R18-2-611.01'' into the Arizona SIP, there will be
two different rules in the SIP with the same number, but they would be
differentiated by their different titles and dates.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and statutory revisions?
Emissions of PM, including PM10, contribute to effects
that are harmful to
[[Page 11683]]
human health and the environment, including premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung
function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and
ecosystems. The Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) requires states to have
SIPs that provide for attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the
PM10 NAAQS, including the adoption and implementation of
regulations to control PM emissions in designated PM10
nonattainment areas. ADEQ's submission addresses emissions from certain
sources of PM10 emissions through a statutory provision and
several regulations.
First, this submission would revise the existing SIP-approved
version of ARS section 49-457 by, among other things, expanding the
definition of ``regulated agricultural activities'' to include
activities of dairies, beef feedlots, poultry facilities, and swine
facilities. It would also expand the definition of ``regulated area''
to apply to any PM10 nonattainment areas designated by the
EPA on or after June 1, 2009, which includes the West Pinal County
PM10 nonattainment area.\3\ It would preempt ``further
regulation'' of regulated agricultural activities by other
jurisdictions (e.g., counties, cities, and towns).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This submission also expands the regulated area to any
portion of area A that is located in a county with a population of
two million or more persons. Area A is defined in ARS section 49-
451.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, this submission would add new regulations to the Arizona
SIP, applicable to the West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment
area. AAC R18-2-611.03 requires that commercial dairy operations, beef
cattle feedlots, poultry facilities, and swine facilities implement
best management practices (BMPs) to reduce PM10 emissions
from those sources. The new AAC R18-2-611 provides definitions for AAC
R18-2-611.03 and other animal operations BMP rules.
The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information
about the statute and rules.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the statute and rules?
SIP rules must meet applicable substantive requirements, e.g., must
be sufficiently stringent (see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C)), must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must
not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
States must adopt and implement reasonably available control
measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology
(RACT), in Moderate PM10 nonattainment areas (see CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)).\4\ The EPA has addressed the
State's nonattainment plan SIP submission for the West Central Pinal
PM10 area with respect to the RACM/RACT requirement in a
separate proposed action.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment area was
classified as Moderate (40 CFR 81.303) on May 31, 2012 (77 FR 32024)
and subsequently reclassified, by operation of law, to Serious on
June 24, 2020 (85 FR 37756).
\5\ 86 FR 1347 (January 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate control rules
submitted for PM10 nonattainment areas, including
enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule stringency requirements,
include the following:
1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
5. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
6. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
7. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.
B. Do the statute and rules meet the evaluation criteria?
The revised statute and rules largely meet the evaluation criteria,
with the exception of the specific deficiencies identified in section
II.C below.
With respect to enforceability, AAC R18-2-611.03 states clear
requirements, specifying that animal operators ``shall implement'' or
``shall apply and maintain'' BMPs.\6\ The rule is clear about what is
required of sources, and it establishes recordkeeping requirements
requiring operators to demonstrate compliance with the agricultural BMP
(AgBMP) requirements.\7\ The rule also provides in paragraph N that
``[t]he Director shall document noncompliance with this section before
issuing a compliance order,'' and in paragraph O that ``[a] commercial
animal operator who is not in compliance with this Section is subject
to the provisions in A.R.S. Sec. 49-457(I), (J), and (K).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ AAC R18-2-611.03 paragraphs A and B.
\7\ Id. at paragraphs H and J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraphs I, J, and K of ARS section 49-457 provide a mechanism
for the ADEQ director to revoke the agricultural general permit for an
operator. These paragraphs set out a three-step process that the
director may take if the director determines that a person who is
engaged in a regulated activity is not in compliance with the
agricultural PM general permit. First, for persons not previously
subject to a compliance order, the director may issue an order
requiring compliance with the general permit and specifying a period of
not less than 60 days for the operator to submit a plan to the
appropriate natural resource conservation district identifying the BMPs
the operator will use to comply with the general permit. If
noncompliance is repeated or continues, the director may issue a second
order, requiring the submission of a plan to the ADEQ, within a
specified period of time of not less than 60 days, specifying the BMPs
the operator will use to comply with the general permit. Third, if the
operator is still not complying with the terms of the agricultural
general permit, the director may revoke the general permit with respect
to that operator, and require that the operator obtain an individual
permit, pursuant to ARS section 49-426.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at paragraphs I, J, and K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the provisions in paragraphs I, J, and K refer to the
``director,'' the EPA understands that these provisions relate only to
authorities of the ADEQ director. Provided that the statute and rules
do not preclude enforcement of a violation of the terms of an
agricultural general permit outside of the provisions in these
paragraphs, states may elect to provide a specific means and process by
which the director may revoke the agricultural general permit with
respect to a particular operator.
Based on our review of the submission and the State's general
enforcement authority, the EPA concludes that the procedure laid out in
paragraphs I, J, and K does not inappropriately constrain the State's
own authority to enforce a violation of an agricultural general permit.
The EPA
[[Page 11684]]
notes that in addition to ARS section 49-457, the ADEQ has additional
enforcement authorities, including those laid out in ARS sections 49-
460, 49-461, 49-462, and 49-463.\9\ These provisions provide the ADEQ
with broad enforcement authority, including the authority to serve an
order of abatement, or file a complaint in state court seeking
penalties or injunctive relief against any person who ``has violated or
is in violation of any provision of this article, any rule adopted
pursuant to this article or any requirement of a permit issued pursuant
to this article.'' \10\ Because ARS section 49-457 is included in the
same article as these broad enforcement authorities, the EPA interprets
Arizona law as providing adequate authority to the ADEQ to enforce a
violation of an agricultural general permit issued pursuant to ARS
section 49-457 without invoking the procedures set out in paragraphs I,
J, and K. The EPA is not aware of any provisions of state law to the
contrary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Approved into the SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66398).
\10\ Parallel provisions are included for enforcement at the
County level. See ARS sections 49-510, 49-511, 49-512 and 49-513,
also approved into the SIP on November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66398).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the EPA concludes that the submitted rules and
statutory amendments contain clear and enforceable requirements, and
that the State possesses adequate authority to enforce the requirements
for the agricultural general permit as set out in the submitted rules.
If approved into the SIP, the submitted rules will be enforceable by
the EPA, and by citizens through section 304 of the Act. Moreover, the
procedures laid out in paragraphs I, J, and K do not affect the ability
of the EPA and the public to enforce violations of ARS section 49-457
and the submitted rules. The EPA interprets those provisions to be
specifications on ADEQ's exercise of its own enforcement discretion,
setting out a procedure for revoking a permit, separate from the
State's general enforcement authority. Neither EPA nor citizen suit
plaintiffs are required to follow the same three-step process if they
seek to enforce in the event of alleged violations.
With respect to the criterion of stringency, because the rules and
revised statute were submitted as part of a PM10 Moderate
area nonattainment plan, they are subject to the section 172(c)(1)
RACM/RACT requirement. As discussed above, the EPA generally evaluates
whether a state has met the RACM/RACT requirement for PM10
in the context of its evaluation of the entire nonattainment plan SIP
submission because the RACM/RACT analysis is interrelated with other
nonattainment plan elements such as reasonable further progress and the
modeled attainment demonstration. Accordingly, we are not evaluating
the submitted statute and rules for RACM/RACT level stringency in this
action since we have addressed the RACM/RACT requirement for the West
Pinal County PM10 nonattainment area in a separate
proposal.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 86 FR 1347 (January 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the evaluation criterion regarding SIP revisions,
section 110(l) of the CAA provides that ``[t]he Administrator shall not
approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].''
Approving the submitted statute and rules into the SIP would expand the
applicability of ARS section 49-457 to additional parts of the State,
including the West Pinal County PM10 nonattainment area, and
would add new BMP requirements to animal operations in Pinal County.
These changes would strengthen the SIP by regulating a broader class of
sources, in a larger portion of the State. However, the submitted
statute and rules also contain deficiencies that would interfere with
applicable requirements of the Act. These deficiencies are identified
in the following section of this proposed rule and described in detail
in the TSDs contained in the docket for this action.
C. What are the deficiencies?
The submitted provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section
110 and part D of title I of the Act and prevent full approval of the
statutory revision and rules. We propose a limited disapproval of the
statutory revision and rules based on the following deficiencies:
1. Subsection O of revised ARS section 49-457 may relax the SIP by
preempting, as a matter of state law, more stringent existing SIP-
approved rules. Although such preemption could not remove the preempted
rules from the SIP without an EPA action under section 110(k) of the
Act, the preemption of these rules as a matter of state law would
render state authority for the preempted rules insufficient under
section 110(a)(2).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In addition, the inclusion of this provision in the SIP may
introduce some uncertainty in the regulated community regarding what
requirements are applicable. The EPA does not understand the
submitted revision to ARS section 49-457 as requesting to remove any
potentially preempted rules from the SIP, or otherwise impacting the
enforceability of such rules that are already SIP-approved. The EPA
understands the provision as stating that certain provisions are
preempted as a matter of state law. Accordingly, the EPA's proposed
limited approval and limited disapproval of ARS section 49-457 would
not remove any such rules from the SIP, ``preempt'' them in any way
as a matter of federal law, or otherwise impact their federal
enforceability. If the State wishes to remove particular
requirements from the SIP, it should submit a request, pursuant to
section 110 of the Act, requesting that specifically-identified
provisions be removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Section H of revised ARS section 49-457 exempts a person who is
subject to an agricultural general permit from the permitting
requirement in ARS section 49-426. The scope of the exemption in
subsection H for Maricopa County is bounded by a rule that is not in
the SIP (nor has it been submitted to the EPA for SIP approval).
Specifically, AAC R18-2-611.01, the animal operations AgBMP rule for
Maricopa County, is not in the SIP, and the exemption in subsection H
is based on a source being subject to the permit that is established
under this rule. This would allow changes to the scope of the
exemption, and thus changes to the SIP, without the process required by
section 110 of the Act.
3. The exemption in subsection H of revised ARS section 49-457 is
not limited to minor sources and could exempt a major stationary source
from CAA New Source Review (NSR) and title V permitting requirements.
4. The exemption in subsection H of revised ARS section 49-457 is
overbroad because although it is triggered by the ability to emit
PM10, the exemption itself is not clearly limited to
requirements under the PM10 NAAQS and could apply to other
criteria pollutants as well.
5. The exemption in subsection H of revised ARS section 49-457 may
exempt non-fugitive emissions from review under the ADEQ minor NSR
program, without a showing that such exemption would be inconsequential
to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
6. Paragraph K of AAC R18-2-611.03 provides that a person may
develop different PM-reducing management practices than those contained
in the rule, and may ``submit such practices that are proven effective
through on-operation demonstration trials to the [AgBMP] Committee.''
The paragraph states that ``new best management practices shall not
become effective unless submitted as described in A.R.S. Sec. 49-
457(L).'' Subpart L of A.R.S. section 49-457 states that any approved
modifications to the BMPs shall be submitted to the EPA as a revision
to the
[[Page 11685]]
SIP. Including this provision in the SIP would allow a new BMP to
``become effective'' in the SIP-approved rule simply upon submission of
the modifications to the EPA and without the actual SIP revision
required under CAA section 110. This constitutes inappropriate
director's discretion. A state may modify its rules and submit those to
the EPA as potential revisions of the SIP, or it may provide that
substantive changes to a SIP-approved rule become effective upon EPA
approval into the SIP, but it may not effectively modify the SIP-
approved rule by simply submitting the changes to the EPA for
evaluation.
The deficiencies with the statute and rules are described in
greater detail in the TSDs.
D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Statute and Rules
The TSDs describe additional revisions that we recommend if the
State elects to modify the statute and rules to make them appropriate
for full approval as part of the Arizona SIP.
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
Despite the deficiencies identified above, the EPA believes that
the Arizona SIP would be strengthened by the addition of the statutory
revision and rules. A limited approval of the provisions would place
new control requirements on a category of sources that have a
substantial emission impact in the West Pinal PM10
nonattainment area. Although the statutory revision and rules also
introduce problematic provisions regarding preemption and permitting
exemptions, the EPA anticipates that the expansion of control
requirements to this important class of sources will provide an
emissions reduction benefit in excess of any emissions increase that
may result from the preemption and permitting deficiencies. Therefore,
as authorized by the grant of authority to approve and disapprove SIP
submissions contained in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing
a limited approval and limited disapproval of the State's nonattainment
plan SIP submission with respect to the revision of the existing SIP
approved version of ARS section 49-457 and the inclusion of new rules
AAC R18-2-611 and R18-2-611.03 into the SIP.
The proposed limited approval and limited disapproval would put the
entirety of the submitted statutory revision and rules in the SIP,
including those provisions identified as deficient. It would
simultaneously disapprove the deficiencies enumerated in section II.C.
and would start sanction and Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clocks
for these deficiencies, as detailed below.
If we finalize a limited disapproval, CAA section 110(c) would
require the EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than two years after the
disapproval unless the State submits, and we approve, a subsequent SIP
submission that corrects the deficiencies identified in the final
action.
In addition, a final limited disapproval would trigger the offset
sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) 18 months after the effective date of
a final limited disapproval, and the highway funding sanction in CAA
section 179(b)(1) six months after the offset sanction is imposed. A
sanction will not be imposed if the EPA determines that a subsequent
SIP submission corrects the deficiencies identified in our final action
before the applicable deadline.
We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the rules and statute described in Table 1 of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and 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
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
[[Page 11686]]
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 16, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-03482 Filed 2-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P