83 FR 6493 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 31 (February 14, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 31 (February 14, 2018)
| Page Range | 6493-6496 | |
| FR Document | 2018-02894 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 6493-6496] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-02894] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0716; FRL-9973-42--Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of three Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals pertaining to CAA requirements to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other states. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 16, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR- 2016-0716, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to young.carl@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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 Carl Young, 214-665-6645, young.carl@epa.gov. 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. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, 214-665-6645, young.carl@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. I. Background A. The PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport of Air Pollution Under section 109 of the CAA, we establish NAAQS to protect human health and public welfare. In 1997, we established a new annual NAAQS for PM2.5 of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), and a new 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). In 2006, we revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006).\1\ The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to [[Page 6494]] contain ``good neighbor'' provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission from Texas for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. These sub-elements require that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit any emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable air quality standard in any other state. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ In 2012, we revised the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 [mu]g/m\3\ (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). This proposal pertains to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to PM2.5 in several past regulatory actions. Most recently, in 2011 we promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in order to address the obligations of states--and of the EPA when states have not met their obligations--under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air pollution contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with maintenance by, any other state with regard to several NAAQS, including the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39 and 40 CFR part 97). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CSAPR replaced the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was promulgated in 2005 for the 1997 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS (May 12, 2005, 70 FR 25172). CAIR was remanded to the EPA by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176. For more discussion on CSAPR and CAIR, please see EPA's August 8, 2011 CSAPR final rulemaking action (76 FR 48208). To address Texas' transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, CSAPR established Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) requirements for affected electric generating units (EGUs) in Texas, including emissions budgets that apply to the EGUs' collective annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NOX ).\3\ In July 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision on a range of challenges to CSAPR in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (EME Homer City II) denying most claims but remanding several CSAPR emissions budgets to the EPA for reconsideration, including the Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas.\4\ To address the Phase 2 SO2 budget remand we issued a final rule withdrawing the FIP provisions that required affected EGUs in Texas to participate in Phase 2 of the CSAPR trading programs for annual emissions of SO2 and NOX (82 FR 45481, September 29, 2017). In that final rule we also determined that emissions \5\ from sources in Texas will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and that we therefore have no obligation to issue new FIP requirements for Texas sources to address transported PM2.5 pollution under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to that NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ With regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we noted in the CSAPR final rule that (1) analysis shows that Texas would significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state, but we did not promulgate a CSAPR FIP for Texas EGUs with respect to that standard; and (2) the CSAPR FIP requirements for Texas with regard to the 1997 annual standard would address the emissions in Texas that significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state (76 FR at 48243, 48214, August 8, 2011). \4\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (EME Homer City II), 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The court also remanded the Phase 2 SO2 budgets for three other states and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for eleven states, including Texas. Id. \5\ The term ``emissions'' refers to all anthropogenic emissions originating from the state, including EGU emissions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Texas SIP Submittals Pertaining to the PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport of Air Pollution Relevant to this proposed action, Texas made the following SIP submittals to address CAA requirements to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states: (1) An April 4, 2008 submittal stating that the State had addressed any potential CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure issues associated with the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including the four sub-elements for interstate transport (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)), (2) a separate but similar May 1, 2008 submittal which discussed how the four sub-elements of the good neighbor provision were addressed with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and (3) a November 23, 2009 submittal which addressed all the CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements, including the four sub-elements of the good neighbor provision, for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP submittals may be accessed through the www.regulations.gov website (Docket EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0716). In these SIP revisions, Texas relied on its participation in the CAIR program to conclude that the State had addressed its obligation to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. For the reasons described below, this action proposes to approve the state's three SIP submittals with respect to the state's conclusions regarding the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In 2011, we originally proposed to disapprove the portion of the November 23, 2009 submittal that intended to demonstrate that the SIP met the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (71 FR 20602, April 13, 2011). However, in a separate Federal Register action published in conjunction with this current proposal we are withdrawing that original proposal and in this notice we now are proposing to approve the same portion of the submittal. See Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR- 2011-0335 in www.regulations.gov. II. The EPA's Evaluation Each of the above-referenced Texas SIP submittals relied on the State's participation in the CAIR allowance trading programs to support a conclusion that the Texas SIP had adequate provisions to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. While CAIR was still in place at the time the State submitted its SIPs, the CAIR rule had been remanded by the D.C. Circuit in 2008 based on the Court's conclusion that the rule was ``fundamentally flawed'' and must be replaced ``from the ground up.'' North Carolina, 531 F.3d 929-30, modified, 550 F.3d 1176 (2008). Moreover, we began implementation of CSAPR in 2015, and therefore neither the states nor EPA are currently implementing the annual SO2 and NOX trading program promulgated in CAIR. Accordingly, we cannot approve the State's SIP submissions based on the implementation of CAIR that sought to address the provisions of the good neighbor provision for any NAAQS. However, more recent information discussed in detail below, provides support for our proposed approval of the conclusions in the SIP submittals that the State will not significantly [[Page 6495]] contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of these NAAQS in any other state. Air quality modeling conducted for the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking projected the effect of emissions on ambient air quality monitors (receptors). The modeling projected that a receptor located in Madison County, Illinois (monitor ID 171191007) would have difficulty attaining and maintaining both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012 (76 FR 48208, 48233 and 48235). The modeling also showed that Texas emissions were projected to contribute more than the threshold amount of PM2.5 pollution necessary in order to be considered ``linked'' to the Madison County receptor for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48239-43). This was the only PM2.5 receptor with projected air quality problems to which Texas was found to be linked. In CSAPR we used air quality projections for the year 2012, which was also the intended start year for implementation of the CSAPR Phase 1 EGU emission budgets, to identify receptors projected to have air quality problems. The CSAPR final rule record also contained air quality projections for 2014, which was the intended start year for implementation of the CSAPR Phase 2 EGU emission budgets. The 2014 modeling results projected that the Madison County receptor would have maximum ``design values'' of 15.02 [mu]g/m\3\ for annual PM2.5 of and 35.3 [mu]g/m\3\ for 24-hour PM2.5 before considering the emissions reductions anticipated from implementation of CSAPR.\6\ These values are below the values of 15.05 and 35.5 [mu]g/m\3\ that we used to determine whether a particular PM2.5 receptor should be identified as having air quality problems that may trigger transport obligations in upwind states with regard to the 1997 annual or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively (82 FR 45481, 45485-86, September 29, 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Design values are used to determine whether a NAAQS is being met. See projected 2014 base case maximum design values for Madison County, Illinois receptor 171191007 at pages B-41 and B-70 of the June 2011 Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for CSAPR, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140, available in the docket for this proposed action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted above, in our September 29, 2017 final rule addressing the remand for the annual SO2 and NOX emissions budgets we determined that emissions from Texas sources will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (82 FR 45481, September 29, 2017). As explained in the separate September 29, 2017 action, our 2014 base case modeling in the CSAPR final rule also showed that (1) the Madison County receptor was projected to no longer have air quality problems sufficient to trigger transport obligations with regard to the 2006 24- hour PM2.5 NAAQS and (2) no other 24-hour PM2.5 receptors with projected air quality problems were linked to Texas. Due to those findings, we now propose to determine that emissions from Texas sources will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Given the determination for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS made in the September 29, 2017 final rule and our proposed determination for the 2006 24 PM2.5 NAAQS, we are now proposing to approve the portions of three Texas SIP submittals to the extent they conclude that the state has addressed interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. Based on our analysis of the modeling data from the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking provided above, we are proposing to approve the relevant portions of the Texas SIP submittals that Texas emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. It should be noted, as discussed above, that we are not proposing to approve the State's analyses to the extent they rely on the State's prior participation in the CAIR allowance trading program, nor are we are proposing to approve any Texas SIP revisions that pertain to implementation of CAIR. III. Proposed Action We are proposing to approve portions of three Texas SIP submittals pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements based on our conclusion, which is consistent with the state's ultimate conclusion, that emissions from Texas will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. Specifically, we propose to approve (1) the portions of the April 4, 2008 and May 1, 2008 SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and (2) the portion of the November 23, 2009 submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as they pertain to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 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); Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; 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 [[Page 6496]] tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed 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). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: February 7, 2018. Anne Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2018-02894 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 6493
Region 6 Office (please contact Adina or in any other area where EPA or an Business Information (CBI) or other
Wiley for more information). Indian tribe has demonstrated that a information whose disclosure is
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of restricted by statute. Multimedia
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Indian country, the rule does not have submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
Reviews
tribal implications and will not impose accompanied by a written comment.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is substantial direct costs on tribal The written comment is considered the
required to approve a SIP submission governments or preempt tribal law as official comment and should include
that complies with the provisions of the specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 discussion of all points you wish to
Act and applicable Federal regulations. FR 67249, November 9, 2000). make. The EPA will generally not
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). consider comments or comment
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 contents located outside of the primary
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Environmental protection, Air submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
provided that they meet the criteria of pollution control, Incorporation by other file sharing system). For
the CAA. Accordingly, this action reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, additional submission methods, please
merely proposes to approve state law as Particulate matter, Reporting and contact Carl Young, 214–665–6645,
meeting Federal requirements and does recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur young.carl@epa.gov. For the full EPA
not impose additional requirements oxides, Volatile organic compounds. public comment policy, information
beyond those imposed by state law. For Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. about CBI or multimedia submissions,
that reason, this action: and general guidance on making
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Dated: February 7, 2018. effective comments, please visit http://
action’’ subject to review by the Office Anne Idsal, www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-
of Management and Budget under Regional Administrator, Region 6. epa-dockets.
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, [FR Doc. 2018–02891 Filed 2–13–18; 8:45 am] Docket: The index to the docket for
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P this action is available electronically at
January 21, 2011); www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
action because SIP approvals are AGENCY documents in the docket are listed in
exempted under Executive Order 12866; the index, some information may be
• Does not impose an information 40 CFR Part 52 publicly available only at the hard copy
collection burden under the provisions [EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0716; FRL–9973– location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 42—Region 6] some may not be publicly available at
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); either location (e.g., CBI).
• Is certified as not having a Approval and Promulgation of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl
significant economic impact on a Implementation Plans; Texas; Young, 214–665–6645, young.carl@
substantial number of small entities Interstate Transport Requirements for epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS materials, please schedule an
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill
• Does not contain any unfunded AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Deese at 214–665–7253.
mandate or significantly or uniquely SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
affect small governments, as described ACTION: Proposed rule.
Throughout this document wherever
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Air Act (CAA or Act), the the EPA.
• Does not have Federalism Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
implications as specified in Executive I. Background
is proposing to approve portions of
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, three Texas State Implementation Plan A. The PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate
1999); (SIP) submittals pertaining to CAA Transport of Air Pollution
• Is not an economically significant
requirements to prohibit emissions Under section 109 of the CAA, we
regulatory action based on health or
which will significantly contribute to establish NAAQS to protect human
safety risks subject to Executive Order
nonattainment or interfere with health and public welfare. In 1997, we
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 fine established a new annual NAAQS for
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR particulate matter (PM2.5) National PM2.5 of 15 micrograms per cubic meter
28355, May 22, 2001); Ambient Air Quality Standards (mg/m3), and a new 24-hour NAAQS for
• Is not subject to requirements of (NAAQS) in other states. PM2.5 of 65 mg/m3 (62 FR 38652, July 18,
section 12(d) of the National DATES: Written comments must be 1997). In 2006, we revised the 24-hour
Technology Transfer and Advancement received on or before March 16, 2018. PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3 (71 FR
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 61144, October 17, 2006).1 The CAA
application of those requirements would identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– requires states to submit, within three
be inconsistent with the CAA; and OAR–2016–0716, at http:// years after promulgation of a new or
• Does not provide EPA with the www.regulations.gov or via email to revised standard, SIPs meeting the
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
discretionary authority to address, as young.carl@epa.gov. Follow the online applicable ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of
appropriate, disproportionate human instructions for submitting comments. sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these
health or environmental effects, using Once submitted, comments cannot be applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
practicable and legally permissible edited or removed from Regulations.gov. section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to
methods, under Executive Order 12898 The EPA may publish any comment 1 In 2012, we revised the annual PM
2.5 NAAQS
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). received to its public docket. Do not to 12 mg/m3 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). This
In addition, the SIP is not approved submit electronically any information proposal pertains to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
to apply on any Indian reservation land you consider to be Confidential NAAQS only.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Feb 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_6524/page/1.svg)
![6496 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of this SIP revision and the corresponding proposing to approve Kentucky’s
Indian country, the proposed rule does non-interference demonstration because changes to the maintenance plan mobile
not have tribal implications and will not EPA has preliminarily determined that emissions inventory and the associated
impose substantial direct costs on tribal the revision is consistent with the MVEBs related to its redesignation
governments or preempt tribal law as applicable provisions of the CAA. request for the Kentucky portion of the
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 DATES: Comments must be received on Cincinnati-Hamilton 2008 8-hour ozone
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). or before March 7, 2018. maintenance area to reflect removal of
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, reliance on federal RFG requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– As part of this proposed approval, EPA
Environmental protection, Air OAR–2017–0389 at http:// is also proposing to find that the
pollution control, Incorporation by www.regulations.gov. Follow the online Commonwealth has demonstrated that
reference, Particulate matter. instructions for submitting comments. removing the federal RFG requirements
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Once submitted, comments cannot be in Boone, Campbell, and Kenton
edited or removed from Regulations.gov. Counties will not interfere with
Dated: February 7, 2018.
EPA may publish any comment received attainment or maintenance of any
Anne Idsal,
to its public docket. Do not submit national ambient air quality standards
Regional Administrator, Region 6. (NAAQS or standard) or with any other
electronically any information you
[FR Doc. 2018–02894 Filed 2–13–18; 8:45 am] applicable requirement of the CAA.
consider to be Confidential Business
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Information (CBI) or other information On August 26, 2016, Kentucky
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. submitted a 2008 8-hour ozone
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Multimedia submissions (audio, video, redesignation request and maintenance
AGENCY etc.) must be accompanied by a written plan for the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area,
comment. The written comment is which EPA approved on July 5, 2017 (82
40 CFR Part 52 considered the official comment and FR 30976).2 With its redesignation
should include discussion of all points request, Kentucky included a
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0389; FRL–9974– you wish to make. EPA will generally maintenance demonstration plan that
45—Region 4]
not consider comments or comment estimates emissions through 2030 that
Air Plan Approval; KY: Removal of contents located outside of the primary modeled RFG because Kentucky
Reliance on Reformulated Gasoline in submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or previously opted into the RFG program.
the Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati- other file sharing system). For However, through this SIP revision,
Hamilton Area additional submission methods, the full KDAQ is updating the mobile (on-road
EPA public comment policy, and non-road) emissions inventory for
AGENCY: Environmental Protection information about CBI or multimedia that maintenance plan (including the
Agency (EPA). submissions, and general guidance on MVEBs) to reflect Kentucky’s petition to
ACTION: Proposed rule. making effective comments, please visit opt-out of the RFG requirements for
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection commenting-epa-dockets. in the Northern Kentucky Area. The
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: updates are summarized in Kentucky’s
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Dianna Myers, Air Regulatory submittal.
revision submitted on September 13, Management Section, Air Planning and In support of the September 13, 2017,
2017, by the Commonwealth of Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides SIP revision, Kentucky has evaluated
Kentucky, through the Kentucky and Toxics Management Division, U.S. whether removing reliance on the
Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) in Environmental Protection Agency, federal RFG requirements would
support of the Commonwealth’s Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, interfere with air quality in the Area. To
separate petition requesting that EPA Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Myers can be make this demonstration of
remove the federal reformulated reached via telephone at (404) 562–9207 noninterference, Kentucky completed a
gasoline (RFG) requirements for Boone, or via electronic mail at Myers.Dianna@ technical analysis, including modeling,
Campbell, and Kenton counties in the epa.gov. to estimate the change in emissions that
Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: would result from removing RFG from
Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana 2008
Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties
8-hr ozone maintenance area I. What action is being proposed?
in the Northern Kentucky Area.
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Northern This rulemaking proposes to approve
Kentucky Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The SIP In the noninterference demonstration,
Kentucky’s September 13, 2017, SIP
revision revises the Commonwealth’s Kentucky used EPA’s Motor Vehicle
revision in support of Kentucky’s
maintenance plan emissions inventory Emissions Simulator (MOVES) to
petition to opt-out of the federal RFG
and associated motor vehicle emissions develop its projected emissions
requirements in Boone, Campbell, and
budgets (MVEBs) to remove reliance on inventory according to EPA’s guidance
Kenton Counties.1 Specifically, EPA is
emissions reductions from the federal for on-road mobile sources using
RFG program requirements; a program 1 Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.72(b), the Governor must
that the Commonwealth voluntarily submit a petition to the EPA Administrator revision. The decision on whether to grant the opt-
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
opted into in 1995. The SIP revision requesting removal of any opt-in areas from the out petition pursuant to 40 CFR 80.72(b) is at the
federal RFG program. The petition must include discretion of the Administrator and will be made
also includes a non-interference certain specified information and any additional through a separate action.
demonstration evaluating whether information requested by the Administrator. As 2 The Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN Area is
removing reliance on the RFG fully described in section III below, if RFG is relied composed of portions of Boone, Campbell, and
requirements in the Northern Kentucky upon as a control measure in any approved SIP or Kenton Counties in Kentucky; Butler, Clermont,
plan revision, the federal RFG program opt-out Clinton, Hamilton and Warren Counties in Ohio;
Area would interfere with the regulations require that a SIP revision must be and a portion of Dearborn County in Indiana. This
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA submitted. Kentucky’s maintenance plan relied action only pertains to the Kentucky portion of the
or Act). EPA is proposing to approve upon RFG; as a result, Kentucky submitted this SIP maintenance area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Feb 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_6524/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-14 03:59:41
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 03:59:41
| 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 March 16, 2018. | |
| Contact | Carl Young, 214-665-6645, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 6493 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference and Particulate Matter |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR