81 FR 32239 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting Requirements
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 99 (May 23, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 99 (May 23, 2016)
| Page Range | 32239-32241 | |
| FR Document | 2016-11965 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 32239-32241] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-11965] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0783; FRL-9946-66-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting Requirements AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal that are inconsistent with federal laws based on recent decisions by the United States Courts and subsequent EPA rulemaking. This submittal established Minor New Source Review permitting requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and includes Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting provisions for sources that are classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a PSD permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions. The PSD permitting provisions also require a PSD permit for modifications of otherwise major sources because they increased only GHG emissions above applicable levels. Additionally, we are disapproving severable portions of SIP submittals for the States of Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing the EPA's July 20, 2011 rule deferring PSD requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources (``Biomass Deferral''). We are disapproving the provisions adopting the Biomass Deferral because they are no longer consistent with federal laws and regulations. The EPA is finalizing this disapproval under section 110 and part C of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). DATES: This rule is effective on June 22, 2016. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0783. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202- 2733. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' means the EPA. I. Background The background for this action is discussed in detail in our January 11, 2016 proposal. See 81 FR 1141. In that document we proposed to disapprove severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal establishing GHG permitting requirements for minor sources and for sources that are classified as major, and thus, required to obtain a PSD permit based solely on their potential GHG emissions (referred to as ``Step 2'' PSD sources in our proposed action) because we determined that these revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establish permitting requirements that are inconsistent with federal laws resulting from recent decisions by United States Courts. We also proposed to disapprove severable portions of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP submittal, the January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP, and the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP submittal that include the Biomass Deferral in the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma PSD programs. Our analysis found that these revisions to the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma SIPs should be disapproved because adoption or implementation of these provisions is no longer consistent with federal laws and regulations for PSD permitting. II. Response to Comments We received one comment on our proposed action. Our response to the submitted comment is provided below. Comment: One commenter stated that ``not requiring states to continue step two of the permitting for GHG as a major source thus requiring a PSD or Title V permit is the right decisions based on law.'' Additionally, the commenter stated that ``GHG emission issues would be better addressed in it's [sic] own statute rather than having the supreme court [sic] dictate the regulatory framework of GHG emissions.'' Response: We acknowledge the support of the commenter in finding that our proposed disapproval action is consistent with current law. GHG [[Page 32240]] emissions are regulated under the CAA \1\ and the CAA includes provisions for citizens, states, and regulated entities to seek judicial review of EPA's final regulatory decisions.\2\ Therefore our current action to disapprove the Step 2 permitting requirements is consistent with current law and is consistent with the statutory requirements of the CAA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See section 160 of the Act and the Act's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. \2\ See section 307 of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Final Action We are taking this final action under section 110 and part C of the Act; as such, we are not imposing sanctions as a result of this disapproval. This final disapproval does not require the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan because we are finding that the submitted provisions are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions. We are disapproving the following severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal that establish GHG permitting requirements for minor sources and Step 2 PSD:Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establishing Minor NSR GHG permitting requirements at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 as submitted on February 6, 2012; and Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 252:100-8-31 establishing PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources at paragraph (E) of the definition of ``subject to regulation'' as submitted on February 6, 2012. We are also disapproving as inconsistent with federal laws and regulations for PSD permitting, severable portions of the following SIP submittals that include the Biomass Deferral: Substantive revisions to the Arkansas SIP definition of ``CO 2 Equivalent Emissions'' at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 to implement the Biomass Deferral as submitted on November 6, 2012;Substantive revisions to the New Mexico SIP definition of ``Subject to Regulation'' at 20.2.74.7 (AZ)(2)(a) NMAC to implement the Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 8, 2013; and Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP definitions of ``carbon dioxide equivalent emissions'' at OAC 252:100-1-3 and ``subject to regulation'' at OAC 252:100-8-31 as submitted on January 18, 2013. As a result of the final disapproval actions listed above, the EPA is also updating the ``Approval status'' section of the Arkansas SIP at 40 CFR 52.172, New Mexico SIP at 40 CFR 52.1622, and Oklahoma SIP at 40 CFR 52.1922. Additionally, we are renumbering 40 CFR 52.172 of the Arkansas SIP for consistency. IV. 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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. We have concluded that the state choices under review in this action do not meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action disapproves state law as not meeting Federal requirements for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions. 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. There is no burden imposed under the PRA because this action disapproves submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions. 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. This action disapproves submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small entities. 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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action disapproves submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small governments. 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: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action disapproves provisions of state law that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions; there are no requirements or responsibilities added or removed from Indian Tribal Governments. 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 disapproves state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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) This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse [[Page 32241]] human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions. 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. The 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 July 22, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purpose 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. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 11, 2016. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6. 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 E--Arkansas 0 2. Section 52.172 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 52.172 Approval status. With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Arkansas's state implementation plan under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the Administrator finds that the plan satisfies all applicable requirements of Parts C and D, Title I, of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, except as noted below. (a) 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS: The SIP submitted March 28, 2008 is disapproved for CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). (b) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs submitted March 28, 2008 and September 16, 2009 are disapproved for CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). (c) GHGs: The revisions to the Arkansas SIP definition of ``CO2 Equivalent Emissions'' at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 to implement the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on November 6, 2012 are disapproved. Subpart GG--New Mexico 0 3. Section 52.1622 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 52.1622 Approval status. With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves New Mexico's state implementation plan under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the Administrator finds that the plan satisfies all applicable requirements of Parts C and D, Title I, of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, except as noted below. (a) The revisions to the New Mexico SIP definition of ``Subject to Regulation'' at 20.2.74.7 (AZ)(2)(a) NMAC to implement the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 8, 2013 are disapproved. (b) [Reserved] Subpart LL--Oklahoma 0 4. Section 52.1922 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 52.1922 Approval status. With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Oklahoma's state implementation plan under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the Administrator finds that the plan satisfies all applicable requirements of Parts C and D, Title I, of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, except as noted below. (a) Revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establishing Minor NSR GHG permitting requirements at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 as submitted on February 6, 2012. (b) Revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 252:100-8-31 establishing PSD permitting requirements for sources that are classified as major and thus required to obtain a PSD permit based solely on their potential GHG emissions (``Step 2 sources'') at paragraph (E) of the definition of ``subject to regulation'' as submitted on February 6, 2012. (c) Revisions to the Oklahoma SIP definitions of ``carbon dioxide equivalent emissions'' at OAC 252:100-1-3 and ``subject to regulation'' at OAC 252:100-8-31 to implement the GHG Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 18, 2013. [FR Doc. 2016-11965 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 32239
the purposes of judicial review nor does ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Publicly available docket materials are
it extend the time within which a AGENCY available either electronically through
petition for judicial review may be filed, http://www.regulations.gov or in hard
and shall not postpone the effectiveness 40 CFR Part 52 copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
of such rule or action. Parties with [EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0783; FRL–9946–66– Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–
objections to this direct final rule are Region 6] 2733.
encouraged to file a comment in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
response to the parallel notice of Approval and Promulgation of
Adina Wiley, (214) 665–2115,
proposed rulemaking for this action Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New
wiley.adina@epa.gov.
published in the proposed rules section Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of
Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
file an immediate petition for judicial
Requirements and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA.
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection I. Background
and address the comment in the Agency (EPA).
proposed rulemaking. This action may ACTION: Final rule. The background for this action is
not be challenged later in proceedings to discussed in detail in our January 11,
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 2016 proposal. See 81 FR 1141. In that
enforce its requirements. (See section
Agency (EPA) is disapproving severable document we proposed to disapprove
307(b)(2)). portions of the February 6, 2012 severable portions of the February 6,
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Oklahoma State Implementation Plan 2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal
(SIP) submittal that are inconsistent establishing GHG permitting
Environmental protection, Air with federal laws based on recent requirements for minor sources and for
pollution control, Incorporation by decisions by the United States Courts sources that are classified as major, and
reference, Ozone, Reporting and and subsequent EPA rulemaking. This thus, required to obtain a PSD permit
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile submittal established Minor New based solely on their potential GHG
organic compounds. Source Review permitting requirements emissions (referred to as ‘‘Step 2’’ PSD
for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sources in our proposed action) because
Dated: May 4, 2016.
includes Prevention of Significant we determined that these revisions to
H. Curtis Spalding, Deterioration (PSD) permitting the Oklahoma SIP establish permitting
Regional Administrator, EPA New England. provisions for sources that are classified requirements that are inconsistent with
as major, and, thus, required to obtain federal laws resulting from recent
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
a PSD permit, based solely on their decisions by United States Courts. We
Code of Federal Regulations is amended potential GHG emissions. The PSD
as follows: also proposed to disapprove severable
permitting provisions also require a PSD portions of the November 6, 2012
permit for modifications of otherwise Arkansas SIP submittal, the January 8,
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
major sources because they increased 2013 New Mexico SIP, and the January
PROMULGATION OF only GHG emissions above applicable
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP submittal that
levels. Additionally, we are include the Biomass Deferral in the
disapproving severable portions of SIP Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 submittals for the States of Arkansas, PSD programs. Our analysis found that
continues to read as follows: New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing these revisions to the Arkansas, New
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. the EPA’s July 20, 2011 rule deferring Mexico, and Oklahoma SIPs should be
PSD requirements for carbon dioxide disapproved because adoption or
Subpart EE—New Hampshire (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and implementation of these provisions is
other biogenic sources (‘‘Biomass no longer consistent with federal laws
■ 2. Section 52.1534 is amended by Deferral’’). We are disapproving the and regulations for PSD permitting.
adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: provisions adopting the Biomass
Deferral because they are no longer II. Response to Comments
§ 52.1534 Control strategy: Ozone. consistent with federal laws and We received one comment on our
* * * * * regulations. The EPA is finalizing this proposed action. Our response to the
disapproval under section 110 and part submitted comment is provided below.
(j) Approval—EPA is approving the
C of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA).
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1) Comment: One commenter stated that
DATES: This rule is effective on June 22,
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ‘‘not requiring states to continue step
2016.
ozone National Ambient Air Quality two of the permitting for GHG as a major
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
Standard in the area of the New source thus requiring a PSD or Title V
Hampshire required to have such a plan. docket for this action under Docket ID
permit is the right decisions based on
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0783. All
This area includes portions of law.’’ Additionally, the commenter
documents in the docket are listed on
Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, stated that ‘‘GHG emission issues would
the http://www.regulations.gov Web
and Strafford Counties, and all of be better addressed in it’s [sic] own
site. Although listed in the index, some
Cheshire County. This maintenance statute rather than having the supreme
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
information is not publicly available,
plan was submitted to EPA on March 2, court [sic] dictate the regulatory
e.g., Confidential Business Information
2012. framework of GHG emissions.’’
or other information whose disclosure is
[FR Doc. 2016–11963 Filed 5–20–16; 8:45 am] restricted by statute. Certain other Response: We acknowledge the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P material, such as copyrighted material, support of the commenter in finding
is not placed on the Internet and will be that our proposed disapproval action is
publicly available only in hard copy. consistent with current law. GHG
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 May 20, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM 23MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32338/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 32241
human health or environmental effects Subpart E—Arkansas requirements at OAC 252:100–7–2.1 as
on minority, low-income or indigenous submitted on February 6, 2012.
populations. This action is not subject ■ 2. Section 52.172 is revised to read as (b) Revisions to the Oklahoma PSD
to Executive Order 12898 because it follows: program in OAC 252:100–8–31
disapproves state permitting provisions § 52.172 Approval status.
establishing PSD permitting
that are inconsistent with federal laws requirements for sources that are
With the exceptions set forth in this classified as major and thus required to
for the regulation and permitting of subpart, the Administrator approves
GHG emissions. obtain a PSD permit based solely on
Arkansas’s state implementation plan
their potential GHG emissions (‘‘Step 2
The Congressional Review Act, 5 under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
sources’’) at paragraph (E) of the
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Furthermore, the Administrator finds
definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ as
Business Regulatory Enforcement that the plan satisfies all applicable
submitted on February 6, 2012.
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides requirements of Parts C and D, Title I,
(c) Revisions to the Oklahoma SIP
that before a rule may take effect, the of the Clean Air Act as amended in
definitions of ‘‘carbon dioxide
agency promulgating the rule must 1990, except as noted below.
(a) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIP equivalent emissions’’ at OAC 252:100–
submit a rule report, which includes a 1–3 and ‘‘subject to regulation’’ at OAC
copy of the rule, to each House of the submitted March 28, 2008 is
disapproved for CAA element 252:100–8–31 to implement the GHG
Congress and to the Comptroller General Biomass Deferral as submitted on
of the United States. The EPA will 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
(b) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIPs January 18, 2013.
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the submitted March 28, 2008 and [FR Doc. 2016–11965 Filed 5–20–16; 8:45 am]
September 16, 2009 are disapproved for BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Representatives, and the Comptroller (c) GHGs: The revisions to the
General of the United States prior to Arkansas SIP definition of ‘‘CO2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
publication of the rule in the Federal Equivalent Emissions’’ at Regulation 19, AGENCY
Register. A major rule cannot take effect Chapter 2 to implement the GHG
until 60 days after it is published in the Biomass Deferral as submitted on 40 CFR Part 82
Federal Register. This action is not a November 6, 2012 are disapproved. [EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118; FRL–9946–88–
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. OAR]
804(2). Subpart GG—New Mexico
RIN 2060–AG12
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
■ 3. Section 52.1622 is revised to read
petitions for judicial review of this as follows: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
action must be filed in the United States Determination 31 for Significant New
Court of Appeals for the appropriate § 52.1622 Approval status. Alternatives Policy Program
circuit by July 22, 2016. Filing a petition With the exceptions set forth in this
for reconsideration by the Administrator subpart, the Administrator approves AGENCY: Environmental Protection
of this final rule does not affect the New Mexico’s state implementation Agency (EPA).
finality of this action for the purpose of plan under section 110 of the Clean Air ACTION: Determination of acceptability.
judicial review nor does it extend the Act. Furthermore, the Administrator
time within which a petition for judicial finds that the plan satisfies all SUMMARY: This determination of
review may be filed, and shall not applicable requirements of Parts C and acceptability expands the list of
postpone the effectiveness of such rule D, Title I, of the Clean Air Act as acceptable substitutes pursuant to the
or action. This action may not be amended in 1990, except as noted U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
challenged later in proceedings to below. (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
enforce its requirements. (See section (a) The revisions to the New Mexico Policy (SNAP) program. This action lists
307(b)(2)). SIP definition of ‘‘Subject to as acceptable additional substitutes for
Regulation’’ at 20.2.74.7 (AZ)(2)(a) use in the refrigeration and air
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 NMAC to implement the GHG Biomass conditioning sector.
Deferral as submitted on January 8, 2013 DATES: This determination is effective
Environmental protection, Air
are disapproved. on May 23, 2016.
pollution control, Incorporation by
(b) [Reserved] ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and for this action under Docket ID No.
Subpart LL—Oklahoma EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds. ■ 4. Section 52.1922 is revised to read (continuation of Air Docket A–91–42).
as follows: All electronic documents in the docket
Dated: May 11, 2016. are listed in the index at
Ron Curry, § 52.1922 Approval status. www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
Regional Administrator, Region 6. With the exceptions set forth in this the index, some information is not
subpart, the Administrator approves publicly available, i.e., Confidential
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: Business Information (CBI) or other
Oklahoma’s state implementation plan
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. information whose disclosure is
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Furthermore, the Administrator finds restricted by statute. Publicly available
PROMULGATION OF
that the plan satisfies all applicable docket materials are available either
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
requirements of Parts C and D, Title I, electronically at www.regulations.gov or
of the Clean Air Act as amended in in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 (Nos. A–91–42 and EPA–HQ–OAR–
1990, except as noted below.
continues to read as follows: (a) Revisions to the Oklahoma SIP 2003–0118), EPA Docket Center (EPA/
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. establishing Minor NSR GHG permitting DC), William J. Clinton West, Room
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:03 May 20, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM 23MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32338/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-07 15:07:21
Document Modified: 2018-02-07 15:07:21
| 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 on June 22, 2016. | |
| Contact | Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 32239 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR