81 FR 94281 - Air Plan Approval; WV; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Standard
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 247 (December 23, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 247 (December 23, 2016)
| Page Range | 94281-94283 | |
| FR Document | 2016-30882 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 94281-94283] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-30882] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373; FRL-9957-19-Region 3] Air Plan Approval; WV; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submittal from the State of West Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised [[Page 94282]] national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements. West Virginia has made a submittal addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) NAAQS. This action proposes to approve portions of this submittal. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 23, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03- OAR-2016-0373 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 17, 2015, the State of West Virginia through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. I. Background On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new 24-hour and a new annual NAAQS for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the standards for PM2.5 , tightening the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/ m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\, and retaining the annual PM2.5 standard at 15 [micro]g/m\3\ (71 FR 61144). Subsequently, on December 14, 2012, EPA revised the level of the health based (primary) annual PM2.5 standard to 12 [micro]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ In EPA's 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS revision, EPA left unchanged the existing welfare (secondary) standards for PM2.5 to address PM related effects such as visibility impairment, ecological effects, damage to materials and climate impacts. This includes an annual secondary standard of 15 [mu]g/m\3\ and a 24-hour standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIP submissions meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. II. Summary of State Submittal On November 17, 2015, West Virginia provided a submittal to satisfy section 110(a)(2) requirements of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which is the subject of this proposed rulemaking. This submittal addressed the following infrastructure elements or portions thereof, which EPA is proposing to approve: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving West Virginia's submittal may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking action which is available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373. This rulemaking action does not include any proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and will be addressed in a separate process. At this time, EPA is not proposing action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the interstate transport of emissions, nor is the Agency proposing action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) relating to visibility protection. EPA intends to take later separate action on these portions of West Virginia's submittal. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the following elements or portions thereof of West Virginia's November 17, 2015 SIP revision: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA. West Virginia's SIP revision provides the basic program elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed rulemaking action does not include action on section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and will be addressed in a separate process. EPA will take later separate action on section (D)(i)(I) (interstate transport of emissions) and on section (D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. 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 [[Page 94283]] CAA and applicable federal regulations. 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to West Virginia's section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 1, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 2016-30882 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 94281
transponders, stating they were lower airspace area, Reno, NV. The FAA has the glider exception from § 91.215
cost than fixed transponder installations determined that the post accident would have the potential to reduce the
and relatively affordable. While portable mitigations for the Reno area discussed NMAC occurrences by about 0.70
transponders may meet the TSO previously in this notice mitigate the occurrences per year, or about 2 NMACs
performance requirements, they are not risk for that specific airspace. every 3 years (0.38% of all reported
approved for use unless they are Another commenter stated, ‘‘the FAA NMACs per year over that period).
actually installed in the aircraft. A key should make clear that installing a
transponder, encoder, antenna, an extra Conclusion
reason for this is placement of the
transponder antenna in the aircraft. If battery or batteries and possible solar When further testing, research, and
the transponder antenna is not placed panels are all considered ‘minor conclusive data is available that reflect
correctly, the aircraft may not be modifications’ which can be signed off alternative mitigations, a broader, more
electronically detectable to other aircraft by the installing technician based on his harmonized proposal may better serve
or ATC. judgment.’’ This commenter and several the public interest. Withdrawal of
Other commenters recommended that others, in opposition of the removal of Notice No. 15–05 does not preclude the
the FAA encourage equipage of FLARM the glider exception, also called for FAA from issuing another notice on the
systems. In this regard, the FAA notes exceptions for older gliders. The FAA subject matter in the future or
that a variant of FLARM, known as finds that rulemaking is not necessary at committing the agency to any future
PowerFLARM, will make a transponder this time for any gliders, but points to course of action. The agency will make
or ADS–B Out equipped aircraft current guidance available to assist in any necessary changes to the regulations
detectable to the PowerFLARM- installation and approval of transponder through a notice of proposed
equipped aircraft (such as a glider). systems in gliders and sailplanes for rulemaking (NPRM) with the
However, a glider that is equipped with operators wishing to voluntarily opportunity for public comment.
any version of FLARM will not be equip.25 Although the FAA has determined
electronically detectable to the other The AAJ listed glider color, that a regulatory course of action is not
aircraft unless both aircraft are FLARM construction materials, and slender warranted at this time, the FAA will
equipped. In view of these factors, the profiles as contributing factors to lack of continue to work with local glider
FAA concludes that FLARM systems pilot visibility or radar detection and communities, encourage the voluntary
may provide a safety benefit further identified Instrument Flight Rule equipage of transponders in gliders and
(particularly for avoidance of collisions congested areas as concerns of encourage the use of TABS. The FAA
between gliders, and for PowerFLARM undeniable risk, especially the continues to recommend that all glider
equipped gliders, some benefit for parameters of Class B airspace. These aircraft owners equip their gliders with
avoidance of collisions with powered sentiments were largely shared amongst a transponder meeting the requirements
aircraft). However, the FAA does not both adverse and favorable commenters, of § 91.215(a), a rule-compliant ADS–B
view FLARM (including PowerFLARM) offering similar solutions or variations Out system, or a TABS device. In
as the most effective system to support thereof. The FAA has discussed its consideration of the above factors, the
collision avoidance with powered determination regarding specific FAA withdraws Notice No. 15–05,
aircraft since a FLARM system may not airspace areas above. With regard to the published in 80 FR 34346, on June 16,
make the glider detectable to the aircraft other comments identified here, the 2015.
that must give way. Transponders, FAA’s decision in this notice includes Issued under authority provided by 49
TABS, and ADS–B Out offer better consideration of those comments. U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 40103 in
protection against collisions with Washington, DC, on December 16, 2016.
Reason for Withdrawal
powered aircraft because those systems Gary A. Norek,
aid visual acquisition of the glider by After consideration of all comments
Deputy Director, Airspace Services.
the powered aircraft flightcrew, received, the FAA is withdrawing
[FR Doc. 2016–30910 Filed 12–22–16; 8:45 am]
consistent with right of way rules.24 Notice No. 15–05. The FAA finds that
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
The FAA will continue to consider the high cost of transponder equipage
surveillance system alternatives for and the limited safety benefit that is
gliders for their feasibility and potential likely to result from requiring such
to improve safety. equipage do not support rulemaking at ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
this time. Additionally, as discussed AGENCY
4. Other Comments above, the FAA has determined that a
Several commenters were in favor of proposal to require gliders to equip with 40 CFR Part 52
removing the current glider exception ‘‘low-cost’’ alternatives to transponders [EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0373; FRL–9957–19–
for certain high-density airspace areas. is not supportable at this time. Region 3]
One commenter, otherwise strongly in NTSB safety recommendations,
favor of removing the glider exception, resulting from the 2006 midair collision Air Plan Approval; WV; Infrastructure
suggested an exception for gliders with a glider, indicated that although Requirements for the 2012 Fine
involved in training below 5,000 feet the glider was equipped with a Particulate Standard
above ground level (AGL). The FAA has transponder, the transponder was
determined not to propose any changes turned off. After further analysis of AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
to the rules for specific airspace areas safety-related statistics over a 10-year
because the accident and incident period (August 2005–August 2015) the ACTION: Proposed rule.
history cited in the NTSB ASRS database reflects 1841 reported
recommendation has occurred NMAC for all airspace areas. The FAA SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
predominantly around one specific found data that indicates that removal of Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
24 Section 91.113(d)(2) states that ‘‘A glider has 25 Information for Operators (InFO) 09009, submittal from the State of West
the right of way over powered parachute, weight- Installation and Approval of Transponder Systems Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act
shift-aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.’’ in Gliders/Sailplanes, dated June 10, 2009. (CAA). Whenever new or revised
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:25 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23DEP1.SGM 23DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_94528/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 94283
CAA and applicable federal regulations. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 EPA may publish any comment received
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Environmental protection, Air to its public docket. Do not submit
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, pollution control, Incorporation by electronically any information you
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, reference, Particulate matter, Reporting consider to be Confidential Business
provided that they meet the criteria of and recordkeeping requirements. Information (CBI) or other information
the CAA. Accordingly, this action whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
merely proposes to approve state law as Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
meeting federal requirements and does Dated: December 1, 2016. etc.) must be accompanied by a written
not impose additional requirements Shawn M. Garvin, comment. The written comment is
beyond those imposed by state law. For Regional Administrator, Region III. considered the official comment and
that reason, this proposed action: [FR Doc. 2016–30882 Filed 12–22–16; 8:45 am] should include discussion of all points
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
you wish to make. EPA will generally
action’’ subject to review by the Office not consider comments or comment
of Management and Budget under contents located outside of the primary
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
October 4, 1993); AGENCY other file sharing system). For
• does not impose an information additional submission methods, the full
collection burden under the provisions 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 EPA public comment policy,
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 information about CBI or multimedia
[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0583; FRL–9957–32–
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); submissions, and general guidance on
Region 4]
making effective comments, please visit
• is certified as not having a http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
significant economic impact on a Air Plan Approval; Air Plan Approval
and Air Quality Designation; GA; commenting-epa-dockets.
substantial number of small entities
Redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Spann, Air Regulatory Management
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Area to Attainment Section, Air Planning and
• does not contain any unfunded Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
mandate or significantly or uniquely AGENCY: Environmental Protection and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
affect small governments, as described Agency (EPA). Environmental Protection Agency,
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ACTION: Proposed rule. Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
• does not have federalism SUMMARY: On July 18, 2016, the State of Spann can be reached by phone at (404)
implications as specified in Executive Georgia, through the Georgia 562–9029 or via electronic mail at
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Environmental Protection Division (GA spann.jane@epa.gov.
1999); EPD) of the Department of Natural
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Resources, submitted a request for the
• is not an economically significant Table of Contents
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulatory action based on health or
to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to
safety risks subject to Executive Order
8-hour ozone nonattainment area take?
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Atlanta II. What is the background for EPA’s
• is not a significant regulatory action Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to attainment for the proposed actions?
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
28355, May 22, 2001); Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
• is not subject to requirements of approve a State Implementation Plan V. What is EPA’s analysis of the
section 12(d) of the National (SIP) revision containing a maintenance redesignation request and July 18, 2016,
Technology Transfer and Advancement SIP submission?
plan for the Area. EPA is proposing to
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because approve the State’s plan for maintaining proposed NOX and VOC MVEBs for the
application of those requirements would attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone Atlanta Area?
be inconsistent with the CAA; and standard in the Area, including the VII. What is the Status of EPA’s adequacy
• does not provide EPA with the motor vehicle emission budgets determination for the proposed NOX and
discretionary authority to address, as (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and VOC MVEBs the Atlanta area?
appropriate, disproportionate human volatile organic compounds (VOC) for VIII. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed
the years 2014 and 2030 for the Area, actions?
health or environmental effects, using
and incorporate it into the SIP, and to IX. Proposed Actions
practicable and legally permissible X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
methods, under Executive Order 12898 redesignate the Area to attainment for
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is I. What are the actions EPA is
In addition, this proposed rule, also notifying the public of the status of proposing to take?
pertaining to West Virginia’s section EPA’s adequacy determination for the EPA is proposing to take the following
110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for MVEBs for the Area. separate but related actions: (1) To
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, does not have DATES: Comments must be received on approve Georgia’s plan for maintaining
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
tribal implications as specified by or before January 23, 2017. the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, (maintenance plan), including the
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– associated MVEBs for the Atlanta Area,
not approved to apply in Indian country OAR–2016–0583 at http:// and incorporate it into the SIP, and (2)
located in the state, and EPA notes that www.regulations.gov. Follow the online to redesignate the Atlanta Area to
it will not impose substantial direct instructions for submitting comments. attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
costs on tribal governments or preempt Once submitted, comments cannot be NAAQS. EPA is also notifying the
tribal law. edited or removed from Regulations.gov. public of the status of EPA’s adequacy
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:25 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23DEP1.SGM 23DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_94528/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2016-12-23 12:29:20
Document Modified: 2016-12-23 12:29:20
| 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 | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before January 23, 2017. | |
| Contact | Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 94281 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Particulate Matter and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR