82 FR 21708 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Commissioner's Order for Carmeuse Lime, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 89 (May 10, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 89 (May 10, 2017)
| Page Range | 21708-21711 | |
| FR Document | 2017-09382 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 21708-21711] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-09382] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0707; FRL-9962-09-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Commissioner's Order for Carmeuse Lime, Inc. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, as a revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP), a submittal from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to EPA, dated December 22, 2016. The submittal consists of an order issued by the Commissioner of IDEM that establishes permanent and enforceable sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) emission limits for Carmeuse Lime, Inc. (Carmeuse), applicable to its Gary, Indiana lime manufacturing plant. IDEM submitted this order so the area near Carmeuse can be designated ``attainment'' of the 2010 primary SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), a matter that will be addressed in a separate future rulemaking. EPA's approval of this order would make these SO2 emission limits and applicable reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance demonstration requirements part of the federally enforceable Indiana SIP. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 10, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 9, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-R05- OAR-2016-0707 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: Joseph Ko, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR- 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7947, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. Why did IDEM issue this commissioner's order? II. What are the SO2 limits in this commissioner's order? III. By what criterion is EPA reviewing this SIP revision? IV. What action is EPA taking? V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Why did IDEM issue this commissioner's orders? On December 22, 2016, IDEM submitted for approval, as a revision to the Indiana SIP, an order issued by IDEM's Commissioner that establishes SO2 emission limits for Carmeuse. SO2 emission limits for Carmeuse previously did not exist in the Indiana SIP. IDEM established these emission limits so the area near Carmeuse can qualify in the future for being designated ``attainment'' of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. The history of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and the applicable Data Requirements Rule (DRR) is explained below in order to provide a more detailed explanation of the context for IDEM's request. On June 3, 2010, pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA revised the primary (health-based) SO2 NAAQS by establishing a new one-hour standard codified at title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 51.17 (75 FR 35520). Pursuant to section 107(d) of the CAA, EPA must designate areas as either ``unclassifiable,'' ``attainment,'' or ``nonattainment'' for the 2010 one-hour SO2 primary NAAQS. Under Section 107(d) of the CAA, a nonattainment area is any area that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to a violation in a nearby area. An attainment area is any area, other than a nonattainment area, that meets the NAAQS. Unclassifiable areas are those that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS. On August 5, 2013, EPA published a final rule designating 29 areas in the United States as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, based on recorded air quality monitoring data from 2009-2011 that showed violations of the NAAQS (78 FR 47191). In that rulemaking, EPA committed to address, in separate future actions, the designations for all other areas for which EPA was not yet prepared to issue designations. Following the initial August 5, 2013, designations, three lawsuits were filed against EPA in different U.S. District Courts, alleging that EPA had failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under [[Page 21709]] the CAA by not designating all portions of the country by June 2013, three years after the promulgation of the revised SO2 NAAQS, as required by Section 107(d) of the CAA. In an effort intended to resolve the litigation in one of those cases, plaintiffs Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council and EPA filed a proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 2, 2015, the Court entered the consent decree and issued an enforceable order for EPA to complete the area designations according to the Court-ordered schedule.\1\ The consent decree required EPA to complete the designations in three additional rounds following EPA's original designations (Round 1): Round 2 by July 2, 2016, Round 3 by December 31, 2017, and Round 4 by December 31, 2020. This action falls within Round 3 of the designation process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Sierra Club et al. v. EPA, No. 3:13-cv-3953-SI (N.D.Cal.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the DRR (80 FR 51052), each state air agency was required to submit a list to the EPA by January 15, 2016, that identified all sources within the state that had SO2 emissions exceeding 2,000 tons per year (tpy) during the most recent year for which emissions data for those sources were available, plus any additional sources and their associated areas identified by the air agency or by the EPA as also warranting air quality characterization due to their potential to contribute to an SO2 NAAQS violation. Carmeuse's lime manufacturing plant was not identified by IDEM as one of the sources covered by the DRR since the SO2 emissions from the facility did not exceed 2,000 tpy; but IDEM determined that emissions from the plant could adversely impact overall SO2 air quality for Lake County. Based on modeling conducted by Indiana in accordance with EPA's Draft SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document,\2\ these emission limits in the Commissioner's Order will ensure modeled attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. IDEM conducted air dispersion modeling using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) version 15181 in accordance with appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 to determine SO2 emission limits for Carmeuse that will ensure modeled attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the area near this facility. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Draft SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document. December 2013. http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/SO2ModelingTAD.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IDEM has requested that EPA approve Commissioner's Order 2016-04 for Carmeuse as part of the Indiana's SIP. If EPA approves the SO2 emission limits contained in these orders, they will become federally enforceable. Once these SO2 emission limits have become federally enforceable, IDEM intends to use them to demonstrate modeled attainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the area near Carmeuse. To be clear, the purpose of this rulemaking is to take action on IDEM's request to approve these SO2 emission limits into the Indiana SIP and thereby make them federally enforceable. The purpose of this rulemaking is not to take action on whether these SO2 emission limits are adequate for EPA to designate attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the area near Carmeuse. EPA intends to complete 2010 SO2 NAAQS designations for areas under the Federal consent decree deadlines, including the area near Carmeuse, in separate rulemakings. II. What are the SO2 limits in this commissioner's orders? Indiana issued Commissioner's Order 2016-04 on November 15, 2016, with an effective date of 18 days after issuance. This order established SO2 emission limits for five kilns (with six stacks per kiln) at the Carmeuse facility. Modeling for the Commissioner's Order showed that an emission limit of 12.0 pounds per hour of SO2 for each kiln, or 2.0 pounds per hour for each stack, would ensure attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Indiana calculated a rolling 720-operating-hour average limit of 9.48 pounds per hour for each kiln, based on a flat averaging ratio of 0.79 recommended in EPA's Guidance for 1-hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submission. This limit has a comparable stringency to an hourly emission limit. The Commissioner's Order requires that Carmeuse comply with this rolling 720-operating-hour average limit of 9.48 pound per hour per kiln, beginning seven days from the issuance of the permit modification required to allow the use of natural gas within the affected kilns. III. By what criterion is EPA reviewing this SIP revision? EPA has evaluated this revision on the basis of whether it strengthens Indiana's SIP. Prior to Commissioner's Order 2016-04, there were no specific SO2 emission limitations in the SIP applicable to Carmeuse, nor were there any applicable SO2 limits identified in its part 70 Operating Permit. The SO2 emission limits in Commissioner's Order 2016-04 for Carmeuse establish permanent and federally enforceable limits, and should, therefore, strengthen Indiana's SIP. The adequacy of these limits for providing for attainment is not a prerequisite for approval of these limits. Nevertheless, the purpose of these limits is ultimately to provide for attainment, and EPA is working with Indiana to assure a proper analysis of the adequacy of these limits for this purpose. IV. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving Commissioner's Order 2016-04 as part of the Indiana SIP. Incorporating the order's SO2 emission limits and related requirements for Carmeuse as part of the SIP strengthens Indiana's SIP, which did not have any specific SO2 emission limits for Carmeuse previously. By approving the Commissioner's Order into the Indiana SIP, these SO2 emission limits and applicable reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance demonstration requirements contained in the order would become federally enforceable, and strengthen the Indiana SIP. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 10, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by June 9, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective July 10, 2017. V. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes [[Page 21710]] incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana Commissioner's Order described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\3\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more information). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the 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 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). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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 July 10, 2017. 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: April 27, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 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. 0 2. In Sec. 52.770 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding a new entry for ``Carmeuse Lime Inc.'' to read as follows: Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan. * * * * * (d) * * * EPA-Approved Indiana Source-Specific Provisions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CO date Title SIP rule EPA approval Explanation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * 11/16/2016.............. Carmeuse Lime Inc.. N.A..................... 5/10/2017, [Insert Limitation Federal Register intended to citation]. support attainment designation. [[Page 21711]] * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * [FR Doc. 2017-09382 Filed 5-9-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![21708 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Applicable
geographic State EPA
Name of non-regulatory SIP provision Explanation
or nonattain- effective date approval date
ment area
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require- Tennessee .. 11/19/2015 5/10/2017, [Insert ci- With the exception of interstate transport
ments for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 tation of publica- requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
NAAQS. tion]. and (II) (prongs 1, 2 and 4).
[FR Doc. 2017–09390 Filed 5–9–17; 8:45 am] aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For I. Why did IDEM issue this
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P comments submitted at Regulations.gov, commissioner’s orders?
follow the online instructions for On December 22, 2016, IDEM
submitting comments. Once submitted, submitted for approval, as a revision to
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION comments cannot be edited or removed the Indiana SIP, an order issued by
AGENCY from Regulations.gov. For either manner IDEM’s Commissioner that establishes
of submission, EPA may publish any SO2 emission limits for Carmeuse. SO2
40 CFR Part 52 comment received to its public docket. emission limits for Carmeuse previously
[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0707; FRL–9962–09- Do not submit electronically any did not exist in the Indiana SIP. IDEM
Region 5] information you consider to be established these emission limits so the
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Confidential Business Information (CBI) area near Carmeuse can qualify in the
Commissioner’s Order for Carmeuse or other information whose disclosure is future for being designated ‘‘attainment’’
Lime, Inc. restricted by statute. Multimedia of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. The
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be history of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and the
AGENCY: Environmental Protection accompanied by a written comment. applicable Data Requirements Rule
Agency (EPA). The written comment is considered the (DRR) is explained below in order to
ACTION: Direct final rule. official comment and should include provide a more detailed explanation of
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection discussion of all points you wish to the context for IDEM’s request.
make. EPA will generally not consider On June 3, 2010, pursuant to section
Agency (EPA) is approving, as a revision 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA
to the Indiana State Implementation comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. revised the primary (health-based) SO2
Plan (SIP), a submittal from the Indiana NAAQS by establishing a new one-hour
Department of Environmental on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission standard codified at title 40 Code of
Management (IDEM) to EPA, dated Federal Regulations (CFR) section 51.17
December 22, 2016. The submittal methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER (75 FR 35520). Pursuant to section
consists of an order issued by the 107(d) of the CAA, EPA must designate
Commissioner of IDEM that establishes INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, areas as either ‘‘unclassifiable,’’
permanent and enforceable sulfur ‘‘attainment,’’ or ‘‘nonattainment’’ for
dioxide (SO2) emission limits for information about CBI or multimedia
the 2010 one-hour SO2 primary NAAQS.
Carmeuse Lime, Inc. (Carmeuse), submissions, and general guidance on
Under Section 107(d) of the CAA, a
applicable to its Gary, Indiana lime making effective comments, please visit
nonattainment area is any area that does
manufacturing plant. IDEM submitted http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
not meet the NAAQS or that contributes
this order so the area near Carmeuse can commenting-epa-dockets.
to a violation in a nearby area. An
be designated ‘‘attainment’’ of the 2010 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: attainment area is any area, other than
primary SO2 National Ambient Air Joseph Ko, Environmental Engineer, a nonattainment area, that meets the
Quality Standards (NAAQS), a matter Attainment Planning and Maintenance NAAQS. Unclassifiable areas are those
that will be addressed in a separate Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), that cannot be classified on the basis of
future rulemaking. EPA’s approval of Environmental Protection Agency, available information as meeting or not
this order would make these SO2 Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, meeting the NAAQS.
emission limits and applicable On August 5, 2013, EPA published a
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7947,
reporting, recordkeeping, and final rule designating 29 areas in the
ko.joseph@epa.gov.
compliance demonstration requirements United States as nonattainment for the
part of the federally enforceable Indiana SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2010 SO2 NAAQS, based on recorded
SIP. Throughout this document whenever air quality monitoring data from 2009–
DATES: This direct final rule will be ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 2011 that showed violations of the
effective July 10, 2017, unless EPA EPA. This supplementary information NAAQS (78 FR 47191). In that
receives adverse comments by June 9, section is arranged as follows: rulemaking, EPA committed to address,
2017. If adverse comments are received, I. Why did IDEM issue this commissioner’s in separate future actions, the
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of order? designations for all other areas for
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
the direct final rule in the Federal II. What are the SO2 limits in this which EPA was not yet prepared to
Register informing the public that the commissioner’s order? issue designations.
rule will not take effect. III. By what criterion is EPA reviewing this Following the initial August 5, 2013,
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, SIP revision? designations, three lawsuits were filed
identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05– IV. What action is EPA taking? against EPA in different U.S. District
OAR–2016–0707 at http:// V. Incorporation by Reference Courts, alleging that EPA had failed to
www.regulations.gov or via email to VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews perform a nondiscretionary duty under
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 May 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM 10MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_21797/page/1.svg)
![21710 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
incorporation by reference. In • Does not contain any unfunded is published in the Federal Register.
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR mandate or significantly or uniquely This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation affect small governments, as described defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
by reference of the Indiana in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
Commissioner’s Order described in the of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); petitions for judicial review of this
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth • Does not have Federalism action must be filed in the United States
below. Therefore, these materials have implications as specified in Executive Court of Appeals for the appropriate
been approved by EPA for inclusion in Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, circuit by July 10, 2017. Filing a petition
the State implementation plan, have 1999); for reconsideration by the Administrator
been incorporated by reference by EPA • Is not an economically significant of this final rule does not affect the
into that plan, are fully federally regulatory action based on health or finality of this action for the purposes of
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 safety risks subject to Executive Order judicial review nor does it extend the
of the CAA as of the effective date of the 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); time within which a petition for judicial
final rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and • Is not a significant regulatory action review may be filed, and shall not
will be incorporated by reference by the subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR postpone the effectiveness of such rule
Director of the Federal Register in the 28355, May 22, 2001); or action. Parties with objections to this
next update to the SIP compilation.3 • Is not subject to requirements of direct final rule are encouraged to file a
EPA has made, and will continue to Section 12(d) of the National comment in response to the parallel
make, these documents generally Technology Transfer and Advancement notice of proposed rulemaking for this
available through www.regulations.gov, Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because action published in the proposed rules
and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office application of those requirements would section of today’s Federal Register,
(please contact the person identified in be inconsistent with the CAA; and rather than file an immediate petition
the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ • Does not provide EPA with the for judicial review of this direct final
section of this preamble for more discretionary authority to address, as rule, so that EPA can withdraw this
information). appropriate, disproportionate human direct final rule and address the
health or environmental effects, using comment in the proposed rulemaking.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order practicable and legally permissible This action may not be challenged later
Reviews methods, under Executive Order 12898 in proceedings to enforce its
Under the CAA, the Administrator is (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
required to approve a SIP submission In addition, the SIP is not approved
that complies with the provisions of the to apply on any Indian reservation land List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
CAA and applicable Federal regulations. or in any other area where EPA or an Environmental protection, Air
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Indian tribe has demonstrated that a pollution control, Incorporation by
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of reference, Intergovernmental relations,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Indian country, the rule does not have Reporting and recordkeeping
provided that they meet the criteria of tribal implications and will not impose requirements, Sulfur oxides.
the CAA. Accordingly, this action substantial direct costs on tribal Dated: April 27, 2017.
merely approves state law as meeting governments or preempt tribal law as Robert A. Kaplan,
Federal requirements and does not specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
impose additional requirements beyond FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
those imposed by state law. For that The Congressional Review Act, 5 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
reason, this action: U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
• Is not a significant regulatory action Business Regulatory Enforcement PART 52—APPROVAL AND
subject to review by the Office of Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides PROMULGATION OF
Management and Budget under that before a rule may take effect, the IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, agency promulgating the rule must
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, submit a rule report, which includes a
continues to read as follows:
January 21, 2011); copy of the rule, to each House of the
• Does not impose an information Congress and to the Comptroller General Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
collection burden under the provisions of the United States. EPA will submit a ■ 2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 report containing this action and other (d) is amended by adding a new entry
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); required information to the U.S. Senate, for ‘‘Carmeuse Lime Inc.’’ to read as
• Is certified as not having a the U.S. House of Representatives, and follows:
significant economic impact on a the Comptroller General of the United
substantial number of small entities States prior to publication of the rule in § 52.770 Identification of plan.
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 the Federal Register. A major rule * * * * *
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); cannot take effect until 60 days after it (d) * * *
EPA-APPROVED INDIANA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
CO date Title SIP rule EPA approval Explanation
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
* * * * * * *
11/16/2016 ........ Carmeuse Lime Inc ...................... N.A ................... 5/10/2017, [Insert Federal Reg- Limitation intended to support at-
ister citation]. tainment designation.
3 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:27 May 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM 10MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_21797/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 21711
EPA-APPROVED INDIANA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS—Continued
CO date Title SIP rule EPA approval Explanation
* * * * * * *
* * * * * DATES: This rule is effective June 9, III. Final Actions
[FR Doc. 2017–09382 Filed 5–9–17; 8:45 am] 2017. A. Determinations of Attainment by the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Attainment Date
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a B. Determinations of Failure To Attain by
docket, identified by Docket ID No. the Attainment Date and Reclassification
EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0515, that can be to Serious
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION C. Public Comments
found online at https://
AGENCY IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
the index, some information may not be A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 Planning and Review and Executive
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Business Information or other Regulatory Review
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0515; FRL–9962–25–
OAR] information disclosure of which is B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
restricted by statute. Certain other C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
material, such as copyrighted material, D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
RIN 2060–AT24 (UMRA)
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Determinations of Attainment by the F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
Attainment Date, Determinations of form. Publicly available docket and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Failure To Attain by the Attainment materials are available electronically Governments
Date and Reclassification for Certain through https://www.regulations.gov. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Nonattainment Areas for the 2006 24- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Children From Environmental Health
Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Leigh Herrington, Office of Air Quality Risks and Safety Risks
Planning and Standards, Air Quality H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Ambient Air Quality Standards Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Policy Division, Mail code C539–01, Distribution, or Use
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, I. National Technology Transfer and
Agency (EPA). telephone (919) 541–0882; fax number: Advancement Act (NTTAA)
ACTION: Final rule. (919) 541–5315; email address: J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
herrington.leigh@epa.gov. To Address Environmental Justice in
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Minority Populations and Low-Income
Agency (EPA) is making final Populations
determinations of attainment by the I. General Information K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
attainment date and determinations of L. Judicial Review
A. Does this action apply to me?
failure to attain by the attainment date II. Proposed Actions
for ten nonattainment areas currently Entities affected by this action include
classified as ‘‘Moderate’’ for the 2006 six states with one or more areas On December 16, 2016 (81 FR 91088),
24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) designated nonattainment and classified the EPA proposed to find that seven
National Ambient Air Quality Standards as ‘‘Moderate’’ for the 2006 24-hour nonattainment areas classified as
(NAAQS). Specifically, the EPA is PM2.5 NAAQS. Entities potentially Moderate attained the 2006 24-hour
determining that seven areas attained affected indirectly by this action include PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by owners or operators of sources of attainment date of December 31, 2015,
December 31, 2015, based on complete, emissions of direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 based on complete, quality-assured and
quality-assured and certified PM2.5 precursors (ammonia, nitrogen oxides, certified PM2.5 monitoring data for the
monitoring data for 2013 to 2015. The sulfur dioxide and volatile organic 3-year period of 2013 to 2015.1 The
EPA is also determining that three areas compounds) that contribute to PM2.5 seven designated nonattainment areas
failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 levels within the designated are: (1) Chico, California; (2) Imperial
NAAQS by December 31, 2015. Upon nonattainment areas the EPA is County, California; (3) Knoxville-
the effective date of such determinations addressing in this action. Sevierville-La Follette, Tennessee; (4)
of failure to attain the NAAQS, these Liberty-Clairton, Pennsylvania; (5)
B. Where can I get a copy of this Nogales, Arizona; (6) Sacramento,
three areas will be reclassified as document and other related
‘‘Serious’’ for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 California; and, (7) San Francisco Bay
information? Area, California.2
NAAQS by operation of law. States with
jurisdiction over these nonattainment In addition to being available in the
areas reclassified to Serious are required docket, an electronic copy of this notice 1 An area’s design value for the 24-hour PM
2.5
will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/ NAAQS is the highest of the 3-year average of
to submit State Implementation Plan annual 98th percentile 24-hour average PM2.5 mass
(SIP) revisions that comply with the pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm- concentration values recorded at any eligible
statutory and regulatory requirements implementation-regulatory-actions. monitoring site (40 CFR part 50, Appendix N,
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
1.0(c)(2)).
for 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS C. How is this document organized? 2 Note that there are three 2006 PM
2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate nonattainment areas not addressed in that
I. General Information
Serious. In this action, the EPA is not A. Does this action apply to me?
proposal or this final action: (1) Klamath Falls, OR;
making any final determination (2) Oakridge, OR; and (3) West Central Pinal, AZ.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document For the Klamath Falls, OR, nonattainment area, the
regarding its proposed determination for and other related information? EPA issued a determination of attainment by the
the Logan, Utah-Idaho, nonattainment C. How is this document organized? attainment date of December 31, 2014, on June 6,
area. II. Proposed Actions Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:27 May 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM 10MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_21797/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2017-05-10 00:01:00
Document Modified: 2017-05-10 00:01:00
| 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 | Direct final rule. | |
| Dates | This direct final rule will be effective July 10, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 9, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. | |
| Contact | Joseph Ko, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR- 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7947, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 21708 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Sulfur Oxides |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR