[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35444-35451]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15813]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0020; FRL-9981-24--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; NC: Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of North Carolina on November 17, 2017, through the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Air
Quality (DAQ), for the purpose of removing 26 counties from North
Carolina's expanded inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, which was
previously approved into the SIP for use as a component of the State's
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget and Allowance Trading Program.
EPA has evaluated whether this SIP revision would interfere with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), including EPA
regulations related to statewide NOX emissions budgets. EPA
is

proposing to determine that North Carolina's November 17, 2017, SIP
revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0020 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, 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: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Sheckler can
also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This preamble is organized into three parts.
Section I provides an overview of what is being proposed in this SIP
revision. Section II provides the background of North Carolina's SIP-
approved I/M program and its relationship to the State's NOX
Budget and Allowance Trading Program. Section III provides EPA's
analysis of the submittal, including information submitted by North
Carolina to support a non-interference demonstration. Section IV
provides EPA's proposed action.

I. What is being proposed?

    In response to a North Carolina legislative act signed by the
Governor on May 4, 2017, that removed the State's I/M requirements for
26 counties,\1\ the DAQ submitted a SIP revision on November 17, 2017,
seeking to remove these counties from the expanded I/M program which
was approved into the SIP in 2002. The expanded I/M program was
approved into the SIP in 2002, for the purpose of using NOX
emissions reductions generated by this expanded program as a component
of the State's NOX Budget and Allowance Trading Program. See
67 FR 66056 (October 30, 2002). The SIP-approved I/M rules, which
initially required tail-pipe emissions testing (later replaced by on-
board diagnostic standards) are contained within 15A North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 2D, Section .1000 ``Motor Vehicle
Emissions Control Standards.'' The 2002 SIP-approved amendment of those
rules expanded the applicability of the I/M program in North Carolina's
SIP from nine counties to 48 counties. See 67 FR 66056. The 26 counties
which are the subject of this SIP revision are part of this expanded
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under provisions of the State legislation, Session Law 2017-
10, Senate Bill 131, the removal of I/M requirements from the 26
counties is not effective until the later of the following dates:
October 1, 2017 or the first day of a month that is 60 days after
the Secretary of the DEQ certifies that EPA has approved the instant
SIP revision. The 26 counties are: Brunswick, Burke, Caldwell,
Carteret, Catawba, Chatham, Cleveland, Craven, Edgecombe, Granville,
Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Lenoir, Moore, Nash, Orange, Pitt,
Robeson, Rutherford, Stanly, Stokes, Surry, Wayne, Wilkes, and
Wilson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the purpose of the 2002 I/M SIP revision was to
allow North Carolina to gain credits from the I/M emissions reductions
from the 26 counties, and other counties on the expanded list, as part
of its NOX Budget and Allowance Trading Program. See 67 FR
66056. North Carolina's NOX Budget and Allowance Trading
Program was submitted to EPA for approval in response to EPA's
regulation entitled ``Finding of Significant Contribution and
Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group
Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone,''
otherwise known as the NOX SIP Call. The I/M emissions
reductions from these 26 counties are not relied upon for any other
purpose in the North Carolina SIP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Section II, below, for a more detailed discussion of the
NOX SIP Call and North Carolina's EPA-approved response,
which includes as an element, credits gained from emissions
reductions resulting from implementation of its SIP-approved
expanded I/M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed more fully in Section III, below, EPA is
proposing to find that removal of the 26 counties from North Carolina's
SIP-approved expanded I/M program (and consequently, the removal of
reliance on credits gained from I/M emissions reductions from the 26
counties in the State's NOX Budget and Allowance Trading
Program) will not interfere with North Carolina's obligations under the
NOX SIP Call. This proposed finding is based on a number of
federal rules and SIP-approved State regulations promulgated and
implemented subsequent to the 2002 approval of North Carolina's
NOX SIP Call submission, which have created significant
NOX emissions reductions in North Carolina such that the
credits gained by the 26 counties' participation in the expanded I/M
program are no longer needed in order for North Carolina to meets its
NOX SIP Call Statewide NOX emissions budget.
North Carolina has provided an analysis which supports this proposed
finding and which discusses some of these federal rules and SIP-
approved State regulations.\3\ See Section III, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from Michael A. Abraczinskas, Director of the
Division of Air Quality for the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, dated July 11, 2018. This letter is part of
the Docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, North Carolina's SIP revision evaluates the impact
that the removal of the I/M program for these 26 counties would have on
the State's ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The SIP revision
contains a technical demonstration with revised emissions calculations
showing that removing the 26 counties from the expanded I/M program
will not interfere with North Carolina's attainment or maintenance of
any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As
discussed more fully in Section III, below, EPA is proposing to find
that North Carolina's revised emissions calculations demonstrate that
removing the 26 counties' participation in the expanded I/M program
will not interfere with State's ability to attain or maintain any
NAAQS.

II. What is the background of North Carolina's I/M program and its
relationship to the NOX SIP Call and the State's
NOX budget and allowance trading program?

    Under sections 182(b)(4), (c) and (d) of the CAA, I/M programs are
required for areas that are designated as moderate or above
nonattainment for ozone. As a result, North Carolina has previously
submitted, and EPA has previously approved into the SIP (in 1995), a
CAA-required I/M program for nine counties.\4\ See 60 FR 28720 (June 2,

1995). Subsequently, North Carolina expanded its State I/M program to
cover 39 additional counties in order to further improve air quality in
the State.\5\ This expansion included the 26 counties at issue in this
SIP revision, none of which were required by Section 182 of the CAA to
be included in the I/M program in North Carolina's SIP.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The nine counties are Mecklenburg, Wake, Cabarrus, Durham,
Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, Union, and Orange. 60 FR 28720 (June 2,
1995). However, while Orange County was included in this 1995
submittal and EPA approval, it was not designated as nonattainment
for either the ozone or carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS.
    \5\ North Carolina Session Law 1999-328, Section 3.1(d) and
Section 3.8.
    \6\ All 26 of the counties subject to this proposed rulemaking
were designated ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088. Five (or portions thereof) of the 26
counties (i.e., Chatham, Edgecombe, Haywood (partial), Nash, and
Orange) were previously designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard but have since been redesignated to attainment. The
remaining 21 counties were originally designated unclassifiable/
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have continued to
attain the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While none of the 26 counties at issue in the current action were
required by the CAA to be included in the I/M program contained in the
SIP, the State sought to include them in 2002 as part of an expanded I/
M program in order to use credits from I/M emissions reductions from
these counties as a component of the State's response to EPA's
NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP Call was designed to
mitigate significant transport of NOX, one of the precursors
of ozone. It required 19 states (including North Carolina) and the
District of Columbia to meet statewide NOX emissions budgets
during the five-month period from May 1 through September 30, called
the ozone season (or control period).
    In response to the NOX SIP Call, North Carolina made
several SIP submittals to EPA, including one on August 7, 2002, to
amend its I/M program in the SIP so that it expanded application of the
SIP-approved I/M rules from nine counties to the 48 counties. As noted
above, the purpose of this August 7, 2002, SIP revision was to allow
North Carolina to gain credits from the emissions reductions (reduction
credits) from the expanded I/M program for use as a component in its
Statewide NOX emissions budget contained within its
NOX SIP Call SIP submittal, which was pending before EPA at
the time.\7\ See 67 FR 66056. Approval of the I/M revision into the SIP
and the amended rules contained therein allowed North Carolina to gain
reduction credits ranging from 914 tons in 2004 to 4,385 tons in 2007
and beyond for use in its NOX emissions budget. These
reduction credits were used by the State at the beginning of the
NOX emissions budget program to allow for new growth and to
help meet the overall budget cap until the affected stationary sources
could install and operate controls needed to meet their emissions
allowances.\8\ See 67 FR 66056. EPA approved the August 7, 2002, I/M
SIP revision on October 30, 2002, and noted that the revision and EPA's
approval resolved the outstanding issues associated with the State's
NOX SIP Call submittal (which EPA had proposed for approval
on June 24, 2002). See 67 FR 66056; 67 FR 42519. EPA subsequently
approved North Carolina's NOX SIP Call submittal (i.e., the
North Carolina NOX Budget and Allowance Trading Program) on
December 27, 2002 (67 FR 78987).9 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ North Carolina's Statewide NOX emissions budget
is 165,022 tons per ozone season. See 40 CFR 51.121(g)(2)(ii).
    \8\ While these reduction credits were primarily used to allow
for new growth during initial program implementation, a small
portion (approximately 1,000 tons/ozone season) were also initially
used to help meet the Statewide NOX emissions budget of
165,022 tons/ozone season. See 67 FR 42519, 42522 (June 24, 2002).
    \9\ Further discussion of the NOX SIP Call submittal
appears in Section III. In addition, details of North Carolina's
EPA-approved NOX SIP Call submittal can be found in the
proposed rulemaking for that approval. See 67 FR 42519 (June 24,
2002).
    \10\ EPA also approved changes to North Carolina's I/M SIP on
November 20, 2014. See 79 FR 69051. Those changes repealed the
regulations pertaining to the tail-pipe emissions test because this
test was obsolete and replaced it with the On-Board Diagnostics
emissions test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's submittal?

a. Impact on the State's NOX SIP Call Obligations

    North Carolina's November 17, 2017, submittal seeks to remove 26
counties from the expanded I/M program contained in the SIP. This
removal consequently removes reliance on the I/M reduction credits
gained from the 26 counties' participation in the expanded I/M program
from the State's NOX emissions budget--a component of the
State's response to the NOX SIP Call. North Carolina has
indicated that it no longer needs these reduction credits in order to
meet its obligations under the NOX SIP Call. For the
following reasons, EPA is proposing to find that the removal of the 26
counties from the expanded I/M program will not interfere with the
State's obligation under the NOX SIP Call to meets its
Statewide NOX emissions budget.
    Subsequent to the NOX SIP Call, a number of federal
rules, as well as SIP-approved State regulations have created
significant NOX emissions reductions in North Carolina
(including ozone season reductions) such that any emissions reduction
credits derived from the 26 counties' participation in the expanded I/M
program are no longer needed in order for North Carolina to meets its
Statewide NOX emissions budget. For stationary sources,
including large EGUs, these federal rules include CAIR in 2005 \11\ and
its replacement in 2011, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR).\12\ In addition, federal mobile source-related measures
include: The Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards; \13\ nonroad spark
ignition engines and recreational engine standards; heavy-duty gasoline
and diesel highway vehicle standards; \14\ and large nonroad diesel
engine standards.\15\ These mobile source measures have resulted in,
and continue to result in, large reductions in NOX emissions
over time due to fleet turnover (i.e., the replacement of older
vehicles that predate the standards with newer vehicles that meet the
standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX emissions in 27
eastern states, including North Carolina, that contributed to
downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. CAIR was
challenged in federal court and in 2008, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to
EPA without vacatur. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3rd 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008)..
    \12\ In response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of CAIR, EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR. CSAPR requires 28 eastern states,
including North Carolina, to limit their statewide emissions of
SO2 and NOX in order to mitigate transported
air pollution impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain
four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of
maximum statewide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2
and NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each
covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented
in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with Phase I
budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2
budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years. CSAPR was
challenged in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 12, 2012, it was
vacated and remanded to EPA. The vacatur was subsequently reversed
by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014. EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014). This litigation
ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years.
    \13\ The Tier 2 standards, begun in 2004, continue to
significantly reduce NOX emissions and EPA expects that
these standards will reduce NOX emissions from vehicles
by approximately 74 percent by 2030 (or nearly 3 million tons
annually by 2030). See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28, 2015) (citing
EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA 420-F-99-051 (December 1999).
    \14\ Also begun in 2004, implementation of this rule is expected
to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions from
diesel trucks and buses by 2030. See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28,
2015).
    \15\ EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut
NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90
percent nationwide. See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2002, North Carolina also enacted and subsequently implemented
its Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA), which

created system-wide annual emissions caps on actual emissions of
NOX and SO2 from coal-fired power plants within
the State, the first of which became effective in 2007. The CSA
required certain coal-fired power plants in North Carolina to
significantly reduce annual NOX emissions by 189,000 tons
(or 77 percent) by 2009 (using a 1998 baseline year). This represented
about a one-third reduction of the NOX emissions from all
sources in North Carolina. See 76 FR 36468, 36470 (June 11, 2011).\16\
With the requirement to meet annual emissions caps and disallowing the
purchase of NOX credits to meet the caps, the CSA reduced
NOX emissions beyond the requirements of the NOX
SIP Call even though the Act did not limit emissions only during the
ozone season. EPA approved the CSA into North Carolina's SIP on
September 26, 2011 (76 FR 59250).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ North Carolina indicates that the utilities have reduced
NOX emissions by 83 percent relative to the 1998
emissions levels. See Letter from Michael A. Abraczinskas, Director
of the Division of Air Quality for the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, dated July 11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together, implementation of these federal rules and SIP-approved
State regulations have created significant NOX emissions
reductions since North Carolina's NOX emissions budget was
approved into the SIP in 2002, and for EGUs in particular, have
significantly reduced ozone season NOX emissions well below
the original NOX SIP Call budget. This last point is
illustrated in Table 1, which compares the EGU NOX SIP Call
budget to actual emissions in 2007 and 2017. Actual EGU emissions in
2007 and 2017 were 23 percent (7,274 tons) and 60 percent (18,906 tons)
below the NOX SIP Call budget for EGUs, respectively.
Notably, the entirety of the emissions reduction credits from the
expanded I/M program (and used by the State in its NOX
emissions budget) only totaled 4,385 tons, of which approximately 1,000
tons was initially needed to meet the overall budget.

    Table 1--Comparison of Ozone Season NOX SIP Call Budget to Actual
                           Emissions for EGUs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2007            2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX SIP Call Budget, Tons \17\..........          31,451          31,451
Actual Emissions, Tons..................          24,177          12,545
Below Budget, Tons......................           7,274          18,906
Below Budget, Percent...................              23              60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 compares the impact of the estimated ozone season
NOX emissions increases due to the proposed change to the
expanded I/M program on EGU reductions and NOX SIP Call I/M
reduction credits. Using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES2014), the DAQ estimates that removing the 26 counties from the
expanded I/M program will increase ozone season NOX
emissions by 611 tons. As noted above, in 2017, EGU emissions were
18,906 tons (60 percent) below the NOX SIP Call budget for
EGUs. The proposed change to the expanded I&M program would lower the
EGU reduction by about 3 percent to 18,295 tons below the
NOX SIP Call budget for EGUs.\18\ Thus, based on this EGU-
focused analysis, the DAQ concludes that the ozone season
NOX emissions increase associated with the proposed change
to the expanded I/M program has no impact on North Carolina's
obligations under the NOX SIP call to meet its Statewide
NOX emissions budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ From EPA's proposed approval of North Carolina's
NOX SIP Call submission. See 67 FR 42519 (June 24, 2002).
    \18\ Table 2 also reflects DAQ's anticipated SIP submittal which
will request EPA approval to revise the vehicle model year coverage
for the 22 counties remaining in the expanded I/M program. This SIP
submittal has not yet been made to EPA and the current action does
not, and is not intended to, address it.

Table 2--Impact of NOX Emissions Increases Due to Proposed Changes to I/
        M Program on EGU Reductions and NOX SIP Call I/M Credits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          I/M Emissions Increase in 2018, Tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 Counties.............................................             611
22 Counties.............................................             311
48 County Total I/M Increase............................             922
EGU Reduction in 2017 (from Table 1)....................          18,906
Net EGU Reduction in 2017 including I/M Increase........          17,984
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the above, EPA is proposing to find that North
Carolina's removal of the 26 counties from the expanded I/M program
contained in its SIP (and the use of I/M emissions reductions generated
from those counties as part of the reduction credits in the State's
NOX emissions budget) will not interfere with the State's
obligations under the NOX SIP Call to meet its Statewide
NOX emissions budget. Subsequent promulgation and
implementation of a number of federal rules and SIP-approved State
regulations, and in particular those impacting EGUs, have created
significant NOX emissions reductions in the State that are
more than sufficient to offset the need for North Carolina's reliance
on the I/M reduction credits from the 26 counties in order to meet its
Statewide NOX emissions budget.

b. Overall Preliminary Conclusions Regarding North Carolina's Non-
Interference Analyses

    Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA evaluates section 110(l) non-
interference demonstrations on a case-by-case basis considering the
circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets section 110(l) as
applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have
been promulgated but for which EPA has not yet made designations. The
degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a non-
interference

demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions
associated with the proposed SIP revision. For I/M SIP revisions, the
most relevant pollutants to consider are ozone precursors (i.e.,
NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOC) and CO. In
connection with this November 17, 2017, SIP revision, North Carolina
submitted a non-interference demonstration, which EPA analyzes below.
    As mentioned above, North Carolina's November 17, 2017, SIP
revision included a non-interference demonstration to support the
State's request to remove the 26 counties from North Carolina's SIP-
approved expanded I/M program. This demonstration includes an
evaluation of the impact that the removal of the I/M program for these
counties would have on North Carolina's ability to attain or maintain
any NAAQS in the State. Based on the analysis below EPA is proposing to
find that removal of the 26 counties from the expanded I/M program
meets the requirements of CAA Section 110(l) and will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS in North Carolina.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA also notes, as a transport related matter, that on
October 26, 2016, it determined through the CSAPR Update (81 FR
74504) that North Carolina did not contribute to nonattainment or
maintenance issues in downwind states for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The 2016 CSAPR Update provides technical and related analysis
to assist states with meeting the good neighbor requirements of the
CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the CSAPR Update
includes projection modeling to determine whether individual states
contribute significantly or not to nonattainment or maintenance in
other states. On December 9, 2015, North Carolina provided a SIP
revision addressing ozone transport requirements for the 2008 8-hour
ozone standards and made the determination that the State did not
contribute to nonattainment or maintenance issues in any other
state. EPA approved North Carolina's submission on October 4, 2017,
with the consideration of EPA's modeling conducted for the CSAPR
Update. See 82 FR 46134. Also, most recently, EPA conducted modeling
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. That modeling preliminarily indicates that
North Carolina does not contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance issues in any other state for that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Non-Interference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This standard was more stringent than
the 1-hour ozone standard that was promulgated in 1979. On March 12,
2008, EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a
level of 0.075 ppm to provide increased protection of public health and
the environment. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS
retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS
set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. Under EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained
when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or
equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. On October 26, 2015, EPA
published a final rule lowering the level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to
0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292.
    North Carolina is currently designated attainment statewide for the
all of the ozone NAAQS. In summary, on November 6, 2017, EPA designated
the entire state of North Carolina attainment/unclassifiable for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 82 FR 54232. Additionally, all 26 of the
counties subject to this proposed rulemaking were designated
``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77
FR 30088. Five (or portions thereof) of the 26 aforementioned counties
(i.e., Chatham, Edgecombe, Haywood (partial), Nash, and Orange) were
previously designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
but have since been redesignated to attainment. The remaining 21
counties were originally designated unclassifiable/attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have continued to attain the standard.
    Only seven of the 26 counties to be removed from the program have
ozone monitors. The design values in part per billion (ppb) are all
well below the ozone NAAQS (see Table 3).

  Table 3--Design Values for Counties To Be Removed With Ozone Monitors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Ozone design
     Counties to be removed that have ozone monitors        value, ppb
                                                            (2014-1016)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caldwell................................................              64
Carteret................................................              60
Edgecombe...............................................              62
Granville...............................................              64
Haywood.................................................              66
Lenoir..................................................              63
Pitt....................................................              62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DAQ's noninterference analysis utilized EPA's MOVES2014 emission
modeling system to estimate emissions for mobile sources. By 2018, the
NOX emissions reduction resulting from the North Carolina I/
M program will be 0.25 ton per day (tpd) or less in each of the 26
counties that are being requested for removal from the I/M program. As
summarized in Tables 4 and 5, below, the MOVES model predicted emission
increases for only on-road vehicles. The results for 2018 show a slight
increase in anthropogenic NOX emissions for each county, as
shown in Table 4, ranging from 0.08 to 0.25 tpd. The present increase
in total NOX emissions for a county ranges from 0.4 percent
to 4.6 percent. The total increase in NOX emissions
associated with removing all 26 counties from the I/M program in 2018
is 3.97 tpd \20\ or 1.9 percent of total man-made emissions (205 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 3.97 tpd multiplied by 154 days in the ozone season equals
611 tons per ozone season.

                                           Table 4--Total Anthropogenic NOX Emissions for 2018 for 26 Counties
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         On-road                  Non-road              Point               Area                      Totals
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Counties to be removed                          Emission                                                                                Emissions
                                 I/M     No I/M    increase     I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M     increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick...................       2.4       2.6       0.18       4.9       4.9       6.4       6.4       0.5       0.5      14.3      14.5         0.18
Burke.......................       2.7       2.9       0.17       0.6       0.6       0.2       0.2      0.23      0.23       3.8       3.9         0.17
Caldwell....................       2.1       2.2       0.15       0.5       0.5       0.3       0.3      0.29      0.29       3.2       3.4         0.15
Carteret....................       1.1       1.2       0.10       5.4       5.4       0.1       0.1       0.3       0.3       6.9       7.0         0.10
Catawba.....................       3.2       3.5       0.25       1.4       1.4      35.5      35.5       0.6       0.6      40.9      41.2         0.25
Chatham.....................       1.8       2.2       0.14       0.6       0.6       1.5       1.5       0.2       0.2       4.5       4.6         0.14
Cleveland...................       1.0       3.4       0.20       0.9       0.9       9.3       9.3       0.2       0.2      13.5      13.7         0.20
Craven......................       2.1       1.9       0.13       0.8       0.8       5.3       5.3       0.3       0.3       8.2       8.3         0.13
Edgecombe...................       2.4       1.1       0.08       0.8       0.8       3.4       3.4       0.2       0.2       5.5       5.6         0.08
Granville...................       3.0       2.2       0.11       0.6       0.6       0.1       0.1       0.1       0.1       3.0       3.1         0.11
Harnett.....................       2.4       2.6       0.16       0.8       0.8      0.07      0.07       0.4       0.4       3.7       3.9         0.16
Haywood.....................       3.0       3.2       0.16       0.4       0.4      8.14      8.14       0.3       0.3      11.9      12.0         0.16

Henderson...................       2.4       2.6       0.17       0.8       0.8       0.2       0.2       0.4       0.4       3.9       4.1         0.17
Lenoir......................       1.3       1.4       0.10       0.5       0.5       0.2       0.2       0.3       0.3       2.4       2.5         0.10
Moore.......................       1.9         2       0.14       0.7       0.7       0.1       0.1       0.4       0.4       3.2       3.3         0.14
Nash........................       3.2       3.4       0.19       1.1       1.1       0.5       0.5       0.5       0.5       5.5       5.7         0.19
Orange......................       4.0       4.2       0.21       1.0       1.0       0.5       0.5       0.5       0.5       6.2       6.4         0.21
Pitt........................       2.4       2.6       0.19       1.3       1.3       0.4       0.4       0.7       0.7       4.9       5.1         0.19
Robeson.....................       4.2       4.5       0.25       2.0       2.0       1.5       1.5       0.5       0.5       8.4       8.6         0.21
Rutherford..................       1.6       1.7       0.11       1.1       1.1       0.3       0.3       0.2       0.2       3.3       3.4         0.11
Stanly......................       1.6       1.7       0.11       0.6       0.6       0.5       0.5       0.2       0.2       2.9       3.1         0.11
Stokes......................       1.2       1.2       0.08       0.3       0.3      20.2      20.2       0.1       0.1      21.9      22.0         0.08
Surry.......................       2.8         3       0.17       0.6       0.6       0.1       0.1       0.3       0.3       4.0       4.1         0.17
Wayne.......................       2.2       2.3       0.16       1.0       1.0       5.5       5.5       0.6       0.6       9.3       9.5         0.16
Wilkes......................       2.0       2.2       0.13       0.4       0.4       0.7       0.7       0.2       0.2       3.5       3.6         0.13
Wilson......................       2.1       2.3       0.13       1.5       1.5       1.3       1.3       0.3       0.3       5.3       5.5         0.13
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................        61        65       3.97        31        31       130       130       9.5       9.5       205       209         3.97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           Table 5--Total Anthropogenic VOC Emissions for 2018 for 26 Counties
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         On-road                  Non-road              Point               Area                      Totals
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Counties to be removed                          Emission                                                                                Emissions
                                 I/M     No I/M    increase     I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M     increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick...................       1.6       1.8       0.14       1.7       1.7       2.6       2.6       3.5       3.5       9.5       9.2         0.14
Burke.......................       1.8       1.9       0.14       0.4       0.4       1.7       1.7       3.4       3.4       7.4       7.5         0.14
Caldwell....................       1.7       1.8       0.13       0.7       0.7       3.0       3.0       4.4       4.4       9.9        10         0.13
Carteret....................       1.0       1.1       0.10       5.6       5.6       .23       .23       1.8       1.8       8.7       8.8         0.10
Catawba.....................       2.6       2.8       0.22       1.3       1.3       4.9       4.9      12.8      12.8      21.7      21.9         0.22
Chatham.....................       1.3       1.4       0.11       0.5       0.5       2.2       2.2       1.7       1.7       5.9       6.0         0.11
Cleveland...................       2.0       2.1       0.16       0.6       0.6       0.4       0.4       3.9       3.9       7.0       7.2         0.16
Craven......................       1.3       1.4       0.10       1.0       1.0       3.1       3.1       3.1       3.6       8.8       8.9         0.11
Edgecombe...................       0.7       0.8       0.07       0.3       0.3       0.2       0.2       2.6       2.6       4.0       4.1         0.07
Granville...................       1.1       1.2       0.08       0.4       0.4       0.8       0.8       1.6       1.6       4.1       4.2         0.08
Harnett.....................       1.7       1.9       0.14       0.6       0.6       0.2       0.2       3.7       3.7       6.5       6.6         0.14
Haywood.....................       1.4       1.6       0.11       1.2       1.2       4.6       4.6       1.6       1.6       8.9       9.0         0.11
Henderson...................       1.7       1.8       0.14       2.8       2.8       0.9       0.9       3.7       3.7       9.3       9.4         0.14
Lenoir......................       0.9       1.0       0.08       0.5       0.5       0.9       0.9       3.8       3.8       5.4       5.5         0.08
Moore.......................       1.6       1.7       0.13       0.7       0.7      0.07      0.07       2.7       2.7       5.1       5.2         0.13
Nash........................       1.7       1.8       0.14       0.5       0.5       0.6       0.6       4.3       4.3       7.3       7.2         0.14
Orange......................       2.0       2.1       0.16       1.6       1.6       0.4       0.4       3.0       3.0       7.2       7.4         0.16
Pitt........................       1.8       2.0       0.17       0.8       0.8       1.6       1.6       5.4       5.4       9.8        10         0.17
Robeson.....................       2.2       2.4       0.18       0.5       0.5       0.7       0.7       5.4       5.4       9.0       9.3         0.19
Rutherford..................       1.3       1.4       0.10       0.7       0.7       0.4       0.4       2.2       2.2       4.6       4.7         0.10
Stanly......................       1.2       1.3       0.10       0.8       0.8       1.1       1.1       2.5       2.5       5.8       5.9         0.10
Stokes......................       0.9       1.0       0.08       0.4       0.4       0.5       0.5       1.3       1.3       3.4       3.4         0.08
Surry.......................       1.7       1.8       0.17       0.8       0.8       1.2       1.2       3.4       3.4       7.2       7.3         0.13
Wayne.......................       1.7       1.8       0.14       0.7       0.7       1.4       1.4       4.8       4.8       8.7       8.8         0.14
Wilkes......................       1.5       1.6       0.12       0.5       0.5       1.9       1.9       2.7       2.7       6.8       6.9         0.12
Wilson......................       1.2       1.4       0.11       0.7       0.7       1.4       1.4       3.3       3.3       6.8      6.97         0.11
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................        40        44       3.97      27.5      27.5        38        38        93        93       199       203         3.29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 6 below, total NOX and VOC emissions
would increase 4.0 tpd (2.4 percent) and 3.3 tpd (2.8 percent),
respectively.

 Table 6--Summary of On-Road NOX and VOC Emissions Increases Associated
             With Removing 26 Counties From the I/M Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          NOX  emissions
                                              in 2018     VOC  emissions
                                                              in 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total On-Road Emissions for 48 Counties            168.0           117.6
 in Current I/M Program.................
Total On-Road Emissions after Removing             172.0           120.9
 26 of 48 Counties from I/M Program.....
Emissions Increases (TPD)...............             3.9             3.3
Emissions Increases (% of Total On-Road              2.4             2.8
 Emissions for 48 Counties).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the results of North Carolina's emissions analysis, EPA
proposes to find that removal of the 26 counties from the SIP-approved
expanded I/M program would not interfere with maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS in the State.
ii. Non-Interference Analysis for the Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS
    Over the course of several years, EPA has reviewed and revised the
PM2.5 NAAQS a number of times. On July 16, 1997, EPA
established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, and based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile
of 24-hour concentrations. See 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997). On
September 21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ but revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35
[mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). On December
14, 2012, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35
[mu]g/m\3\ but revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to
12.0 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
    EPA promulgated designations for the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), and April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844).
Of the 26 counties subject to this rulemaking, only Catawba County was
designated nonattainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
This Area has since been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain this NAAQS. See 76 FR
71452 (November 18, 2011). On November 13, 2009, and on January 15,
2015, EPA published notices determining that the entire state of North
Carolina was unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 daily
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
respectively. See 71 FR 61144 and 78 FR 3086.
    In North Carolina's November 17, 2017, SIP revision, the State
concluded that the removal of the 26 counties from the expanded I/M
program would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
PM2.5 NAAQS. The pollution control systems for light-duty
gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M program are not designed to reduce
emissions for PM2.5; therefore, removing counties from the
program will not have any impact on ambient concentrations of
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, MOVES2014 modeling results
indicate that removing these 26 counties from the expanded I/M program
would not increase PM2.5 emissions. EPA has evaluated the
State's analysis and proposes to find that removal of the 26 counties
from the SIP-approved expanded I/M program would not interfere with
maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the State.
iii. Non-Interference Analysis for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) NAAQS
    The 2010 NO2 1-hour standard is set at 100 ppb, based on
the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The annual standard of 53 ppb is
based on the annual mean concentration. On February 17, 2012, EPA
designated all counties in North Carolina as unclassifiable/attainment
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532.
    Based on the technical analysis in North Carolina's November 17,
2017, SIP revision, the projected increase in total anthropogenic
NOX emissions (of which NO2 is a component)
associated with the removal of the 26 counties from the expanded I/M
program ranges from 0.08 to 0.25 tpd in 2018. All NO2
monitors in the State are measuring below the annual NO2
standard, and all near road monitors are measuring well below the 1-
hour NO2 standard. Given the current unclassifiable/
attainment designation and the results of North Carolina's emissions
analysis which show a de minimis increase, EPA proposes to find that
removal of the 26 counties from the SIP-approved expanded I/M program
would not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
in the State.
iv. Non-Interference Analysis for the CO NAAQS
    EPA promulgated the CO NAAQS in 1971 and has retained the standards
since its last review of the standard in 2011. The primary NAAQS for CO
include: (1) An 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm, measured using the annual
second highest 8-hour concentration for two consecutive years as the
design value; and (2) a 1-hour average of 35 ppm, using the second
highest 1-hour average within a given year. The 26 counties subject to
this proposed action have always been unclassifiable/attainment for the
CO NAAQS.
    In North Carolina's November 17, 2017, SIP revision, the State
concluded that the removal of the 26 counties from the expanded I/M
program would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the CO
NAAQS. MOVES2014 mobile emissions modeling results show a slight
increase in CO emissions for each of the 26 counties ranging from 1.0
tpd (Stakes County) to 4.3 tpd (Robeson County) in 2018. This increase
is minimal and is not expected to interfere with continued attainment
of the CO NAAQS in any of the 26 counties or adjacent counties.
Statewide, the current ambient air quality levels for CO are less than
20 percent of the CO NAAQS. For these reasons, EPA proposes to find
that removal of the 26 counties from the SIP-approved expanded I/M
program would not interfere with maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the
State.
v. Non-Interference Analysis for the SO2 NAAQS
    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA revised the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS to 75 ppb which became effective on August 23,
2010. On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), EPA initially designated
nonattainment only in areas with violating 2009-2011 monitoring data.
EPA did not designate any county in North Carolina for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS as part of the initial designation. On March 2,
2015, a Consent Decree was issued by the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California stipulating the time and method
for designating the remaining areas in the Country.\21\ For North
Carolina, EPA designated the entire state attainment/unclassifiable for
SO2 (pursuant to a consent decree) on December 21, 2017
(effective April 9, 2018 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-01-09/pdf/2017-28423.pdf) except for the following townships/counties:
Beaverdam Township (Haywood County); Limestone Township (Buncombe
County); and Cunningham Township (Person County). Counties listed above
deployed monitors which EPA intends to designate by December 2020.
Also, a portion of Brunswick County was designated unclassifiable
effective in August 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Copy of the Consent Decree--http://www.epa.gov/so2designations/pdfs/201503FinalCourtOrder.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the technical analysis in North Carolina's November 17,
2017, SIP revision, the State concluded that removal of the 26 counties
from the expanded I/M program would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. The pollution control systems
for light-duty gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M program are not
designed to reduce emissions for SO2; therefore, removing
counties from the program will not have any impact on ambient
concentrations of SO2. In addition, sulfur content in fuel
has been significantly decreased through EPA's Tier 2 and Tier 3

rulemakings which tightened engine standards and required fuel
formulations contain reduced levels of sulfur. See 65 FR 6698 (February
10, 2000) and 81 FR 23641 (April 22, 2016). MOVES2014 modeling results
indicate that removing the 26 counties from the expanded I/M program
would not increase SO2 emissions. For these reasons, EPA
proposes to find that removal of the 26 counties from the SIP-approved
expanded I/M program would not interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in the State.
vi. Non-Interference Analysis for 2008 Lead NAAQS
    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA promulgated a revised
primary and secondary lead NAAQS of 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. Under EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 lead NAAQS are met when the
maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-year period, as
determined in accordance with Appendix R of 40 CFR part 50, is less
than or equal to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.16. On November 8,
2011, EPA designated the entire State of North Carolina as
unclassifiable/attainment for that NAAQS. See 76 FR 72907. North
Carolina's ambient lead levels have remained well below the standard.
The pollution control systems for light-duty gasoline vehicles subject
to the I/M program are not designed to reduce emissions for lead;
therefore, removing counties from the program will not have any impact
on ambient concentrations of lead. MOVES 2014 modeling results indicate
that removing 26 counties from the expanded I/M program would not
increase lead emissions. For these reasons, EPA proposes to find that
removal of the 26 counties from the SIP-approved expanded I/M program
would not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the
State.

IV. Proposed Action

    For the reasons explained above in Section III of this proposed
rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's November 17,
2017, SIP revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the
removal of Brunswick, Burke, Caldwell, Carteret, Catawba, Chatham,
Cleveland, Craven, Edgecombe, Granville, Harnett, Haywood, Henderson,
Lenoir, Moore, Nash, Orange, Pitt, Robeson, Rutherford, Stanly, Stokes,
Surry, Wayne, Wilkes, and Wilson counties, from the SIP-approved
expanded I/M program. Additionally, EPA is proposing to find that North
Carolina's removal of the 26 counties from the SIP-approved expanded I/
M program (and the removal of reliance on the I/M emissions reductions
generated from those counties as part of the ``credits'' in North
Carolina's NOX emissions budget) will not interfere with the
State's obligations under the NOX SIP Call to meet its
Statewide NOX emissions budget. In addition, EPA is also
proposing to find that the removal of the 26 counties from the SIP-
approved expanded I/M program will not interfere with continued
attainment or maintenance of any applicable NAAQS or with any other
applicable requirement of the CAA, and that North Carolina has
satisfied the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.

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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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 they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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).
    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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-15813 Filed 7-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 41948-41949]
[DOCID:fr19au09-96]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Rule 17f-2(a), OMB Control No. 3235-0034, SEC File No.
270-34.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for in Rule 17f-2(a) (17 CFR 240.17f-2(a) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange
Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and
approval.
    Rule 17f-2(a) requires that securities professionals be
fingerprinted. This requirement serves to identify security risk
personnel, to allow an employer to make fully informed employment
decisions, and to deter possible wrongdoers from seeking employment in
the securities industry. Partners, directors, officers, and employees
of

exchanges, brokers, dealers, transfer agents, and clearing agencies are
included.
    It is estimated that 10,000 respondents will submit fingerprint
cards. It is also estimated that each respondent will submit 55
fingerprint cards. The staff of the Commission estimates that the
average number of hours necessary to comply with the Rule 17f-2(a) is
one-half hour. The total burden is 275,000 hours for respondents. The
average cost per hour is approximately $50. Therefore, the total cost
of compliance for respondents is $13,750,000.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to Charles Boucher, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 10, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19891 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 202 (Monday, October 19, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66287-66290]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20327]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 153 and 157

[Docket No. RM20-18-000]

Waiver of the Water Quality Certification Requirements of Section
401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act

AGENCY:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water
Act Section 401 Certification Rule and Executive Order 13868, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing rules to
categorically establish a reasonable period of time for a certifying
authority to act on a water quality certification request related to
natural gas and liquified natural gas projects for which either an
application filed pursuant to section 3 or section 7(c) of the Natural
Gas Act (NGA) is pending with the Commission. The Commission is
amending its regulations to define when the certification requirements
of section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) have been waived as a
result of the failure of the state or other authorized certifying
agency to act on a request for CWA certification filed by an applicant
for a Commission-issued section 7 certificate of public convenience and
necessity or section 3 authorization under the NGA. The Commission is
allowing CWA certifying authorities up to one year after the certifying
authority's receipt of a request for section 401 water quality
certification to grant or deny the applicant's request for
certification.

DATES: Comments are due November 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by RM20-18-000, by either
of the following methods:
     Agency website: Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format.
     Mail: Those unable to file electronically may mail
comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered
comments should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Swearingen (Technical Information), Office of Energy Projects,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Karin Larson (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rachael Warden (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Paragraph Numbers

I. Background--743-
II. Proposed Revisions--746-
III. Regulatory Requirements--747-
    A. Information Collection Statement--747-
    B. Environmental Analysis--748-
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act--749-
    D. Comment Procedures--750-
    E. Document Availability--751-

I. Background

    1. On April 10, 2019, Executive Order 13868 entitled Promoting
Energy Infrastructure and Economic Growth was issued with the stated
goal of enabling timely construction of energy infrastructure and
reducing regulatory uncertainties from the permitting process for
infrastructure projects. The Executive Order directed the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to update its regulations governing water
quality certification under section 401 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA).\1\ CWA section 401 is a direct grant of authority to states \2\
to review for compliance with appropriate federal, state, and tribal
water quality requirements any discharge into a water of the United
States that may result from a proposed activity that requires a federal
license or permit. Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA requires that an
applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct activities that
may result in a discharge into the navigable waters of the United
States, such as a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
hydroelectric project license or a Natural Gas Act (NGA) certificate of
public convenience and necessity for a natural gas pipeline that
crosses a navigable water, must provide the federal permitting agency a
water quality certification from the state in which the discharge
originates or evidence of waiver thereof.\3\ If the state ``fails or
refuses to act on a request for certification, within a reasonable
period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such
request,'' then certification is waived.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
    \2\ Indian tribes that have been approved for ``treatment as a
state'' status may also have the authority under section 401 to
issue water quality certifications.
    \3\ 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In compliance with the Executive Order, on June 1, 2020, the EPA
issued the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule
(Certification Rule), which revises its regulations under 40 CFR part
121. The rule was published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2020,
and becomes effective 60 days after publication on September 11, 2020.
The Certification Rule applies prospectively to certification requests
submitted after the effective date of the rule. The Executive Order
mandates that ``[w]ithin 90 days of [EPA's issuance of revised
regulations], if necessary, the heads of each 401 Implementing Agency
\5\ shall initiate a rulemaking to ensure their respective agencies'
regulations are consistent with'' the EPA's Certification Rule and
``with the policies set forth in section 2 of this order.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Implementing agency'' is defined as a federal agency that
issues permits or licenses subject to the certification requirements
of section 401 of the CWA.
    \6\ E.O. 13868 of Apr 10, 2019, 84 FR 15495, 15496 (Apr. 15,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 121.6(a) of the Certification Rule requires federal
permitting agencies \7\ to establish the reasonable period of time for
the certifying authority \8\ to act on a water quality certification
request, which period may not exceed one year from receipt. If the
certifying authority fails or refuses to act on a certification request
within the reasonable period of time, then the certification
requirement for a license or permit is waived.\9\ The reasonable period
of time may be set either categorically or on a case-by-case basis.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Certification Rule defines ``Federal Agency'' as any
federal government agency to which application is made for a license
or permit that is subject to the requirements of CWA section 401.
Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule, 85 FR 42210, 42285
(July 13, 2020) (to be codified at 40 CFR pt. 121).
    \8\ The Certification Rule defines ``Certifying Authority'' as
the agency with the responsibility to certify compliance with
applicable requirements for water quality under CWA section 401. Id.
The Commission's regulations refer to a ``Certifying Authority'' as
a ``Certifying Agency.''
    \9\ Id. at 42286.
    \10\ See id. at 42285. In setting the reasonable period of time
the Certification Rule calls for the federal agency to consider the
complexity of the proposed project, the nature of any potential
discharge and the potential need for studies of the effects from the
proposed discharge. See id. at 42286.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Commission's practice has been to deem the one-year waiver
period to commence when the certifying agency receives the request. In
1987, the Commission promulgated subsections 4.34(b)(5)(iii) and
5.23(b)(2) \11\ of its regulations governing hydropower licensing
proceedings to provide that a certifying agency is deemed to have
waived certification if it has not denied or granted certification by
one year after the date it received a written certification
request.\12\ Accordingly, subsections 4.34(b)(5)(iii) and 5.23(b)(2)
\13\ of the Commission's regulations establish for hydroelectric
projects a categorical ``reasonable period of time'' of one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5)(iii) and 5.23(b)(2). Part 4 of the
Commission's regulations governs applicants using the traditional
licensing process and part 5 governs applicants using the integrated
license application process.
    \12\ Waiver of the Water Quality Certification Requirements of
Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, Order No. 464, 52 FR 5446
(Feb. 23, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,730 (1987).
    \13\ 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5)(iii) and 5.23(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. While no comparable regulation exists for NGA infrastructure
proceedings, the Commission's practice is to also categorically apply a
one-year waiver period for water quality certification applications
filed in connection to a proposed natural gas or liquefied natural gas
infrastructure project application.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Constitution Pipeline Co., LLC, 162 FERC ] 61,014, at P 16
(explaining that since 1987 the Commission has consistently
determined, both by regulation and in our orders on proposed
projects, that the reasonable period of time for action under
section 401 is one year after the date the certifying agency
receives a request for certification), reh'g denied, 164 FERC ]
61,029 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Revisions

    6. We continue to believe that the benefits of setting a
categorical waiver period of one year, as permitted by the CWA, best
serves the public interest by avoiding uncertainty associated with
open-ended and varying certification deadlines.\15\ Considering the
historical complexity of proposed projects and the nature and potential
need for studies of the discharge, the Commission proposes to continue
to use the categorical one-year waiver period as the ``reasonable
period of time'' within which the certifying authority must act and to
codify this waiver period for natural gas and liquified natural gas
projects by adding the categorical one-year waiver period to its
regulations governing applications for authorizations under sections 3
and 7 of the NGA for liquefied natural gas and natural gas facilities
in parts 153 and 157. Given that it would be administratively
inefficient and a potential source of controversy to establish
reasonable time periods on a case-by-case basis; that state certifying
agencies may vary in terms of their procedures for reviewing requests
for water quality certification; and that natural gas projects before
the Commission include highly complex proposals that may well take a
state a significant time to review, we find that providing the maximum
time permitted under the CWA, i.e., a categorical one-year waiver
period, is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Constitution Pipeline Co., LLC, 162 FERC ] 61,014 at PP 16-
17, 20 (determining that setting a one-year waiver period yields
substantial benefits to the applicant, the certifying agency, and
the Commission); Constitution Pipeline Co., LLC, 164 FERC ] 61,029
at P 10 (same). See Order No. 464, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,730
(concluding that giving the certifying agencies the maximum period
allowed by the CWA will not unduly delay Commission processing of
license applications and would achieve a major objective of the
rule--obtaining early certainty as to when certification would be
deemed waived and avoiding open-ended certification deadlines).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Regulatory Requirements

A. Information Collection Statement

    7. The Paperwork Reduction Act \16\ requires each federal agency to
seek and obtain the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval
before undertaking a collection of information (i.e., reporting,
recordkeeping, or public disclosure requirements) directed to ten or
more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB
regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements contained in proposed rules published in the Federal
Register.\17\ This proposed rule does not contain any information
collection requirements. The Commission is therefore not required to
submit this rule to OMB for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
    \17\ See 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Environmental Analysis

    8. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant effect on the human environment.\18\ The Commission
has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not
having a significant effect on the human environment, including the
promulgation of rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural,
or that do not substantially change the effect of legislation or the
regulations being amended.\19\ This proposed rule proposes to
categorically establish a reasonable period of time for a certifying
agency to act on a water quality certification request for natural gas
and liquified natural gas projects with an application pending with the
Commission. Because this proposed rule is procedural in nature,
preparation of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 41 FERC ] 61,284 (1987).
    \19\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    9. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \20\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and minimize any
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.\21\ In lieu of preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis,
an agency may certify that a proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\22\ The
Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops
the numerical definition of a small business.\23\ The SBA has
established a size standard for pipelines transporting natural gas,
stating that a firm is small if its annual receipts (including its
affiliates) are less than $30 million.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \21\ Id. 603(c).
    \22\ Id. 605(b).
    \23\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \24\ 13 CFR 121.201, subsection 486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. If enacted, this proposed rule would apply to entities, a small
number of which may be small businesses, with an application for a
project pending with the Commission under section 3 or 7 of the NGA
that require a water quality certification under section 401(a)(1) of
the CWA. However, the proposed rule would have no effect on these
entities, regardless of their status as a small entity or not, as the
rule imposes no action or requirement on those entities. Accordingly,
pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Comment Procedures

    11. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due November 18, 2020. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM20-18-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.
    12. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    13. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    14. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

E. Document Availability

    15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the President's March 13, 2020
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).
    16. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 153

    Exports, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: September 9, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission is proposing to
amend parts 153 and 157, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 153--APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, OR
MODIFY FACILITIES USED FOR THE EXPORT OR IMPORT OF NATURAL GAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 153 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717b, 717o; E.O. 10485; 3 CFR, 1949-1953
Comp., p. 970, as amended by E.O. 12038, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 136,
DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-112, 49 FR 6684 (February 22, 1984).

0
2. Revise Sec.  153.4 to read as follows:

Sec.  153.4  General requirements.

    The procedures in Sec. Sec.  157.5, 157.6, 157.8, 157.9, 157.10,
157.11, 157.12, 157.22, and 157.23 of this chapter are applicable to
the applications described in this subpart.

PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 157 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1);
42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Revise Sec.  157.22 to read as follows:

Sec.  157.22  Schedule for final decisions on a request for a Federal
authorization.

    (a) For an application under section 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act
that requires a Federal authorization--i.e., a permit, special use
authorization, certification, opinion, or other approval--from a
Federal agency or officer, or State agency or officer acting pursuant
to delegated Federal authority, a final decision on a request for a
Federal authorization is due no later than 90 days after the Commission
issues its final environmental document, unless a schedule is otherwise
established by Federal law.
    (b) For requests for a water quality certification submitted
pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (Clean Water Act) in connection with a project for which
authorization is sought from the Commission under section 3 or 7 of the
Natural Gas Act, the reasonable period of time during which the
certifying agency may act on the water quality certification request is
one year from the certifying agency's receipt of the request. A
certifying agency is deemed to have waived the certification
requirements of section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act if the
certifying agency has not denied or granted certification by one year
after the date the certifying agency received a written request for
certification.

[FR Doc. 2020-20327 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44149-44151]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18104]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0443; FRL-9702-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Removal of Administrative Requirements From the Regulation
for the Control of Motor Vehicle Emissions in Northern Virginia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. This revision removes four internal State administrative
requirements from the Virginia SIP regulations for the control of motor
vehicle emissions in the Northern Virginia Area. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on September 25, 2012 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 27, 2012.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0443 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0443, Harold A. Frankford, Mailcode
3AP00, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0443. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On April 19, 2012, the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) submitted a revision
to its State Implementation Plan (SIP).

I. Summary of SIP Revision

    The revision consists of the removal of four administrative
regulations from SIP-approved regulations 9VAC5 Chapter 91 (Regulation
for the Control of Motor Vehicle Emissions in the Northern Virginia
Area) pertaining to the establishment of regulations (Regulation 5-91-
40), hearings and proceedings (Regulation 5-91-60), variances
(Regulation 5-91-80), and

procedural information and guidance (Regulation 5-91-110). Virginia has
already repealed these four regulations from the State-enforceable
version of 9VAC5, Chapter 91. However, Virginia has indicated in its
SIP revision submittal that the regulations being removed from Chapter
91 do exist in the State-enforceable 9VAC5 Chapter 170 entitled
Regulation for General Administration.

II. EPA Evaluation

    EPA has determined that these administrative regulations need not
be included in the Virginia SIP, as they describe internal State
administrative procedures, and have no specific relationship to any
pollutant control strategy under the CAA. While the CAA does require
public hearings to be held on prospective SIP revisions, such
requirements are found in 40 CFR 51.102. Similarly, in cases where
Virginia grants variances of significant duration, the DEQ must submit
such variances to EPA as separate SIP revisions.

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals from the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) That are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec.  10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.'' Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides
that ``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the removal of Regulations 5-91-40, 5-91-60, 5-91-
80, and 5-91-110 from the Virginia SIP, as requested by the Virginia
DEQ on April 19, 2012. EPA is publishing this rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment
and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if
adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on September
25, 2012 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by
August 27, 2012. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must 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.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 September 25, 2012. 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 to remove four internal administrative requirements
from the regulation for the control of motor vehicle emissions in the
Northern Virginia Area 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.

    Dated: July 10, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Sec.  52.2420  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing
the entries for Sections ``5-91-40'', ``5-91-60'', ``5-91-80'', and
``5-91-110'' from the table.

[FR Doc. 2012-18104 Filed 7-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P