82 FR 42454 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 173 (September 8, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 173 (September 8, 2017)
| Page Range | 42454-42457 | |
| FR Document | 2017-18950 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2017)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 42454-42457] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-18950] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0550; FRL-9966-98-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the required second carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan as a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). The El Paso, Texas CO maintenance area (El Paso Area) has been demonstrating consistent air quality monitoring at or below 85% of the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). Because of this, the State of Texas, through its designee, submitted the required second maintenance plan for the El Paso Area as a Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP). DATES: This final rule is effective on October 10, 2017. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0550. 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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http:// [[Page 42455]] www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Riley, 214-665-8542, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' means the EPA. I. Background The factual background for this action is discussed in detail in our March 21, 2017 direct final rule and proposal (82 FR 14442, 82 FR 14499). Originally, we issued a direct final rule to approve the required second CO maintenance plan for the El Paso, Texas CO maintenance area as a revision to the Texas SIP. However, the direct final rule and proposal stated that if any relevant adverse comments were received by the end of the public comment period on April 20, 2017, the direct final rule would be withdrawn and we would respond to the comments in a subsequent final action. Relevant adverse comments were received during the comment period, and the direct final rule was withdrawn on May 22, 2017 (82 FR 23148). The background information found in the direct final is still relevant and our March 21, 2017 proposal provides the basis for this final action. We received comments on our proposal from one commenter. Our response to the comments are below. II. Response to Comments Comment 1: The Commenter states that ``(a)dditional CO monitors are necessary to effectively monitor compliance'' of the CO NAAQS in the El Paso maintenance area, and asserts that the current El Paso CO monitoring network operated by TCEQ is inadequate in terms of the number, siting, type, and scale of representativeness of the monitors that comprise the network. Response 1: EPA disagrees with the assertion that the current El Paso CO monitoring network is inadequate to effectively monitor compliance with the CO NAAQS. Each state-submitted annual monitoring network plan is evaluated by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR part 58.10 requirements to determine if the criteria for implementation and maintenance of the area's air quality surveillance system have been met. Annual monitoring plans for the El Paso area have been reviewed and ultimately approved by EPA for the full extent of the timeframe noted by the Commenter. In recognition of significantly declining CO concentrations in the El Paso Area since 2000, Texas has gradually reduced and consolidated the El Paso CO monitoring network to three sites in 2015 with approval from the EPA. The reductions in the number of active network monitors specifically during the 2012-2014 timeframe were conducted in consultation with EPA, and were done in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.10 requirements. We have included EPA's responses to the State's annual monitoring network plans for the years 2012-2017 in the docket for this rulemaking. We further note that 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1) requires that beginning July 1, 2007, the State shall adopt and submit to the Regional Administrator an annual monitoring network plan, and that this annual monitoring network plan must be made available for public inspection for at least 30 days prior to submission to EPA. This public inspection period of annual monitoring network plans has been provided by the State for all submittals since July 1, 2007, and no adverse comments have been received pertaining to the El Paso Area CO monitoring network in this time. In the September 21, 2016 limited maintenance plan SIP submission, the State provided data showing monitored CO values from 2006-2015, reflecting a 2015 8-hour CO design value of 2.8 ppm. Thus, the design value represented for the 8-hour standard was less than 31% of the CO NAAQS. Only 1 CO monitor is currently required for El Paso, the Chamizal monitor (AQS #48-141-0044) required for NCore (National Core monitoring network) monitoring. This is a neighborhood-scale, high CO concentration site for the city and it recorded a 2.3 ppm 8-hour CO design value for 2016, similar to the 2.4 ppm 8-hour CO design value for 2016 recorded at the nearby Ascarate Park monitor to the southeast of Chamizal. The 2.3 ppm and 2.4 ppm 8-hour CO design values are significantly below the 8-hour CO NAAQS of 9.4 ppm, representing ambient concentrations 24% and 26%, respectively, of the 8-hour CO NAAQS. Both of these monitors are located in the CO maintenance area, and we note that these design values also represent a continued downward trend of CO ambient concentrations beyond the 2015 design value provided in the State's September 21, 2016 submittal. The Commenter also states that the El Paso CO LMP should include a commitment to collocate at least one near-road nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) monitor with a CO monitor as a contingency should a triggering event take place during the maintenance period. The basis of this argument is twofold: EPA network design criteria under 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D require at least one CO monitor to operate collocated with one required near-road NO2 monitor in Core Based Statistical Areas with a population of 1,000,000 or more persons. Further, the Commenter refers to Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) estimates that the El Paso population will be approaching 1,000,000 as early as 2020. The Commenter provided no specific citation for this TDSHS data. The 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D standard for population data is considered to be U.S. Census Bureau data. Based on U.S. Census data, El Paso will most likely not reach 1,000,000 in population by 2028. The current population growth estimate rate per year for El Paso is 5,811/ year based upon U.S. Census estimates from 2010-2016.\1\ The 2010 estimate was 807,108 and the 2016 estimate was 841,971. Using this growth estimate rate, the U.S. Census data indicates that the population of El Paso would reach around 912,000 in 2028, and would reach 1,000,000 by roughly 2043. So, pursuant to EPA 40 CFR part 58 requirements, a near road NO2 /CO monitoring site will most likely not be required in El Paso until well after 2028 due to this slower growth estimation rate. At this time and based on the data provided, EPA does not believe such a contingency would provide meaningful air quality benefit to the El Paso area. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: The Commenter argues that statements made by the current EPA Administration on March 15, 2017 are an indication that the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards may be repealed or weakened, and therefore the state's reliance upon these standards as Federal control measures is a tenuous assumption. Response 2: We disagree with the Commenter. The EPA Administration's March 15, 2017 statements do not pertain to the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards. See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014). Rather, these statements concern reopening a mid-term evaluation of the National Program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles, developed jointly by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Phase 2 standards of this program, applying to model years 2017-2025, were promulgated in the Final Rule for 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and [[Page 42456]] Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. 77 FR 62624 (October 15, 2012). This rulemaking is separate, distinct, and independent of the action we are addressing here. The October 15, 2012 rulemaking is therefore beyond the scope of this rulemaking action and we refer the Commenter to the October 15, 2012 action for further detail. To EPA's knowledge, no such statements have been made concerning implementation of the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, and therefore the state's reliance upon these standards as valid Federal control measures is appropriate for this SIP action. At this time, we see no legal requirement for the state to revise the LMP with an explicit commitment to reevaluate its reliance thereof in the speculative chance that a Federal measure could be weakened or removed some time in the future. We note that in any case of Federal measures being repealed or weakened, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5), the EPA has Clean Air Act authority to require a state to revise an approved SIP if it finds that it has become substantially inadequate to maintain the NAAQS. Moreover, CAA section 175A provides the EPA discretion to require the state to submit a revised SIP should the area fail to maintain the NAAQS. Comment 3: The Commenter claims that the El Paso CO LMP lacks an adequate contingency plan because the State has not identified an appropriate trigger, and ``has not identified measures that will be promptly adopted nor . . . identified a schedule or procedure to implement additional control measures.'' Response 3: The State's September 21, 2016 LMP submission identifies violation of the CO NAAQS as a contingency trigger. EPA's interpretation of section 175A of the CAA, as it pertains to LMP's for CO, is contained in the October 6, 1995, national guidance memorandum titled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.\2\ While the Commenter correctly notes that under EPA's guidance, ``states are encouraged to choose a pre-violation action level as a trigger'', the guidance explicitly states that a violation of the NAAQS is an acceptable trigger.\3\ Further, the State has identified potential contingency measures, as well as a schedule and procedure for timely implementation in the event of a CO NAAQS violation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ A copy of the October 6, 1995 Guidance Memorandum is included in the docket for this rulemaking. \3\ EPA's September 4, 1992, John Calcagni policy memorandum entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' provides further support of this interpretation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that the maintenance plan's implementation schedules for contingency measures fail to satisfy the ``prompt response'' requirement in CAA section 175A(d). This section of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the state ``will promptly correct any violation'' of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of an area. Thus, Congress gave EPA discretion to evaluate and determine the contingency measures that EPA ``deems necessary'' to assure that the state will ``promptly correct'' any subsequent violation. Section 175A does not establish any deadlines for implementation of contingency measures after redesignation to attainment. It also provides far more latitude than does Section 172(c)(9), which applies to a different set of contingency measures applicable to nonattainment areas. Section 172(c)(9) contingency measures must ``take effect . . . without further action by the State or [EPA].'' By contrast, section 175A(d) allows EPA to take into account the need of a state to assess, adopt, and implement contingency measures if and when a violation occurs after an area's redesignation to attainment. As noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527, 540 (6th Cir. 2004), that was cited by the Commenter, the EPA ``has been granted broad discretion by Congress in determining what is `necessary to assure' prompt correction'' under section 175A, and ``no pre-determined schedule for adoption of the measures is necessary in each specific case.'' In making this determination, EPA accounts for the time that is required for states to analyze data and address the causes and appropriate means of remedying a violation. EPA also considers the time required to adopt and implement appropriate measures in assessing what ``promptly'' means in this context. In the case of the El Paso Area, EPA believes that the contingency measures set forth in the submittal, combined with the State's commitment to implement contingency measures as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 18 months of a trigger, provide assurance that the State will ``promptly'' correct a future NAAQS CO violation. Given the uncertainty regarding the nature of the contingency measures required to address a violation, a State may need up to 24 months to enact new statutes; develop new or modified regulations and complete notice and comment rulemaking; or take actions authorized by current state law that require the purchase and installation of equipment (e.g., diesel retrofits) or the development and implementation of new programs. In addition, EPA has previously approved implementation of contingency measures within 24 months of a violation to comply with the requirements of Section 175A in several instances. See, e.g., 81 FR 76891 (November 4, 2016), 80 FR 61775 (October 14, 2015), 79 FR 67120 (November 12, 2014), 78 FR 44494 (July 24, 2013), 77 FR 34819 (June 12, 2012), 76 FR 59512 (Sept. 27, 2011), 75 FR 2091 (January 14, 2010). EPA also notes that the Commenter did not provide any rationale for concluding that a suggested 120-day implementation period of control strategies is necessary to satisfy section 175A. III. Final Action We are approving the CO LMP for the El Paso Area submitted by the TCEQ on September 21, 2016 as a revision to the Texas SIP because the State adequately demonstrates that the El Paso Area will maintain the CO NAAQS and meet all the criteria of a LMP through the second 10-year maintenance period. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 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.); [[Page 42457]] Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, 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 Clean Air Act; 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 7, 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. 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 29, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting 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 SS--Texas 0 2. In Sec. 52.2270 (e), the second table entitled ``EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP'' is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the table for ``Second 10-year Carbon Monoxide maintenance plan (limited maintenance plan) for the El Paso CO area'' to read as follows: Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan. * * * * * (e) * * * EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicable State Name of SIP provision geographic or submittal/ EPA approval date Comments nonattainment area effective date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * Second 10-year Carbon Monoxide El Paso, TX........ 9/21/2016 9/8/2017, [Insert ................... maintenance plan (limited Federal Register maintenance plan) for the El citation]. Paso CO area. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * [FR Doc. 2017-18950 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![42454 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED OHIO REGULATIONS—Continued
Ohio EPA approval
Ohio citation Title/subject effective Notes
date
date
3745–21–18 ....... Commercial motor vehicle and mobile 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
equipment refinishing operations. Register citation].
3745–21–19 ....... Control of volatile organic compound emis- 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
sions from aerospace manufacturing and Register citation].
rework facilities.
3745–21–20 ....... Control of volatile organic emissions from 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
shipbuilding and ship repair operations Register citation].
(marine coatings).
3745–21–21 ....... Storage of volatile organic liquids in fixed 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
roof tanks and external floating roof tanks. Register citation].
3745–21–22 ....... Control of volatile organic compound emis- 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
sions from offset lithographic printing and Register citation].
letterpress printing facilities.
3745–21–23 ....... Control of volatile organic compound emis- 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
sions from industrial solvent cleaning op- Register citation].
erations.
3745–21–24 ....... Flat wood paneling coatings ......................... 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
Register citation].
3745–21–25 ....... Control of VOC emissions from reinforced 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
plastic composites production operations. Register citation].
3745–21–26 ....... Surface coating of miscellaneous metal and 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
plastic parts. Register citation].
3745–21–27 ....... Boat manufacturing ...................................... 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
Register citation].
3745–21–28 ....... Miscellaneous industrial adhesives and 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
sealants. Register citation].
3745–21–29 ....... Control of volatile organic compound emis- 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal
sions from automobile and light-duty truck Register citation].
assembly coating operations, heavier ve-
hicle assembly coating operations, and
cleaning operations associated with these
coating operations.
* * * * * * *
Chapter 3745–110—Nitrogen Oxides—Reasonably Available Control Technology
3745–110–03 ..... RACT requirements and/or limitations for 07/18/2013 9/8/2017, [insert Federal Only the NOX emission limi-
emissions of NOX from stationary sources. Register citation]. tation on unit P046 con-
tained in 3745–110–03(N).
3745–110–05 ..... Compliance methods .................................... 07/18/2013 9/8/2017, [insert Federal Only (A). For purposes of
Register citation]. demonstrating compliance
with the NOX emission lim-
itation on unit P046 con-
tained in 3745–110–03(N).
* * * * * * *
* * * * * ACTION: Final rule. DATES: This final rule is effective on
[FR Doc. 2017–18864 Filed 9–7–17; 8:45 am] October 10, 2017.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the docket for this action under Docket ID
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) No. EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0550. All
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION is approving the required second carbon documents in the docket are listed on
AGENCY monoxide (CO) maintenance plan as a the http://www.regulations.gov Web
40 CFR Part 52 revision to the Texas State site. Although listed in the index, some
Implementation Plan (SIP). The El Paso, information is not publicly available,
[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0550; FRL–9966–98– Texas CO maintenance area (El Paso e.g., Confidential Business Information
Region 6] Area) has been demonstrating consistent or other information whose disclosure is
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
air quality monitoring at or below 85% restricted by statute. Certain other
Approval and Promulgation of
of the CO National Ambient Air Quality material, such as copyrighted material,
Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso
Standard (NAAQS or standard). Because is not placed on the Internet and will be
Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance
of this, the State of Texas, through its publicly available only in hard copy
Plan
designee, submitted the required second form. Publicly available docket
AGENCY: Environmental Protection maintenance plan for the El Paso Area materials are available either
Agency (EPA). as a Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP). electronically through http://
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Sep 07, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM 08SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_42627/page/1.svg)
![42456 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Corporate Average Fuel Economy potential contingency measures, as well required to address a violation, a State
Standards. 77 FR 62624 (October 15, as a schedule and procedure for timely may need up to 24 months to enact new
2012). This rulemaking is separate, implementation in the event of a CO statutes; develop new or modified
distinct, and independent of the action NAAQS violation. regulations and complete notice and
we are addressing here. The October 15, EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s comment rulemaking; or take actions
2012 rulemaking is therefore beyond the contention that the maintenance plan’s authorized by current state law that
scope of this rulemaking action and we implementation schedules for require the purchase and installation of
refer the Commenter to the October 15, contingency measures fail to satisfy the equipment (e.g., diesel retrofits) or the
2012 action for further detail. ‘‘prompt response’’ requirement in CAA development and implementation of
To EPA’s knowledge, no such section 175A(d). This section of the new programs. In addition, EPA has
statements have been made concerning CAA requires that a maintenance plan previously approved implementation of
implementation of the Tier 3 Motor include such contingency provisions as contingency measures within 24 months
Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, the Administrator deems necessary to of a violation to comply with the
and therefore the state’s reliance upon assure that the state ‘‘will promptly requirements of Section 175A in several
these standards as valid Federal control correct any violation’’ of the NAAQS instances. See, e.g., 81 FR 76891
measures is appropriate for this SIP that occurs after redesignation of an (November 4, 2016), 80 FR 61775
action. At this time, we see no legal area. Thus, Congress gave EPA (October 14, 2015), 79 FR 67120
requirement for the state to revise the discretion to evaluate and determine the (November 12, 2014), 78 FR 44494 (July
LMP with an explicit commitment to contingency measures that EPA ‘‘deems 24, 2013), 77 FR 34819 (June 12, 2012),
reevaluate its reliance thereof in the necessary’’ to assure that the state will 76 FR 59512 (Sept. 27, 2011), 75 FR
speculative chance that a Federal ‘‘promptly correct’’ any subsequent 2091 (January 14, 2010). EPA also notes
measure could be weakened or removed violation. that the Commenter did not provide any
some time in the future. We note that in Section 175A does not establish any rationale for concluding that a suggested
any case of Federal measures being deadlines for implementation of 120-day implementation period of
repealed or weakened, pursuant to 42 contingency measures after control strategies is necessary to satisfy
U.S.C. 7410(k)(5), the EPA has Clean Air redesignation to attainment. It also section 175A.
Act authority to require a state to revise provides far more latitude than does
an approved SIP if it finds that it has Section 172(c)(9), which applies to a III. Final Action
become substantially inadequate to different set of contingency measures We are approving the CO LMP for the
maintain the NAAQS. Moreover, CAA applicable to nonattainment areas. El Paso Area submitted by the TCEQ on
section 175A provides the EPA Section 172(c)(9) contingency measures September 21, 2016 as a revision to the
discretion to require the state to submit must ‘‘take effect . . . without further Texas SIP because the State adequately
a revised SIP should the area fail to action by the State or [EPA].’’ By demonstrates that the El Paso Area will
maintain the NAAQS. contrast, section 175A(d) allows EPA to maintain the CO NAAQS and meet all
Comment 3: The Commenter claims take into account the need of a state to the criteria of a LMP through the second
that the El Paso CO LMP lacks an assess, adopt, and implement 10-year maintenance period.
adequate contingency plan because the contingency measures if and when a
State has not identified an appropriate violation occurs after an area’s IV. Statutory and Executive Order
trigger, and ‘‘has not identified redesignation to attainment. As noted by Reviews
measures that will be promptly adopted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Under the Clean Air Act, the
nor . . . identified a schedule or Circuit in Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d Administrator is required to approve a
procedure to implement additional 527, 540 (6th Cir. 2004), that was cited SIP submission that complies with the
control measures.’’ by the Commenter, the EPA ‘‘has been provisions of the Act and applicable
Response 3: The State’s September 21, granted broad discretion by Congress in Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
2016 LMP submission identifies determining what is ‘necessary to 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
violation of the CO NAAQS as a assure’ prompt correction’’ under submissions, the EPA’s role is to
contingency trigger. EPA’s section 175A, and ‘‘no pre-determined approve state choices, provided that
interpretation of section 175A of the schedule for adoption of the measures is they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
CAA, as it pertains to LMP’s for CO, is necessary in each specific case.’’ In Act. Accordingly, this action merely
contained in the October 6, 1995, making this determination, EPA approves state law as meeting Federal
national guidance memorandum titled accounts for the time that is required for requirements and does not impose
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for states to analyze data and address the additional requirements beyond those
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment causes and appropriate means of imposed by state law. For that reason,
Areas’’ from Joseph Paisie, Office of Air remedying a violation. EPA also this action:
Quality Planning and Standards.2 While considers the time required to adopt and • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
the Commenter correctly notes that implement appropriate measures in action’’ subject to review by the Office
under EPA’s guidance, ‘‘states are assessing what ‘‘promptly’’ means in of Management and Budget under
encouraged to choose a pre-violation this context. Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
action level as a trigger’’, the guidance In the case of the El Paso Area, EPA October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
explicitly states that a violation of the believes that the contingency measures January 21, 2011);
NAAQS is an acceptable trigger.3 set forth in the submittal, combined • Does not impose an information
Further, the State has identified with the State’s commitment to collection burden under the provisions
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
implement contingency measures as of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
2 A copy of the October 6, 1995 Guidance expeditiously as practicable but no later U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Memorandum is included in the docket for this than 18 months of a trigger, provide • Is certified as not having a
rulemaking. assurance that the State will ‘‘promptly’’ significant economic impact on a
3 EPA’s September 4, 1992, John Calcagni policy
memorandum entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing
correct a future NAAQS CO violation. substantial number of small entities
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ Given the uncertainty regarding the under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
provides further support of this interpretation. nature of the contingency measures U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Sep 07, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM 08SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_42627/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42457
• Does not contain any unfunded governments or preempt tribal law as enforce its requirements. (See section
mandate or significantly or uniquely specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 307(b)(2)).
affect small governments, described in FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Environmental protection, Air
• Does not have Federalism Business Regulatory Enforcement pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
implications as specified in Executive Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Incorporation by reference,
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, that before a rule may take effect, the Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
1999); agency promulgating the rule must and recordkeeping requirements.
• Is not an economically significant submit a rule report, which includes a
Dated: August 29, 2017.
regulatory action based on health or copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General Samuel Coleman,
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); of the United States. EPA will submit a Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
• Is not a significant regulatory action report containing this action and other 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR required information to the U.S. Senate,
28355, May 22, 2001); the U.S. House of Representatives, and PART 52—APPROVAL AND
• Is not subject to requirements of the Comptroller General of the United PROMULGATION OF
section 12(d) of the National States prior to publication of the rule in IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Technology Transfer and Advancement the Federal Register. A major rule
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because cannot take effect until 60 days after it ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
application of those requirements would is published in the Federal Register. continues to read as follows:
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
and defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
• Does not provide EPA with the Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Subpart SS—Texas
discretionary authority to address, as Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
appropriate, disproportionate human this action must be filed in the United ■ 2. In § 52.2270 (e), the second table
health or environmental effects, using States Court of Appeals for the entitled ‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory
practicable and legally permissible appropriate circuit by November 7, Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory
methods, under Executive Order 12898 2017. Filing a petition for Measures in the Texas SIP’’ is amended
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). reconsideration by the Administrator of by adding a new entry at the end of the
In addition, the SIP is not approved this final rule does not affect the finality table for ‘‘Second 10-year Carbon
to apply on any Indian reservation land of this action for the purposes of judicial Monoxide maintenance plan (limited
or in any other area where EPA or an review nor does it extend the time maintenance plan) for the El Paso CO
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a within which a petition for judicial area’’ to read as follows:
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of review may be filed, and shall not
Indian country, the rule does not have postpone the effectiveness of such rule § 52.2270 Identification of plan.
tribal implications and will not impose or action. This action may not be * * * * *
substantial direct costs on tribal challenged later in proceedings to (e) * * *
EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP
Applicable State
geographic or
Name of SIP provision submittal/ EPA approval date Comments
nonattainment effective date
area
* * * * * * *
Second 10-year Carbon Monoxide maintenance plan (limited El Paso, TX .... 9/21/2016 9/8/2017, [Insert Federal Reg-
maintenance plan) for the El Paso CO area. ister citation].
* * * * * ACTION: Final rule. clarifying information to supplement
[FR Doc. 2017–18950 Filed 9–7–17; 8:45 am] the attainment plan in January 2015,
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection March 2015, July 2015, November 2015,
Agency (EPA) is approving state March 2016, November 2016, and
implementation plan (SIP) revisions January 2017 (hereafter, the initial
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION submitted by the State of Alaska (Alaska submission and all supplemental and
AGENCY or the State) to address Clean Air Act clarifying information will be
(CAA or Act) requirements for the 2006 collectively referred to as ‘‘the FNSB
40 CFR Part 52 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Moderate Plan’’).
national ambient air quality standards
[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0131: FRL–9967–21– (NAAQS) in the Fairbanks North Star DATES: This action is effective on
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Region 10] Borough Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment October 10, 2017.
Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North area (FNSB NAA). Alaska submitted an ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
Star Borough; 2006 PM2.5 Moderate attainment plan for the FNSB NAA on docket for this action under Docket ID
Area Plan December 31, 2014, to meet applicable No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0131. All
requirements for an area classified as documents in the docket are listed on
AGENCY: Environmental Protection ‘‘Moderate’’ nonattainment, and made the https://www.regulations.gov Web
Agency (EPA). additional submissions and provided site. Although listed in the index, some
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:18 Sep 07, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM 08SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_42627/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-24 14:10:06
Document Modified: 2018-10-24 14:10:06
| 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 final rule is effective on October 10, 2017. | |
| Contact | Jeff Riley, 214-665-8542, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 42454 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR