[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21663-21670]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8561]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0255; FRL-9657-4]

Air Quality Implementation Plans; Kentucky; Attainment Plan for
the Kentucky Portion of the Huntington-Ashland 1997 Annual
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the
Kentucky state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth
of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet,
Division for Air Quality (DAQ), to EPA on December 3, 2008, for the
purpose of providing for attainment of the 1997 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in
the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland, West Virginia-Kentucky-
Ohio PM2.5 nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the
``Huntington-Ashland Area'' or ``Area''). The Huntington-Ashland Area
is comprised of Boyd County and a portion of Lawrence County in
Kentucky; Cabell and Wayne Counties and a portion of Mason County in
West Virginia; and Lawrence and Scioto Counties and portions of Adams
and Gallia Counties in Ohio. The Kentucky plan at issue in this action
(hereafter referred to as the ``PM2.5 attainment plan'')
pertains only to the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area.
As proposed on January 30, 2012, EPA is approving Kentucky's
PM2.5 attainment plan, which includes an attainment
demonstration; reasonably available control technology (RACT) and
reasonably available control measures (RACM); reasonable further

progress (RFP); base-year and attainment-year emissions inventories;
contingency measures; and, for transportation conformity purposes, an
insignificance determination for direct PM2.5 and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) for the mobile source contribution to ambient
PM2.5 levels for the Commonwealth's portion of the
Huntington-Ashland Area. This action is being taken in accordance with
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the ``Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule,'' hereafter referred to as the ``PM2.5
Implementation Rule,'' published on April 25, 2007. EPA is also
responding to adverse comments received on the proposed approval of
Kentucky's PM2.5 attainment plan.

DATES: This rule will be effective May 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0255. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for EPA's action?
III. What is EPA's response to comments?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving a SIP revision, submitted through the DAQ to EPA
on December 3, 2008, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Kentucky portion of the
Huntington-Ashland Area. Specifically, EPA is approving Kentucky's
PM2.5 attainment plan, which includes an attainment
demonstration; an analysis of RACM/RACT; a RFP plan; base-year and
attainment-year emissions inventories; contingency measures; and an
insignificance determination for mobile direct PM2.5 and
NOX emissions for transportation conformity purposes for
Kentucky's portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area.
    EPA has determined that Kentucky's PM2.5 attainment plan
for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for its portion of the
Huntington-Ashland Area meets applicable requirements of the CAA and
the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. More detail on EPA's
rationale for this approval can be found in EPA's January 30, 2012,
proposed rulemaking for this action (see 75 FR 4510). Section III of
this rulemaking responds to the adverse comments received on EPA's
January 30, 2012, proposal.

II. What is the background for EPA's action?

    On April 25, 2007, EPA published the PM2.5
Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (72 FR 20586).
This rule describes the CAA framework and requirements for developing
SIPs to achieve attainment in areas designated nonattainment for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Such attainment plans must include a
demonstration that a nonattainment area will meet the applicable NAAQS
within the timeframe provided in the statute. For the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, an attainment demonstration must show that a
nonattainment area will attain the standards as expeditiously as
practicable, but within five years of designation (i.e., by an
attainment date of no later than April 5, 2010, based on air quality
data for 2007 through 2009). As mentioned above, Kentucky provided the
Commonwealth's SIP revision with the attainment plan (the subject of
this rulemaking) for the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland
Area on December 3, 2008.
    On September 7, 2011, EPA published a final rulemaking with a
determination that the Huntington-Ashland Area has attained the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 55542. That determination was
based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured,
quality controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data showing
that the Area has met the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also
determined, in the September 7, 2011, rulemaking, and in accordance
with CAA 179(c), that the Huntington-Ashland Area had attained the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010.
    As discussed in the September 7, 2011, rulemaking, EPA's
determination of attainment \1\ suspended the obligation for the State
to meet planning SIP requirements for the Area for so long as the Area
continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR
51.1004(c). The state must still submit required emissions inventories
consistent with appropriate timelines. The suspended planning SIP
submission obligations include the attainment demonstration (including
in this case the mobile source insignificance determination submitted
to satisfy transportation conformity requirements), associated RACM/
RACT, RFP and the associated contingency measures. Despite the
suspension of the aforementioned requirements for the Huntington-
Ashland Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, Kentucky has
requested that EPA take action on its planning SIP for this Area in
part because the SIP submittal includes the insignificance
determination. Further, in September 2011, EPA agreed in a Consent
Decree to take action on these submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The determination of attainment is not a redesignation of
the Area from nonattainment to attainment and is not an indication
that the Area will continue to maintain the standard for which the
determination is made. It is merely a determination that the Area
attained the standard for a particular three year period and also by
the deadline. Please see EPA's September 7, 2011, rulemaking for
more detail on the effects of a determination of attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that on December 22, 2011, EPA published a proposal to
approve the State of Ohio's request to redesignate to attainment the
Ohio portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area. 76 FR 79593. EPA has also
received requests from Kentucky and the State of West Virginia to
redesignate their respective portions of the Huntington-Ashland Area
but has not yet proposed action on those submissions.
    Monitoring data thus far available, but not yet certified, in the
Air Quality System (AQS) database for 2011 show that this Area
continues to meet the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
As shown in the table below, ambient PM2.5 levels in the
Huntington-Ashland Area have declined steadily since

Kentucky submitted its PM2.5 attainment plan in 2008.

                                        Annual Average Design Value Concentrations in the Huntington-Ashland Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Design values (average of three consecutive annual
                                                                                average concentrations) ([mu]g/m\3\)
                   Site name                                   County                   Site No.     ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2008         2009         2010        2011 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington.....................................  Cabell, WV.......................       54-011-0006         15.2         14.3         13.1         12.1
Ashland Primary (FIVCO)........................  Boyd, KY.........................       21-019-0017         13.4         12.4         11.4         10.9
Ironton DOT....................................  Lawrence, OH.....................       39-087-0012         13.4         12.2         12.2         11.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Monitoring data for 2011 are available but not yet certified in the AQS database.

    EPA understands that the Commonwealth chose not to withdraw the
attainment plan SIP revision for the Huntington-Ashland Area because it
includes a mobile insignificance determination for direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions from mobile sources.
Therefore, as mentioned above, although the SIP planning requirements
for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS have been suspended for the
Huntington-Ashland Area, EPA is acting on Kentucky's attainment plan
because of the Consent Decree obligation to do so and because it
remains a submittal to EPA.
    On January 30, 2012, EPA proposed to approve Kentucky's
PM2.5 attainment plan, which includes an attainment
demonstration; RACT and RACM; RFP; base-year and attainment-year
emissions inventories; contingency measures; and, for transportation
conformity purposes, an insignificance determination for direct
PM2.5 and NOX for the mobile source contribution
to ambient PM2.5 levels for the Commonwealth's portion of
the Huntington-Ashland Area. As mentioned above, more detail on EPA's
rationale for this approval can be found in EPA's January 30, 2012,
proposed rulemaking for this action. See 77 FR 4510. Section III of
this rulemaking responds to the adverse comments received on EPA's
January 30, 2012, proposal.

III. What is EPA's response to comments?

    On February 29, 2012, EPA received comments on EPA's January 30,
2012, proposal submitted by Robert Ukeiley on behalf of Sierra Club. In
summary, the Commenter states EPA cannot approve the Kentucky December
3, 2008, SIP revision because it: (1) Relies on inaccurate and
inadequate emission reductions in its attainment demonstration modeling
and emissions inventory, in part because of the status of the
NOX SIP Call, CAIR and the industrial boiler/heater MACT (40
CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD); (2) relies on temporary and unenforceable
emission reductions from the Big Sandy Power Plant; (3) has not been
evaluated for reasonably available control measures for the
nonattainment area; and (4) includes on-road mobile source emission
calculations which fail to consider 15 percent ethanol in gasoline. The
complete set of comments is provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
A summary of the specific comments and EPA's responses to them are
provided below.

Emission Reductions

    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that it is problematic to
``credit'' emission reductions associated with the NOX SIP
Call because that is a cap-and-trade program. The Commenter cites to
NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1257 (DC Cir. 2009) for support of the
proposition that, because EPA cannot predict which sources will reduce
emissions, EPA cannot rely on the NOX SIP Call for future
reductions. The Commenter makes a similar contention regarding the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
    The Commenter states that any source could decide at any time in
the future to purchase emissions credits and increase its emissions and
impacts to the Huntington-Ashland Area. The Commenter adds that
emissions banking can also lead to violations of the NAAQS and prevents
CAIR emission budgets from being permanent and enforceable emission
limits. The Commenter concludes by explaining his opinion that,
although DAQ modeled hypothetical effects of CAIR well beyond 2011 in
its 2018 projected inventory, it is not even clear that EPA is fully
enforcing CAIR at this point.
    Response 1: EPA notes that the Huntington-Ashland Area attained the
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010, and that the emission control measures that led to that
attainment were in place at least through that date. For this
PM2.5 attainment plan the modeled attainment year is 2009.
The year 2018 was modeled by the Visibility Improvement State and
Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) for the purposes of
Kentucky's Regional Haze SIP.
    EPA disagrees with the Commenter's position that emission
reductions occurring within the relevant nonattainment area cannot be
relied upon for the purpose of attainment demonstrations if they are
associated with the emissions trading programs established in the
NOX SIP Call and CAIR. The case cited by the Commenter NRDC
v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009), does not support the
Commenter's position and is entirely consistent with EPA's position
here. That case addressed EPA's determination that the nonattainment
RACT requirement was satisfied by the NOX SIP Call trading
program. The court emphasized that reductions outside the nonattainment
area do not satisfy the RACT requirement and thus held that because EPA
had not shown the trading program would result in sufficient reductions
in a nonattainment area, its determination that the program satisfied
RACT was not supported.\2\ Id. at 1256-58. The court did not hold, as
the Commenter suggests, that emissions trading programs must be ignored
when evaluating nonattainment area requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The court specifically elected not to vacate the RACT
provision and left open the possibility that EPA may be able to
reinstate the provision for particular nonattainment areas if, upon
conducting a technical analysis, it finds the NOX SIP
Call results in greater emissions reductions in a nonattainment area
than would be achieved if RACT-level controls were installed in that
area. Id. at 1258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is simply no support for the Commenter's argument that
attainment modeling demonstrations must ignore all emission reductions
achieved by the NOX SIP Call and CAIR simply because the
mechanism used to achieve the reductions is an emissions trading
program. As a general matter, these programs cap and permanently reduce
the total emissions allowed by sources subject to the programs. Any
purchase of allowances and increase in emissions

by one source covered by the program necessitates a corresponding sale
of allowances and reduction in emissions by another covered source.
Given the regional nature of particulate matter, the corresponding
emission reduction will have an air quality benefit that will
compensate, at least in part, for the impact of any emission increase.
Where an area can show that it will attain the standard with the
reductions from enforceable trading programs, as done here,\3\ the area
may take credit for the reductions from that program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although CAIR was remanded to EPA in 2008, it remained in
force and enforceable through the April 5, 2010, attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenter's contention that EPA cannot rely on trading programs
that allow banking is also not on point. The comment is not relevant in
this context where the trading programs in question were in place
through the attainment deadline and the Area did attain by that
deadline. The fact that the Huntington-Ashland Area attained the
PM2.5 standard by the April 2010 attainment date with these
trading programs in place belies the argument that banking of
allowances might cause the Area to fail to attain by its attainment
date. Moreover, there is no support for the Commenter's contention,
based on the flawed premise that allowance banking somehow renders
those programs' emission reduction requirements impermanent or
unenforceable, that EPA must ignore reductions associated with any
trading program that allows banking. In general, banking provides
economic incentives for early reductions in emissions and encourages
sources to install controls earlier than required for compliance with
future caps on emissions. The fact that reductions may occur more
quickly than required (freeing up allowances that may then be banked)
does not, in any way, undermine the permanence or enforceability of the
requirements in the underlying rule.
    In sum, contrary to petitioner's contention, the decision of D.C.
Circuit in NRDC v. EPA does not establish that emission reductions from
cap and trade programs, or emission reductions from cap and trade
programs that allow banking, may not be relied upon for attainment
modeling demonstrations. As discussed in EPA's proposal notice, DAQ
utilized appropriate emissions inventory and modeling guidance to make
this demonstration, which is consistent with the Area's current status
as attaining the standard. For these reasons, EPA disagrees that the
Commenter has identified a basis on which EPA should disapprove
Kentucky's attainment plan.
    With regard to CAIR, EPA published this rule on May 12, 2005, to
address the interstate transport requirements of the CAA. See 76 FR
70093. As originally promulgated, CAIR requires significant reductions
in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX to
limit the interstate transport of these pollutants. In 2008, however,
the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA. North Carolina v. EPA, 550
F.3d 1176. The Court found CAIR to be inconsistent with the
requirements of the CAA, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir.
2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur because
it found that ``allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced
by a rule consistent with [the court's] opinion would at least
temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.'' North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. CAIR thus remained in place
following the remand and was in place and enforceable through the April
5, 2010, attainment date.
    In response to the court's decision, EPA has issued a new rule to
address interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in
the eastern United States (i.e., the Transport Rule, also known as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). See 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. In
the Transport Rule, EPA finalized regulatory changes to sunset (i.e.,
discontinue) CAIR and the CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 and
beyond. See 76 FR 48322.
    On December 30, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing
the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed
by numerous parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule pending
judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the Transport
Rule pending the court's resolution of the petitions for review of that
rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated
cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to
administer CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions
for review of the Transport Rule.
    EPA does not believe that the circumstances set forth above make it
inappropriate, in any way, to finalize its proposed approval of the
Huntington-Ashland attainment plan. While the data that shows the Area
attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 2010
attainment deadline is impacted by CAIR, which is in place only
temporarily, EPA's analysis for the Transport Rule demonstrates that
the Area would be able to attain the NAAQS even in the absence of CAIR.
See Appendix B to the Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Moreover, although the
court has stayed the implementation of the Transport Rule at this time,
EPA believes that the rule has a strong legal basis. To the extent that
the current status of CAIR and the Transport Rule affect any of the
criteria for approval of this SIP revision, EPA believes that the
ongoing implementation and enforcement of CAIR during the period of the
stay, coupled with the promulgation of the Transport Rule, provide
adequate assurance of these components. EPA again notes that this
action approves an attainment demonstration that the Area will attain
in 2010, which the Area did. As of 2010, CAIR was an enforceable
control measure applicable to the Area. Any issues of the effect of the
ongoing litigation surrounding the Transport Rule which will replace
CAIR will need to be addressed by the Area in any plan demonstrating
maintenance of the PM2.5 standard into the future, which is
not at issue in this attainment demonstration.
    Comment 2: The Commenter contends that EPA cannot approve the
Kentucky submittal because DAQ included, among its controls, a
hazardous air pollutant rule found at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD,
that was vacated in June 2007. More specifically, the Commenter
suggests that EPA cannot rely on a claim that emission reductions
attributed to a vacated rule will be an ``insignificant fraction'' of
total emissions.
    Response 2: As noted by the Commenter, nonattainment plans must
include ``a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants * *
* '' See, e.g., CAA section 172(c)(3). As a point of clarification,
this is the inventory EPA is approving for the purposes of CAA section
172(c)(3). Kentucky selected 2002 as the base year for the emissions
inventory in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1008(b). The 2002 emissions
inventory was based on data developed by VISTAS contractors and
submitted by the states to the 2002 National Emissions Inventory.
Several iterations of the 2002 inventories were developed for the
different emission source categories resulting from revisions and
updates to the data. This resulted in the use of version G2 of the
updated 2002 emissions inventory, which does not include the boiler
MACT reductions.
    EPA also notes that DAQ not only acknowledges that the final 2009
inventory and modeling demonstration include emissions reductions

attributable to the vacated rule, but also provides a reasonable
demonstration for why such inclusion does not impact the results of the
modeling. Following detailed analysis and presentation of calculations,
DAQ summarizes that the emissions sensitivity results for the Boyd
County, Kentucky, monitor indicate that the SO2 and primary
PM2.5 emissions assumed under the vacated boiler MACT would
result in a total increase in the ambient PM2.5
concentration of 0.0009 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). DAQ
reasonably concluded that this level of impact would not change the
conclusion that the Huntington-Ashland Area would attain the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010. As EPA indicated earlier in this rulemaking, EPA
determined that the Huntington-Ashland Area attained the standard by
April 5, 2010. For these reasons, EPA disagrees that the Commenter has
identified a basis on which EPA should disapprove Kentucky's attainment
plan.

Big Sandy Power Plant

    Comment 3a: The Commenter asserts that the Big Sandy Power Plant in
Lawrence County, Kentucky, is the largest single source of
PM2.5 precursor emissions in the Huntington-Ashland Area and
raises several issues associated with Kentucky's treatment of the
plant's emissions. First, the Commenter contends that DAQ's attainment
year modeling relies on artificially low emissions from the Big Sandy
Power Plant because, the Commenter alleges, Kentucky modeled attainment
during 2008, which the Commenter states was the ``largest economic
recession in recent times.'' To support its contention, the Commenter
identifies heat input data and SO2 and NOX
emissions data for Big Sandy's Unit 1 and Unit 2 for the years 2007
through 2010. The Commenter concludes by saying that EPA must require
Kentucky's SIP to include enforceable limits for both Big Sandy units,
restricting emissions to the lowest levels achieved during the
attainment modeling years, 2007-2011.
    Response 3a: As an initial point of clarification, Kentucky modeled
attainment during 2009, not 2008 as stated by the Commenter. See
Chapter 6 of the attainment demonstration narrative. Additionally, as
shown in EPA's January 30, 2012, proposal notice, all 2009 predicted
(modeled) annual PM2.5 design values for the monitors of the
Huntington-Ashland Area were higher than the values actually measured
at those sites in 2009. Further, the emissions assumed for the Big
Sandy Power Plant were projections based upon DAQ's knowledge of the
facility's future plans when the modeling was performed, not actual
emissions that occurred in 2008. Based on actual ambient data, EPA has
already determined that the Area attained the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 standard by its April 5, 2010, attainment date. The
2008 economic downturn was irrelevant to, and in fact occurred after,
the modeling results were produced. Finally, EPA finds that the
modeling conducted for the 2009 attainment year used the VISTAS Best &
Final emissions inventory. See PM2.5 attainment plan
submittal, Appendix F (``DRAFT Documentation of the Base G2 and Best &
Final 2002 Base Year, 2009 and 2018 Emission Inventories for VISTAS''),
page 3. This inventory shows Big Sandy Unit 1 having neither selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) nor a scrubber in 2009, and Unit 2 having SCR
since 2003 but no scrubber in 2009. See PM2.5 attainment
plan submittal, Appendix I (``EGU CONTROLS FOR COAL AND OIL/GAS UNITS
FOR THE BEST & FINAL INVENTORY'') of Appendix F, page 260. This is
consistent with what is shown for these units on EPA's Clean Air Market
Division's Web site. For these reasons, EPA has determined that the
Commenter has not provided a basis on which to disapprove the revision
with respect to the above-described modeling issues.
    With regard to the Commenter's statements about emission limits,
the Big Sandy facility has numerous emission limitations for relevant
pollutants. In addition, the facility was included in the October 2007
federal Consent Decree resolving an enforcement matter between EPA and
American Electric Power Company which operates the Big Sandy facility.
See http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/americanelectricpower1007.html (last visited 3/15/12) for additional
information. The facility is also subject to a number of other CAA
programs including but not limited to the regional haze program. As
part of Kentucky's regional haze SIP, on which EPA recently took final
action, the facility will be installing ammonia injection controls on
Unit 1 and flue gas desulfurization on Unit 2.\4\ Through these and
other requirements, the facility is subject to enforceable emission
limits. For these reasons, EPA disagrees that the Commenter has
identified a basis on which EPA should disapprove Kentucky's attainment
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Final action was signed by the Region 4 Administrator on
March 13, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3b: The Commenter states that DAQ's attainment
demonstration modeling lists emission controls at the Big Sandy Power
Plant inaccurately. The Commenter contends that DAQ made adjustments to
its Integrated Planning Model (IPM) results for the 2009 and 2018
electric generating unit (EGU) inventories to account for various
control measures and that this renders DAQ's modeling flawed for the
attainment year of 2009. The Commenter concludes that EPA should
require DAQ to include in the Kentucky SIP an enforceable schedule for
installation of a SCR and scrubber at Big Sandy.
    Response 3b: As noted in the response above, the modeling presented
by Kentucky used the correct assumptions about emission controls at Big
Sandy in 2009. The 2002 emissions inventory was based on data that was
developed by the VISTAS contractors and submitted by the states to the
2002 National Emissions Inventory. As required by section 172(c)(3),
and as discussed in the modeling documentation submitted by Kentucky,
the 2002 base year inventory is an inventory of actual emissions in the
Area. For the projected 2009 attainment year inventory, VISTAS relied
primarily on the IPM to project future power generation and to
calculate the impact of future emission control programs as of October
1, 2007. The State and local agencies were then asked to identify any
updates needed to better reflect current information on when and where
future controls would occur based on the best available data from state
rules, enforcement agreements, compliance plans, permits and other
sources. See PM2.5 attainment plan submittal, Appendix F
(``DRAFT Documentation of the Base G2 and Best & Final 2002 Base Year,
2009 and 2018 Emission Inventories for VISTAS''). Kentucky indicated
that Big Sandy Unit 1 was not expected to have a scrubber or SCR
control operational in 2009 (IPM had projected these controls would be
in use by Big Sandy Unit 1 in 2009). In February 2008, VISTAS used this
updated information in completing the Best & Final inventory, which was
used in the modeling relied upon by Kentucky.
    Further, as explained earlier, the facility is subject to several
CAA programs involving the installation of controls and/or specific
emission limits for relevant pollutants. The Area has demonstrated
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS already and, considering
future controls and limits, EPA disagrees that the Commenter has
identified a basis on which EPA should disapprove Kentucky's attainment
plan.

Reasonably Available Control Measures

    Comment 4a: The Commenter raises several issues regarding the
Huntington-Ashland Area's RACM/RACT analysis. First, the Commenter
states that DAQ did not conduct a RACM/RACT analysis for this Area, but
rather, another nearby area, the bi-state Louisville Area (Kentucky and
Indiana).
    Response 4a: Kentucky's December 3, 2008, SIP revision included
attainment plans for all three of Kentucky's nonattainment areas for
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS: Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana;
Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana; and Huntington-Ashland,
West Virginia-Kentucky-Ohio. Although DAQ summarizes, in chapter 7 of
the December 3, 2008 SIP revision, a detailed air quality analysis
contracted for the Louisville Area, the overall RACM and RACT
discussion is intended for all three of the identified PM2.5
nonattainment areas.
    EPA interprets RACT for PM2.5 as linked to attainment
needs of an area. If an area is attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS,
EPA deems the RACT requirement to be satisfied. Therefore, under EPA's
interpretation of the RACT requirement, as it applies to
PM2.5, Kentucky has satisfied the requirement.
    In accordance with 40 CFR section 51.1004(c), EPA's September 7,
2011, determination that the Huntington-Ashland Area has attained the
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS suspended the requirement for the
Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM,
including RACT, related to the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
has noted that certain language in the preamble of the PM2.5
Implementation Rule contradicts the regulatory text in 40 CFR
51.1004(c). On May 22, 2008, EPA issued a memorandum ``to eliminate any
confusion that could result from this erroneous statement.'' Memorandum
from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division to
Regional Air Division Directors, ``PM2.5 Clean Data Policy
Clarification.'' This memorandum states:
    ``Section 51.1004(c) provides that: `Upon a determination by EPA
that an area designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS
has attained the standard, the requirements for such area to submit
attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control
measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
shall be suspended. * * *'
    ``Section 51.1010 provides in part: `For each PM2.5
nonattainment area, the State shall submit with the attainment
demonstration a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopted all
reasonably available control measures (including RACT for stationary
sources) necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as
practicable and to meet any RFP requirements.'
    ``Thus the regulatory text defines RACT as included in RACM, and
provides that it is only required insofar as it is necessary to advance
attainment. See also section 51.1010(b). As a result, when an area is
attaining the standard, the suspension of the RACM requirement pursuant
to 51.1004(c) necessarily includes the suspension of the RACT
requirement.''
    EPA has already determined that the Huntington-Ashland Area
attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its April 2010
attainment date based on controls that were in force at least through
that date. In addition, as explained above, modeling done for the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule demonstrates that the Area would attain
in the absence of CAIR. For these reasons, EPA disagrees that the
Commenter has identified a basis on which EPA should disapprove
Kentucky's attainment plan.
    Comment 4b: The Commenter appears to disagree with EPA's
interpretation of 40 CFR 51.1010 and contends that measures must be
adopted which are necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously
as practicable.
    Response 4b: Section 51.1010(b) of the PM2.5
Implementation Rule provides that ``[p]otential measures that are
reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility
must be adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, they would advance
the attainment date by one year or more.'' In order to advance the
attainment date by at least one year, the state would first have to
know their projected attainment date. As stated in EPA's January 30,
2012, proposed rulemaking, Kentucky participated in a modeling project
of the Association for Southeastern Integrated Planning and VISTAS.
Modeling projections were provided in January 2008. While showing the
Area would attain by no later than five years from designation (i.e.,
by no later than April 5, 2010), there was not time for the State to
develop measures that could possibly advance the attainment date by one
year. This would have been particularly true for any new control
requirements, which would have required a legislative rulemaking
process that can take a year or more. Further, as stated above, because
the Huntington-Ashland Area is now attaining the PM2.5
standard, Kentucky has satisfied the RACT requirement without need for
further measures. See Memorandum from William T. Harnett cited above.
In addition, as explained earlier, Kentucky did provide a RACM/RACT
analysis that applied for the Huntington-Ashland Area. For these
reasons, EPA disagrees that the Commenter has identified a basis on
which EPA should disapprove Kentucky's attainment plan.
    Comment 4c: The Commenter opines that EPA will not be able to
redesignate the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area until it conducts
a RACM/RACT analysis, citing Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 442 (6th Cir.
2001).
    Response 4c: This action does not propose to redesignate the
Huntington-Ashland Area to attainment. However, EPA disagrees with the
Commenter's assertion that EPA will not be able to redesignate the
Huntington-Ashland Area until a RACM/RACT analysis is conducted. The
September 7, 2011, determination that the Huntington-Ashland Area
attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS suspends the obligation
to meet attainment planning requirements, including the RACM/RACT
requirements so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). EPA disagrees with the
Commenter's invocation, in the context of this rulemaking, of the
ruling in Wall v. EPA. The Wall court addressed only the issue of
adoption of RACT for ozone nonattainment areas under Part D subpart 2
of the Clean Air Act. Thus that case addressed a distinct set of
statutory provisions for a different RACT requirement applicable only
to ozone nonattainment areas. The Wall RACT ruling is therefore not
applicable or pertinent to the PM2.5 RACT provision here.
For these reasons, EPA disagrees that the Commenter has identified a
basis on which EPA should disapprove Kentucky's attainment plan.

On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Calculations

    Comment 5: The Commenter states that EPA recently decided to allow
up to 15 percent ethanol content in gasoline (E15), 76 FR 4662 (Jan.
26, 2011), which the Commenter believes will lead to an increase in
NOX and VOC emissions from many cars and light duty trucks,
particularly those with pollution control devices not designed to deal
with E15. The Commenter then contends that there is no indication that
DAQ or EPA accounted for the increase in NOX and VOC
emissions that will result from use of E15.
    Response 5: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's suggestion that the

Ethanol 15 (E15) rulemaking cited to by the Commenter will result in a
significant increase in NOX and VOC emissions in the
Huntington-Ashland Area. As a general point of background, E15 is not
mandated by EPA. Rather, EPA granted a partial waiver for vehicles
model years 2001 and newer, light duty vehicles (76 FR 4662) to be able
to use E15. To receive a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4), a fuel or
fuel additive manufacturer must demonstrate that a new fuel or fuel
additive will not cause or contribute to the failure of engines or
vehicles to achieve compliance with the emission standards to which
they have been certified over their useful life. Data used to act upon
the approval of the E15 partial waiver showed that model year 2001 and
newer vehicles would still meet their certified engine standards for
emissions for both short and long term use, and use of E15 would not
significantly increase the emission from these engines. EPA's partial
waiver for E15 is based on extensive studies done by the Department of
Energy, as well as the Agency's engineering assessment to determine the
effects of exhaust and evaporative emissions for the fleet prior to the
partial waiver. The criteria for granting the waiver was not that there
are no emission impacts of E15, but rather that vehicles operating on
it would not be expected to violate their emission standards in-use.
    As discussed in the waiver decision, there are expected to be some
small emission impacts. E15 is expected to cause a small immediate
emission increase in NOX emissions. However, due to its
lower volatility than the E10 currently in-use, its use is also
expected to result in lower evaporative VOC emissions. Any other
emissions impacts related to E15 would be a result of misfueling of E15
in model year 2000 and older vehicles, and recreational or small
engines. EPA has approved regulations dealing specifically with the
mitigation of misfueling and reducing the potential increase in
emissions from misfueling. 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).
    The partial waivers that EPA has granted to E15 do not require that
E15 be made or sold. The waivers merely allow fuel or fuel additive
manufacturers to introduce E15 into commerce if they meet the waivers'
conditions. Other federal, state and local requirements must also be
addressed before E15 may be sold. The granting of the partial waivers
is only one of several requirements for registration and distribution
of E15.
    E15 may never be used in Kentucky. But even if it is, there is no
indication that any potential emission impacts would significantly
alter DAQ's calculation of on-road mobile source emissions because of
the small and opposite direction of emission impacts, the limited
vehicle fleet which can use it, and the measures required to avoid
mitigating misfueling. For these reasons, EPA disagrees that the
Commenter has identified a basis on which EPA should disapprove
Kentucky's attainment plan.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving a revision to the Kentucky SIP submitted to EPA by
DAQ on December 3, 2008, for the purpose of demonstrating how the
Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area will achieve attainment
of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by no later than April 5,
2010. EPA previously determined on September 7, 2011, that the
Huntington-Ashland Area attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
by its April 2010 attainment date. See 76 FR 55542, September 7, 2011.
EPA has also determined that the Area has since continued to attain
that NAAQS. Kentucky's December 3, 2008, SIP revision includes an
attainment demonstration; RACT and RACM analyses; RFP; base-year and
attainment-year emissions inventories; contingency measures; and, for
transportation conformity purposes, an insignificance determination for
direct PM2.5 and NOX for the mobile source
contribution to ambient PM2.5 levels for the Commonwealth's
portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area. After review and consideration
of the relevant information and data, including the comments received,
EPA has determined that Kentucky's December 3, 2008, SIP revision is
consistent with the CAA and EPA's PM2.5 Implementation Rule,
and as such EPA is approving this SIP revision.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, 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
Commonwealth, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 11, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 52.920(e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the
table for ``Huntington-Ashland 1997 PM2.5 Attainment Plan''
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Kentucky Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable       State submittal
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        geographic or       date/effective    EPA approval date      Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Huntington-Ashland 1997 PM2.5     Boyd County;                12/03/2008  4/11/2012 [Insert   For the 1997 PM2.5
 Attainment Plan.                  Portion of                              citation of         NAAQS.
                                   Lawrence County.                        publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-8561 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39888-39890]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17246]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0098; A-1-FRL-9981-55--Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions, Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, and Sulfur
Content of Fuels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode
Island. This revision updates Rhode Island Air Pollution Control
Regulations (APCRs) for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions,
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions, sulfur content in fuel
requirements and associated general definitions. The intended effect of
this action is to approve the revised regulations. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective September 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0098. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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 at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On June 15, 2018 (83 FR 25981), EPA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Rhode Island. In the NPRM, EPA
proposed approval of SIP revisions submitted by the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) on February 10, 2017.
This SIP submittal included six revised Air Pollution Control
Regulations (APCRs): No. 8, ``Sulfur Content of Fuels;'' No. 19,
``Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Surface Coating
Operations;'' No. 27, ``Control of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions;'' No. 35,
``Control of Volatile Organic Compounds and Volatile Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Wood Products Manufacturing Operations;'' No. 36,
``Control of Emissions from Organic Solvent Cleaning;'' and General
Definitions.
    The NPRM provides the rationale for EPA's proposed approval, which
will not be restated here.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received two anonymous comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. The comments address subjects outside the scope of
the proposed action, did not explain (or provide a legal basis for) how
the proposed action should differ in any way, and made no specific
mention of the proposed action. Therefore, the comments are not germane
and EPA provides no further response.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the February 10, 2017 RI DEM SIP submittal
consisting of the six revised APCRs: No. 8, ``Sulfur Content of Fuels''
(with the exception of sections 8.7 and 8.8.3); No. 19, ``Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds from Surface Coating Operations'' (with the
exception of sections 19.2.2 and 19.9.2); No. 27, ``Control of Nitrogen
Oxides Emissions'' (with the exception of section 27.7.3); No. 35,
``Control of Volatile Organic Compounds and Volatile Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Wood Products Manufacturing Operations'' (with the
exception of sections 35.2.3 and 35.9.3); No. 36, ``Control of
Emissions from Organic Solvent Cleaning'' (with the exception of
sections 36.2.2 and 36.14.2); and

General Definitions (with the exception of the provision entitled
``Application'' under the ``General Provisions'').

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Rhode
Island regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and
at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 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 that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 12, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 6, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart OO--Rhode Island

0
2. In Sec.  52.2070(c), the table is amended by revising the entries
for ``Air Pollution Control General Definitions Regulation'', ``Air
Pollution Control Regulation 8'', ``Air Pollution Control Regulation
19'', ``Air Pollution Control Regulation 27'', ``Air Pollution Control
Regulation 35'', and ``Air Pollution Control Regulation 36'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2070   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA approved regulations.

                                      EPA-Approved Rhode Island Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation              Title/subject        effective     EPA approval date       Explanations
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Pollution Control General      General Definitions        1/9/2017  8/13/2018, [Insert   Excluding
 Definitions Regulation.                                                 Federal Register     ``Application''
                                                                         citation].           section of the
                                                                                ``General
                                                                                Provisions'' which
                                                                                was not submitted
                                                                                by the State

                                                  * * * * * * *
Air Pollution Control Regulation   Sulfur Content of          1/9/2017  8/13/2018, [Insert   Excluding sections
 8.                                 Fuels.                               Federal Register     8.7 and 8.8.3
                                                                         citation].           which were not
                                                                                submitted by the
                                                                                State.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Air Pollution Control Regulation   Control of Volatile        1/9/2017  8/13/2018, [Insert   Excluding sections
 19.                                Organic Compounds                    Federal Register     19.2.2 and 19.9.2,
                                    from Surface                         citation].           which were not
                                    Coating Operations.                                       submitted by the
                                                                                State.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Air Pollution Control Regulation   Control of Nitrogen        1/9/2017  8/13/2018, [Insert   Excluding section
 27.                                Oxides Emissions.                    Federal Register     27.7.3 which was
                                                                         citation].           not submitted by
                                                                                the State.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Air Pollution Control Regulation   Control of Volatile        1/9/2017  8/13/2018, [Insert   Excluding sections
 35.                                Organic Compounds                    Federal Register     35.2.3 and 35.9.3
                                    and Volatile                         citation].           which were not
                                    Hazardous Air                                             submitted by the
                                    Pollutants from                                           State.
                                    Wood Products
                                    Manufacturing
                                    Operations.
Air Pollution Control Regulation   Control of                 1/9/2017  8/13/2018, [Insert   Excluding sections
 36.                                Emissions from                       Federal Register     36.2.2 and 36.14.2
                                    Organic Solvent                      citation].           which were not
                                    Cleaning.                                                 submitted by the
                                                                                State.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-17246 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7540-7541]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02857]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0525; FRL-9921-32-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York
Nonattainment Areas to Attainment for the 1997 Annual and the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors in the rule language of a final
rule pertaining to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's requests to
redesignate to attainment the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle and York
nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and
the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS nonattainment area, which was published in the Federal Register
on Tuesday, December 8, 2014 (79 FR 72552).

DATES: This document is effective on February 11, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 8, 2014, (79 FR 72552), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rulemaking
action announcing the approval of Pennsylvania's requests to
redesignate to attainment the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle and York
nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment area.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final redesignation contains errors. EPA
inadvertently added the word ``Moderate'' in the tables for the 1997
annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The intent of the
final rule was to redesignate the Areas to attainment. Moderate is a
classification for nonattainment areas. This action corrects the tables
of 40 CFR part 81 for Pennsylvania's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution, National Parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: January 28, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 81 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  81.339:
0
a. The 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS table is amended by revising
the entries for the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA and York, PA Areas.
0
b. The 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS table is amended by revising
the entry for the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, PA Area.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  81.339  Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

                                      Pennsylvania--1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Designation \a\                          Classification
        Designated area         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \1\              Type               Date \2\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle,
 PA:
    Cumberland County..........     12/08/14  Attainment................
    Dauphin County.............     12/08/14  Attainment................
    Lebanon County.............     12/08/14  Attainment................

                                                  * * * * * * *
York, PA:
    York County................     12/08/14  Attainment................

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

                                     Pennsylvania--2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Designation \a\                          Classification
        Designated area         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \1\              Type               Date \2\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-
 York, PA:
    Cumberland County..........     12/08/14  Attainment................
    Dauphin County.............     12/08/14  Attainment................
    Lebanon County.............     12/08/14  Attainment................
    York County................     12/08/14  Attainment................

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-02857 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P