80 FR 68453 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 214 (November 5, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 214 (November 5, 2015)
| Page Range | 68453-68458 | |
| FR Document | 2015-28098 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 68453-68458] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-28098] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0795; FRL-9936-60-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve portions of the November 2, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) for inclusion into the North Carolina SIP. This final action pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. NCDAQ certified that the North Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in North Carolina. With the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate transport requirements, and state boards requirements, EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission provided to EPA on November 2, 2012, as satisfying the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. DATES: This rule is effective December 7, 2015. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0795. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. [[Page 68454]] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Ward can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9140 or via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. For additional information on the infrastructure SIP requirements, see the proposed rulemaking published on March 13, 2015. (80 FR 13312) On March 13, 2015, EPA proposed to approve portions of North Carolina's November 2, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the state board requirements of 110(E)(ii). See 80 FR 13312. II. Response to Comments EPA received one set of comments on the March 13, 2015, proposed rulemaking to approve portions of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission intended to meet the CAA requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below. As an initial matter, the Commenter included interpretations of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA in a background section, but this section did not include comments specific to EPA's March 13, 2015 proposed action on the North Carolina infrastructure SIP submittal. EPA provided an analysis of these same interpretations of section 110(a)(2)(A) in an October 16, 2014, rulemaking regarding the infrastructure SIP of Maryland for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. (See 79 FR 62010) and we are incorporating those responses by reference. Specifically, please see EPA's Response 2, which addresses the Commenter's interpretation regarding CAA plain language; Response 3, which addresses the Commenter's interpretation of the legislative history of the CAA; Response 5, which addresses the Commenter's interpretation of EPA regulations (40 CFR 51.112); Response 6, which addresses the Commenter's interpretation of EPA interpretations of section 110 in infrastructure SIP rulemakings; and Response 4, which addresses the Commenter's interpretation of Supreme Court and appellate court decisions. Comment 1: The Commenter contends that North Carolina's infrastructure submission ``fails to include stringent enough emission limits and other restrictions on sources of ozone precursors, like nitrogen oxides (``NOX ''), to ensure that areas not designated nonattainment will attain and maintain the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS.'' Based on this contention, the Commenter then asserts that ``North Carolina's I-SIP does not meet the basic infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2) and must be disapproved.'' Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that NC DAQ's 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission is not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because it fails to include enforceable emission limitations sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in attainment areas. In light of the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state. EPA's interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general planning SIPs is consistent with the statute as understood in light of its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not include provisions requiring states and EPA to label areas as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include all areas of the state in ``air quality control regions'' (AQCRs) and section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into compliance with the NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 110 plan provide for ``attainment'' of the NAAQS and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include ``emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].'' In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time, Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA to identify whether areas of the state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still had air quality not meeting the NAAQS and Congress again amended the CAA and added yet another layer of more prescriptive planning requirements for each of the NAAQS, with the primary provisions for ozone in section 182. At that same time, Congress modified section 110 to remove references to the section 110 SIP providing for attainment, including removing pre- existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and renumbering subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, Congress replaced the clause ``as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS]'' with ``as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.'' Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved in the more than 40 years since it was originally enacted. While at one time section 110 did provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS, under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific NAAQS. And, more detailed, later- enacted provisions govern the substantive planning process, including planning for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that they contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to [[Page 68455]] develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. As stated in EPA's proposed approval for this rule, to meet section 110(a)(2)(A), North Carolina submitted a list of existing emission reduction and other control measures in the SIP that control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX . The submission also identifies North Carolina's statutory authority to adopt emission control standards to meet established air quality standards such as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA believes North Carolina's submission appropriately reflects the first step in the State's planning process for attaining and maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS and meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) because the SIP contains enforceable control measures for ozone precursors and the submission provides that North Carolina has the tools to develop and implement measures as may be needed to attain and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Comment 2: The Commenter contends that recent monitoring of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in areas not designated nonattainment confirms that North Carolina's existing emission limitations are insufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The Commenter specifically contends that the exceedances of the ozone NAAQS with 2010-2012 data, in areas [Forsyth and Guilford counties] not designated nonattainment under the standard demonstrate that North Carolina's existing emissions limitations cannot ensure attainment and maintenance of the eight-hour ozone standard. Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that NCDAQ's 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission is not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because of the monitor design values noted by the Commenter. While EPA shares the Commenter's concern regarding any county monitoring violations of the NAAQS, such concerns are outside the scope of what is germane to an evaluation of section 110(a)(2)(A) for an infrastructure SIP submission. With regard to the 2010-2012 design values for Forsyth and Guilford Counties as mentioned by the Commenter, Forsyth and Guilford Counties attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with 2011-2013 data and continue to attain with preliminary 2013-2015 data. Regardless, EPA does not believe that this 2010-2012 monitoring data referenced by the Commenter provides an appropriate basis upon which to disapprove North Carolina's infrastructure SIP as it relates to section 110(a)(2)(A) requirements. Pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(A), an infrastructure SIP submission must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. The Commenter, however, seems to believe that in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) requires the state to submit control measures sufficient to demonstrate attainment in an area designated attainment but that has a recent monitored violation of the NAAQS. EPA does not believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of the provision with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions. Rather, EPA believes that the proper inquiry at this juncture is whether the state has met the basic structural SIP requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon it. The CAA provides states with three years to develop infrastructure SIPs and states cannot reasonably be expected to address the annual change in an area's design value for each year over that period, nor to predict the air quality data in periods after development and submission of the SIPs. Further, the Act provides states and EPA with other tools to address concerns that arise with respect to violations of the NAAQS in a designated attainment area, such as the authority to redesignate areas pursuant to section 107(d)(3), the authority to issue a ``SIP Call'' pursuant to section 110(k)(5), or the general authority to approve SIP revisions that can address such violations of the NAAQS through other appropriate measures. As described above, EPA believes that North Carolina's infrastructure submission is sufficient because it appropriately addresses the structural SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) by including enforceable emission control measures and the authority to adopt and implement additional measures, if needed. Comment 3: The Commenter contends that North Carolina's infrastructure SIP must ensure that proper mass limitations and short term averaging periods are imposed on certain specific large sources of NOX such as power plants. Moreover, the Commenter contends that emission limits must apply at all times, including during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), to ensure that all areas of North Carolina attain and maintain the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. Absent such limits, the Commenter contends that an I-SIP submission may not be approved. Specifically the Commenter contends that enforceable emission limitations for the State's coal fired EGUs [electric generating units] should be set on a pounds per hour (``lb/hr'') basis, based on, at most, a corresponding 0.07 lb/MMBtu limit. The Commenter further contends that setting a lb/hr limit will ensure consistent protection of the ambient air quality regardless of whether the nominal maximum heat input capacity for the unit is accurate or changes in the future and addresses the issue of variations in mass emissions during startup and shutdown so that even if the NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu is higher during startup and shutdown (for instance when selective catalytic reduction technology is not being engaged), hourly emissions of NOX would not cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS. Response 3: EPA appreciates the commenter's support of North Carolina's pursuit of additional NOX emission limitations at coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. However, EPA does not believe that approval of the infrastructure SIP is contingent on the State adopting additional controls for the State's coal fired EGUs. Congress established the CAA such that each state has primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the state and determining an emission reduction program for its areas subject to EPA approval, with such approval dependent upon whether the SIP as a whole meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). EPA cannot condition approval of the North Carolina infrastructure SIP upon inclusion of a particular emission reduction program as long as the SIP otherwise meets the requirements of the CAA. As explained in the proposal and in this final action, North Carolina does not need to adopt additional emission control requirements in order to meet the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(A). Furthermore, we disagree with the commenter's contention that EPA cannot approve an infrastructure SIP submission without ensuring that it contains emission limits applicable at all times, including during periods of SSM. For the reasons stated in the proposal, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP is necessarily the appropriate type of action to address this type of deficiency. [[Page 68456]] See 80 FR at 13315-17. Rather, as described in the proposal, EPA believes that the authority Congress provided to EPA under section 110(k)(5), for example, allows EPA to take appropriately tailored action. Indeed, EPA recognizes that a number of states have existing SSM provisions contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance and, in the time since the proposal for this action, has finalized a separate action addressing those state regulations. See ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015) (SSM SIP Action of 2015). In the SSM SIP Action of 2015, EPA concluded that certain SIP provisions in 36 states (applicable in 45 statewide and local jurisdictions) are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus issued a ``SIP call'' for each of those 36 states pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).\1\ North Carolina's unlawful SSM provisions are covered by that action. See, e.g., id. at 33964. EPA continues to believe that existing, unlawful provisions related to excess emissions during SSM events should be addressed through more appropriate authorities provided by Congress; not in piecemeal fashion, in the context of reviewing a state's infrastructure SIP submission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The SSM SIP Action of 2015 also embodies EPA's updated SSM Policy as it applies to SIP provisions and provides guidance to states for compliance with CAA requirements for SIP provisions applicable to excess emissions during SSM events. EPA has encouraged any state with deficient SSM provisions to correct those provisions as soon as possible (as some states already have), but in no case longer than the 18-month timeframe provided in the SSM SIP Action of 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 4: The Commenter contends that, to comply with section 110(a) and avoid additional nonattainment designations for areas impacted by ozone levels above the standard, ``EPA must disapprove North Carolina's infrastructure SIP to ensure that large sources of NOX and VOCs cannot cause or contribute to exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and, thereby prohibit implementation, attainment, and maintenance of the NAAQS throughout all areas of the State, in violation of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)(A).'' The commenter states that the inadequacies of the SIP are highlighted by recent monitoring data. Response 4: EPA disagrees that it must disapprove North Carolina's submittal to ensure that large sources of NOX and VOC do not contribute to exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS such that additional areas would need to be designated nonattainment in the future. In essence, this comment suggests that as part of the 110(a)(2)(A) SIP, the state must demonstrate that all areas of the state will maintain the standard in the future. As explained previously, we disagree that the language and structure of the CAA mandate such a result. The CAA recognizes that air quality may change over time, such as an area slipping from attainment to nonattainment or changing from nonattainment to attainment and has provisions addressing such changes. These include provisions providing for redesignation in section 107(d) and provisions in section 110(k)(5) allowing EPA to call on the state to revise its SIP, as appropriate. Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(H), the State must demonstrate in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has the authority to revise of its SIP, including as needed to address any finding by EPA that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS. To satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(H), North Carolina's submittal cites to statutory authority that allows the state to adopt standards and plans to implement the requirements of the CAA and Federal implementing regulations, and to specifically establish lower emissions limits if needed to attain or maintain the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the CAA provides appropriate tools to address changes in air quality over time and North Carolina's submittal also appropriately addresses the elements needed to address any changes in air quality over time. Comment 5: The Commenter contends that ozone concentrations will be exacerbated by ongoing climate change and that North Carolina's existing emission limits are not stringent enough to adequately protect the public from the dangers posed by exposure to elevated ozone concentrations. The Commenter contends that this underscores the need for North Carolina to impose tighter emission limits if it hopes to attain and maintain the current NAAQS for ozone in areas not currently designated nonattainment. Response 5: EPA agrees that climate change is a serious environmental issue; however, for the reasons provided in the previous responses, we disagree that states are required to anticipate and plan for possible future nonattainment within each area of the state as part of the infrastructure SIP. We note that given the potential wide-ranging impacts of climate change on air quality planning, EPA is developing climate adaptation implementation plans to assess the key vulnerabilities to our programs (including how climate change might affect attainment of national ambient air quality standards) and to identify priority actions to minimize these vulnerabilities. With respect to climate impacts on future ozone levels, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has identified as a priority action the need to adjust air quality modeling tools and guidance as necessary to account for climate-driven changes in meteorological conditions and meteorologically-dependent emissions. These efforts are just beginning. Additionally, as previously stated regarding tighter emission limits, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that they contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. As explained above, to the extent that climate change or any other factor exacerbates air quality in the future, the CAA provides the appropriate tools to assess and address these conditions. III. Today's Action In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve the portions of North Carolina's infrastructure submission as demonstrating that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD permitting provisions in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the state board requirements of section 110(E)(ii). IV. Final Action With the exceptions described above, EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's November 2, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission because it addresses the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. NCDAQ has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in North Carolina. [[Page 68457]] V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 22, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart II--North Carolina 0 2. In Sec. 52.1770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry for ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end of the table to read as follows: Sec. 52.1770 Identification of plan. * * * * * (e) * * * EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Provision State effective EPA Approval date Register Explanation date citation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 11/2/2012 11/5/2015 [Insert ............... With the exception of Requirements for the 2008 8- Federal Register sections: 110(a)(2)(C) Hour Ozone National Ambient Air citation]. and (J) concerning PSD Quality Standards. permitting requirements; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4) concerning interstate transport requirements; 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) concerning state board requirements. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 68458]] [FR Doc. 2015-28098 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 68453
EPA APPROVED LOUISIANA REGULATIONS IN THE LOUISIANA SIP—Continued
State approval
State citation Title/subject EPA Approval date Comments
date
* * * * * * *
Section 509 ............................. Prevention of Significant De- 12/20/2012 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal SIP does not include provi-
terioration. Register citation]. sions for permitting of
GHGs as effective on 04/
20/2011 at LAC
33:III.509(B) definition of
‘‘carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions’’, ‘‘greenhouse
gases’’, ‘‘major stationary
source’’, and ‘‘significant’’.
SIP does not include the
PM2.5 SMC at LAC
33:III.509(I)(5)(a) from the
12/20/2012 adoption. LAC
33:III.509(I)(5)(a) is SIP-ap-
proved as of 10/20/2007
adoption.
Chapter 6—Regulations on Control of Emissions Reduction Credits Banking
* * * * * * *
Section 603 ............................. Applicability ............................ 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Section 605 ............................. Definitions .............................. 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Section 607 ............................. Determination of Creditable 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal
Emission Reductions. Register citation].
Section 613 ............................. ERC Balance Sheet ............... 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Section 615 ............................. Schedule for Submitting Ap- 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal
plications. Register citation].
* * * * * * *
* * * * * This final action pertains to the Clean ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
[FR Doc. 2015–28097 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure docket for this action under Docket
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
national ambient air quality standards 2014–0795. All documents in the docket
(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each are listed on the www.regulations.gov
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION state adopt and submit a SIP for the Web site. Although listed in the index,
AGENCY implementation, maintenance, and some information is not publicly
enforcement of each NAAQS available, i.e., Confidential Business
40 CFR Part 52 Information or other information whose
promulgated by EPA, which is
disclosure is restricted by statute.
[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0795; FRL–9936–60– commonly referred to as an
Certain other material, such as
Region 4] ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. NCDAQ certified
copyrighted material, is not placed on
that the North Carolina SIP contains the Internet and will be publicly
Approval and Promulgation of provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour
Implementation Plans; North Carolina available only in hard copy form.
ozone NAAQS is implemented, Publicly available docket materials are
Infrastructure Requirements for the enforced, and maintained in North
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient available either electronically through
Carolina. With the exception of www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
Air Quality Standards provisions pertaining to prevention of the Air Regulatory Management Section,
AGENCY: Environmental Protection significant deterioration (PSD) Air Planning and Implementation
Agency (EPA). permitting, interstate transport Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
ACTION: Final rule. requirements, and state boards Management Division, U.S.
requirements, EPA is taking final action Environmental Protection Agency,
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection to approve North Carolina’s Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to infrastructure SIP submission provided Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
approve portions of the November 2, to EPA on November 2, 2012, as requests that if at all possible, you
2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) satisfying the required infrastructure contact the person listed in the FOR
submission, provided by the North elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
Carolina Department of Environment NAAQS. schedule your inspection. The Regional
and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Office’s official hours of business are
Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) for DATES: This rule is effective December 7, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
inclusion into the North Carolina SIP. 2015. 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:34 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68667/page/1.svg)
![68454 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: incorporating those responses by in section 110 and could bring all areas
Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory reference. Specifically, please see EPA’s into compliance with the NAAQS
Management Section, Air Planning and Response 2, which addresses the within five years. Moreover, at that
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides Commenter’s interpretation regarding time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. CAA plain language; Response 3, which that the section 110 plan provide for
Environmental Protection Agency, addresses the Commenter’s ‘‘attainment’’ of the NAAQS and section
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., interpretation of the legislative history 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Ward of the CAA; Response 5, which include ‘‘emission limitations,
can be reached via telephone at (404) addresses the Commenter’s schedules, and timetables for
562–9140 or via electronic mail at interpretation of EPA regulations (40 compliance with such limitations, and
ward.nacosta@epa.gov. CFR 51.112); Response 6, which such other measures as may be
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: addresses the Commenter’s necessary to insure attainment and
interpretation of EPA interpretations of maintenance [of the NAAQS].’’ In 1977,
I. Background section 110 in infrastructure SIP Congress recognized that the existing
Upon promulgation of a new or rulemakings; and Response 4, which structure was not sufficient and many
revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and addresses the Commenter’s areas were still violating the NAAQS. At
(2) of the CAA require states to address interpretation of Supreme Court and
that time, Congress for the first time
basic SIP requirements, including appellate court decisions.
emissions inventories, monitoring, and Comment 1: The Commenter contends added provisions requiring states and
modeling to assure attainment and that North Carolina’s infrastructure EPA to identify whether areas of the
maintenance for that new NAAQS. submission ‘‘fails to include stringent state were violating the NAAQS (i.e.,
Section 110(a) of the CAA generally enough emission limits and other were nonattainment) or were meeting
requires states to make a SIP submission restrictions on sources of ozone the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) and
to meet applicable requirements in precursors, like nitrogen oxides established specific planning
order to provide for the implementation, (‘‘NOX’’), to ensure that areas not requirements in section 172 for areas
maintenance, and enforcement of a new designated nonattainment will attain not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many
or revised NAAQS within three years and maintain the 2008 eight-hour ozone areas still had air quality not meeting
following the promulgation of such NAAQS.’’ Based on this contention, the the NAAQS and Congress again
NAAQS, or within such shorter period Commenter then asserts that ‘‘North amended the CAA and added yet
as EPA may prescribe. For additional Carolina’s I–SIP does not meet the basic another layer of more prescriptive
information on the infrastructure SIP infrastructure requirements under planning requirements for each of the
requirements, see the proposed section 110(a)(2) and must be NAAQS, with the primary provisions
rulemaking published on March 13, disapproved.’’ for ozone in section 182. At that same
2015. (80 FR 13312) Response 1: EPA disagrees with the time, Congress modified section 110 to
On March 13, 2015, EPA proposed to Commenter’s contention that NC DAQ’s remove references to the section 110 SIP
approve portions of North Carolina’s 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP providing for attainment, including
November 2, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone submission is not approvable with removing pre-existing section
NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because it 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and
with the exception of the PSD fails to include enforceable emission renumbering subparagraph (B) as
permitting requirements for major limitations sufficient to ensure section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally,
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), attainment and maintenance of the 2008 Congress replaced the clause ‘‘as may be
the interstate transport requirements of 8-hour ozone NAAQS in attainment necessary to insure attainment and
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs areas. In light of the structure of the maintenance [of the NAAQS]’’ with ‘‘as
1 through 4), and the state board CAA, EPA’s long-standing position may be necessary or appropriate to meet
requirements of 110(E)(ii). See 80 FR regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they the applicable requirements of this
13312. are general planning SIPs to ensure that
chapter.’’ Thus, the CAA has
the state has adequate resources and
II. Response to Comments significantly evolved in the more than
authority to implement a NAAQS in
EPA received one set of comments on 40 years since it was originally enacted.
general throughout the state and not
the March 13, 2015, proposed detailed attainment and maintenance While at one time section 110 did
rulemaking to approve portions of North plans for each individual area of the provide the only detailed SIP planning
Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission state. provisions for states and specified that
intended to meet the CAA requirements EPA’s interpretation that such plans must provide for attainment
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A infrastructure SIPs are more general of the NAAQS, under the structure of
summary of the comments and EPA’s planning SIPs is consistent with the the current CAA, section 110 is only the
responses are provided below. statute as understood in light of its initial stepping-stone in the planning
As an initial matter, the Commenter history and structure. When Congress process for a specific NAAQS. And,
included interpretations of section enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not more detailed, later-enacted provisions
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA in a background include provisions requiring states and govern the substantive planning
section, but this section did not include EPA to label areas as attainment or process, including planning for
comments specific to EPA’s March 13, nonattainment. Rather, states were attainment of the NAAQS. EPA believes
2015 proposed action on the North required to include all areas of the state that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Carolina infrastructure SIP submittal. in ‘‘air quality control regions’’ (AQCRs) interpreted to require states to submit
EPA provided an analysis of these same and section 110 set forth the core SIPs that reflect the first step in their
interpretations of section 110(a)(2)(A) in substantive planning provisions for planning for attaining and maintaining
an October 16, 2014, rulemaking these AQCRs. At that time, Congress a new or revised NAAQS and that they
regarding the infrastructure SIP of anticipated that states would be able to contain enforceable control measures
Maryland for 2008 8-hour ozone address air pollution quickly pursuant and a demonstration that the state has
NAAQS. (See 79 FR 62010) and we are to the very general planning provisions the available tools and authority to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:34 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68667/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 68455
develop and implement plans to attain 110(a)(2)(A) requirements. Pursuant to maintain the 2008 eight-hour ozone
and maintain the NAAQS. section 110(a)(2)(A), an infrastructure NAAQS. Absent such limits, the
As stated in EPA’s proposed approval SIP submission must include Commenter contends that an I–SIP
for this rule, to meet section enforceable emission limitations and submission may not be approved.
110(a)(2)(A), North Carolina submitted a other control measures, means, or Specifically the Commenter contends
list of existing emission reduction and techniques (including economic that enforceable emission limitations for
other control measures in the SIP that incentives such as fees, marketable the State’s coal fired EGUs [electric
control emissions of volatile organic permits, and auctions of emissions generating units] should be set on a
compounds (VOCs) and NOX. The rights), as well as schedules and pounds per hour (‘‘lb/hr’’) basis, based
submission also identifies North timetables for compliance, as may be on, at most, a corresponding 0.07 lb/
Carolina’s statutory authority to adopt necessary or appropriate to meet the MMBtu limit. The Commenter further
emission control standards to meet applicable requirements of the Act. The contends that setting a lb/hr limit will
established air quality standards such as Commenter, however, seems to believe ensure consistent protection of the
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA that in the context of an infrastructure ambient air quality regardless of
believes North Carolina’s submission SIP submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) whether the nominal maximum heat
appropriately reflects the first step in requires the state to submit control input capacity for the unit is accurate or
the State’s planning process for measures sufficient to demonstrate changes in the future and addresses the
attaining and maintaining the 2008 attainment in an area designated issue of variations in mass emissions
ozone NAAQS and meets the attainment but that has a recent during startup and shutdown so that
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) monitored violation of the NAAQS. EPA even if the NOX emission rate in lb/
because the SIP contains enforceable does not believe that this is a reasonable MMBtu is higher during startup and
control measures for ozone precursors interpretation of the provision with shutdown (for instance when selective
and the submission provides that North respect to infrastructure SIP catalytic reduction technology is not
Carolina has the tools to develop and submissions. Rather, EPA believes that being engaged), hourly emissions of
implement measures as may be needed the proper inquiry at this juncture is NOX would not cause or contribute to
to attain and maintain the 2008 8-hour whether the state has met the basic violations of the NAAQS.
ozone standard. structural SIP requirements appropriate Response 3: EPA appreciates the
Comment 2: The Commenter contends at the point in time EPA is acting upon commenter’s support of North
that recent monitoring of the 2008 ozone it. The CAA provides states with three Carolina’s pursuit of additional NOX
NAAQS in areas not designated years to develop infrastructure SIPs and emission limitations at coal-fired power
nonattainment confirms that North states cannot reasonably be expected to plants in North Carolina. However, EPA
Carolina’s existing emission limitations address the annual change in an area’s does not believe that approval of the
are insufficient to attain and maintain design value for each year over that infrastructure SIP is contingent on the
the NAAQS. The Commenter period, nor to predict the air quality State adopting additional controls for
specifically contends that the data in periods after development and the State’s coal fired EGUs. Congress
exceedances of the ozone NAAQS with submission of the SIPs. established the CAA such that each state
2010–2012 data, in areas [Forsyth and Further, the Act provides states and has primary responsibility for assuring
Guilford counties] not designated EPA with other tools to address air quality within the state and
nonattainment under the standard concerns that arise with respect to determining an emission reduction
demonstrate that North Carolina’s violations of the NAAQS in a designated program for its areas subject to EPA
existing emissions limitations cannot attainment area, such as the authority to approval, with such approval dependent
ensure attainment and maintenance of redesignate areas pursuant to section upon whether the SIP as a whole meets
the eight-hour ozone standard. 107(d)(3), the authority to issue a ‘‘SIP the applicable requirements of the CAA.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Call’’ pursuant to section 110(k)(5), or See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v.
Commenter’s contention that NCDAQ’s the general authority to approve SIP EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir.
2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP revisions that can address such 1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense
submission is not approvable with violations of the NAAQS through other Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122,
respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because appropriate measures. As described 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). EPA cannot
of the monitor design values noted by above, EPA believes that North condition approval of the North
the Commenter. While EPA shares the Carolina’s infrastructure submission is Carolina infrastructure SIP upon
Commenter’s concern regarding any sufficient because it appropriately inclusion of a particular emission
county monitoring violations of the addresses the structural SIP reduction program as long as the SIP
NAAQS, such concerns are outside the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) by otherwise meets the requirements of the
scope of what is germane to an including enforceable emission control CAA. As explained in the proposal and
evaluation of section 110(a)(2)(A) for an measures and the authority to adopt and in this final action, North Carolina does
infrastructure SIP submission. With implement additional measures, if not need to adopt additional emission
regard to the 2010–2012 design values needed. control requirements in order to meet
for Forsyth and Guilford Counties as Comment 3: The Commenter contends the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(A).
mentioned by the Commenter, Forsyth that North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP Furthermore, we disagree with the
and Guilford Counties attained the 2008 must ensure that proper mass commenter’s contention that EPA
8-hour ozone NAAQS with 2011–2013 limitations and short term averaging cannot approve an infrastructure SIP
data and continue to attain with periods are imposed on certain specific submission without ensuring that it
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
preliminary 2013–2015 data. large sources of NOX such as power contains emission limits applicable at
Regardless, EPA does not believe that plants. Moreover, the Commenter all times, including during periods of
this 2010–2012 monitoring data contends that emission limits must SSM. For the reasons stated in the
referenced by the Commenter provides apply at all times, including during proposal, EPA does not believe that an
an appropriate basis upon which to periods of start-up, shutdown, and action on a state’s infrastructure SIP is
disapprove North Carolina’s malfunction (SSM), to ensure that all necessarily the appropriate type of
infrastructure SIP as it relates to section areas of North Carolina attain and action to address this type of deficiency.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:34 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68667/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 68457
V. Statutory and Executive Order application of those requirements would shall not postpone the effectiveness of
Reviews be inconsistent with the CAA; and such rule or action. Parties with
Under the CAA, the Administrator is • does not provide EPA with the objections to this direct final rule are
required to approve a SIP submission discretionary authority to address, as encouraged to file a comment in
that complies with the provisions of the appropriate, disproportionate human response to the parallel notice of
Act and applicable Federal regulations. health or environmental effects, using proposed rulemaking for this action
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). practicable and legally permissible published in the proposed rules section
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, methods, under Executive Order 12898 of today’s Federal Register, rather than
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). file an immediate petition for judicial
The SIP is not approved to apply on review of this direct final rule, so that
provided that they meet the criteria of
any Indian reservation land or in any EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe and address the comment in the
merely approves state law as meeting
has demonstrated that a tribe has proposed rulemaking. This action may
Federal requirements and does not
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian not be challenged later in proceedings to
impose additional requirements beyond
country, the rule does not have tribal enforce its requirements. See section
those imposed by state law. For that
implications as specified by Executive 307(b)(2).
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under direct costs on tribal governments or Environmental protection, Air
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, preempt tribal law. pollution control, Incorporation by
The Congressional Review Act, 5 reference, Intergovernmental relations,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information Business Regulatory Enforcement recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
collection burden under the provisions Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides organic compounds.
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must Dated: October 22, 2015.
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Heather McTeer Toney,
• is certified as not having a submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the Regional Administrator, Region 4.
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities Congress and to the Comptroller General 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 of the United States. EPA will submit a
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); report containing this action and other PART 52—APPROVAL AND
• does not contain any unfunded required information to the U.S. Senate, PROMULGATION OF
mandate or significantly or uniquely the U.S. House of Representatives, and IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
affect small governments, as described the Comptroller General of the United
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act States prior to publication of the rule in ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); the Federal Register. A major rule continues to read as follows:
• does not have Federalism cannot take effect until 60 days after it Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
implications as specified in Executive is published in the Federal Register.
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Subpart II—North Carolina
1999); defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
• is not an economically significant Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, ■ 2. In § 52.1770, the table in paragraph
regulatory action based on health or petitions for judicial review of this (e) is amended by adding an entry for
safety risks subject to Executive Order action must be filed in the United States ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Court of Appeals for the appropriate Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour
• is not a significant regulatory action circuit by January 4, 2016. Filing a Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR petition for reconsideration by the Standards’’ at the end of the table to
28355, May 22, 2001); Administrator of this final rule does not read as follows:
• is not subject to requirements of affect the finality of this action for the
Section 12(d) of the National purposes of judicial review nor does it § 52.1770 Identification of plan.
Technology Transfer and Advancement extend the time within which a petition * * * * *
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because for judicial review may be filed, and (e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Federal
State effective
Provision EPA Approval date Register Explanation
date citation
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastruc- 11/2/2012 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal ................ With the exception of sections: 110(a)(2)(C) and (J)
ture Requirements for the Register citation]. concerning PSD permitting requirements;
2008 8-Hour Ozone Na- 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4) con-
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
tional Ambient Air Quality cerning interstate transport requirements;
Standards. 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) concerning state board requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68667/page/5.svg)
![68458 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2015–28098 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] recommend that you telephone John erroneously listed the approved SIP
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, revisions as including the entirety of
at (312) 886–6067 before visiting the OAC 3745–17–03, rather than specifying
Region 5 office. more precisely that the approval as it
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John pertained to OAC 3745–17–03 applied
AGENCY Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, only to the revised cross reference in
Attainment Planning and Maintenance OAC 3745–17–03(A). This error left the
40 CFR Part 52 misimpression that EPA had approved
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0807; FRL–9936–54– Environmental Protection Agency, other significant substantive revisions in
Region 5] Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, OAC 3745–17–03, including those in
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067, OAC 3745–17–03(B) that EPA had
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Test Methods; summerhays.john@epa.gov. previously proposed to disapprove. The
Error Correction codification in the October 26, 2010,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
AGENCY: Environmental Protection action with respect to OAC 3745–17–03
supplementary information section is
Agency (EPA). should have been explicitly limited to
arranged as follows: OAC 3745–17–03(A), to reflect the EPA
ACTION: Final rule. I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking approval of only the revised cross
II. Comments and EPA’s Responses reference.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
III. What action is EPA taking? EPA subsequently recognized that the
Agency (EPA) is determining that a IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
portion of an October 26, 2010, action codification erroneously left the
was in error and is making a correction I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed misimpression that it had approved
pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Rulemaking more of OAC 3745–17–03 than the
Clean Air Act. The October 26, 2010, revision of the cross reference in OAC
On June 4, 2003, Ohio submitted a 3745–17–03(A). On April 3, 2013, at 78
EPA action approved various revisions variety of revisions to the EPA approved
to Ohio regulations in the EPA approved FR 19990, EPA published action to
version of Ohio Administrative Code correct the error. EPA took this action
state implementation plan (SIP). The (OAC) 3745–17 in the state’s SIP, which
revisions were intended to consolidate pursuant to its general rulemaking
regulates particulate matter and opacity authority under Administrative
air quality standards into a new chapter from affected sources. While EPA
of rules and to adjust the cross Procedures Act section 553. Two parties
subsequently approved many of these challenged EPA’s April 3, 2013, action,
references accordingly in various related revisions, EPA published action on June
Ohio rules. These changes included a and one of these parties also filed a
27, 2005, proposing to disapprove petition for reconsideration of that
specific revision to the cross reference specific submitted revisions in OAC
in the Ohio rule pertaining to methods action, objecting that EPA failed to
3745–17–03(B) that in EPA’s view correct the error in the October 26, 2010,
for measurements for comparison with relaxed existing SIP opacity limitations
the particulate matter air quality action in accordance with the
without an adequate analysis under procedures of section 110(k)(6) of the
standards. This final correction action section 110(l) or section 193 of the
removes any misperception that EPA Clean Air Act.
Clean Air Act.1 Consistent with this EPA responded to the petition for
approved any revision to the pertinent proposed disapproval, the version of reconsideration by agreeing to take this
rule other than the revised cross OAC 3745–17–03(B) submitted by the action pursuant to section 110(k)(6), as
reference. This action will therefore state on June 4, 2003, was not, and is requested by the petitioner.
assure that the codification of the not, an approved provision of the Ohio Accordingly, EPA published proposed
October 26, 2010, action is in accord SIP. rulemaking on February 7, 2014, using
with the actual substance of the action. On September 10, 2009, for purposes its authority under section 110(k)(6) to
DATES: This final rule is effective on of consolidating its existing SIP rules correct errors in its rulemaking of
December 7, 2015. identifying applicable air quality October 26, 2010.2 Given the
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a standards, and to adjust the cross petitioners’ expressed interest in
docket for this action under Docket ID references between rules accordingly, commenting on EPA’s action, EPA
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0807. All Ohio submitted additional revisions to elected to use its authority under
documents in the docket are listed on several of its existing rules to EPA for section 110(k)(6) for this action because,
the www.regulations.gov Web site. approval into the SIP. Most notably, under these circumstances, it would
Although listed in the index, some these rule revisions included a provide the best mechanism to correct
information is not publicly available, modification to the existing cross the apparent misunderstandings
i.e., Confidential Business Information reference in OAC 3745–17–03(A), which concerning the error in the October 26,
(CBI) or other information whose was necessary because the ambient 2010, action.
disclosure is restricted by statute. particulate matter measurement method EPA’s February 7, 2014, proposal
Certain other material, such as identified in this paragraph was for provides an extensive description of the
copyrighted material, is not placed on purposes of assessing attainment with error in its October 26, 2010,
the Internet and will be publicly the ambient air quality standards now rulemaking, provided in subsections
available only in hard copy form. located in OAC 3745–25–02, rather than entitled, ‘‘What was the error in
Publicly available docket materials are in OAC 3745–17–02. description and codification?’’, ‘‘What
available either electronically through On October 26, 2010, at 75 FR 65572, precipitated this error?’’, and ‘‘Why was
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA published a direct final action it evident that this was an error?’’ It is
the Environmental Protection Agency, approving the relevant revisions in the not necessary to repeat that detailed
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 September 10, 2009, submission. In the explanation here. EPA proposed to
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, preamble and in the codification of the correct the error to remove any
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from October 26, 2010, action, EPA misimpression in its October 26, 2010,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 1 See 70 FR 36901 (June 27, 2005). 2 See 79 FR 7412 (Feb. 7, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05NOR1.SGM 05NOR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68667/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 15:03:04
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 15:03:04
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective December 7, 2015. | |
| Contact | Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Ward can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9140 or via electronic mail at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 68453 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR