[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42172-42173]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15050]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2296-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 944--Agreement to Provide
Services with Beartooth Electric Co-op to be effective 7/8/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/7/22.
    Accession Number: 20220707-5181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2297-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1276R27 Evergy Metro NITSA
NOA to be effective 9/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2298-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 6081; Queue No. AF2-426 to be effective 5/4/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2299-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2022-
07-08_SA 3028 Ameren IL-Prairie Power Project #17A Ishi 1st Rev to be
effective 7/9/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2302-000.
    Applicants: NedPower Mount Storm LLC, Pinnacle Wind, LLC, Black
Rock Wind Force, LLC.
    Description: Black Rock Wind Force, LLC, Nedpower Mount Storm LLC
and Pinnacle Wind, LLC Submit Waiver Request of Tariff Provisions with
Expedited Consideration.
    Filed Date: 7/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220705-5208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2303-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 881 Compliance Filing to
be effective 7/12/2025.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2304-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: NPC Transmission Line Ratings to be
effective 7/12/2025.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2305-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order 881 Compliance Filing to be
effective 7/12/2025.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2306-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Colorado Electric, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 881 Compliance Filing to
be effective 7/12/2025.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2307-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 881 Compliance Filing to
be effective 7/12/2025.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2308-000.
    Applicants: Physical Systems Integration, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market Based Rate Tariff of
Physical Systems Integration, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/6/22.
    Accession Number: 20220706-5160.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2309-000.
    Applicants: SIG Energy, LLLP.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market Based Rate Tariff of
SIG Energy, LLLP.
    Filed Date: 7/7/22.
    Accession Number: 20220707-5210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2310-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order 881 Compliance Filing
New Attachment X to be effective 7/12/2025.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2311-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Alabama Power Company submits
tariff filing per 35.1: Origis Development (New Augusta Solar &
Storage) LGIA Filing to be effective 7/8/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2312-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Concurrence for Alabama
Power. New OATT Associated Service Agreements 2 Database to be
effective 7/8/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2313-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Concurrence for Alabama
Power. New OATT Associated Service Agreements 2 Database to be
effective 7/8/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2314-000.
    Applicants: Langdon Renewables, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Langdon Renewables, LLC A&R
Common Facilities Agreement to be effective 9/7/2022.

    Filed Date: 7/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220708-5144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 8, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15050 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.epa.gov/region8

Ref: 8ARD-PM

Steven Branoff
Principal
Ramboll, Environmental and Health
2200 Powell Street, Suite 700
Emeryville, California  94608
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Dear Steven Branoff:

On July 12, 2023, you transmitted two letters on behalf of Chemtrade Refinery Services, Inc. (Chemtrade) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, requesting written confirmation that the Federal Minor New Source Review (MNSR) Permit Program for Indian country at 40 CFR part 49 does not apply to two proposed projects at Chemtrade's Riverton sulfuric acid manufacturing facility located on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Fremont County, Wyoming. As described in the letters the two projects consist of the addition of a scrubber that would result in a decrease of actual sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, and the addition of a small boiler that would result in increases in allowable emissions of regulated pollutants that are all below the thresholds for review under the MNSR Permit Program. Therefore, Chemtrade concludes that neither project is subject to review under the MNSR Permit Program.

BACKGROUND

The Riverton facility uses two primary processes to manufacture sulfuric acid. The first process (Plant #1) uses a traditional contact process in which elemental sulfur is oxidized to form sulfur dioxide (SO2), which is then reacted in the presence of a catalyst to form sulfur trioxide (SO3). The SO3 is then reacted with sulfuric acid to form concentrated sulfuric acid of varying strengths. The sulfuric acid is then used to form ultra-pure acid (UPA) that is used in the electronics industry. The second process (Plant #2) involves the regeneration of spent sulfuric acid. The plant receives bulk shipments of spent acid and stores it onsite in a large aboveground storage tank. The spent acid is processed in a combustion chamber and the resulting SO2 is then reacted in the presence of a catalyst to form SO3, which is circulated through sulfuric acid to form new acid of varying strengths.

The facility is subject to a synthetic minor permit that the EPA issued pursuant to the MNSR Permit Program on August 27, 2015 (Permit #SMNSR-WR-000003-2015.001). The permit contains SO2 and sulfuric acid mist emissions limitations and associated monitoring, performance testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, requiring use of a sodium-based scrubbing system and two absorbing towers.

The steam load for each of the plant's processes is currently shared, making it necessary to run both plants continuously. Chemtrade is proposing to install a new auxiliary boiler to provide an independent source of steam to allow for more operational flexibility at the facility. According to information provided by Chemtrade, the new boiler would not be considered a modification to the production processes and would not allow for increased production from the facility that might further increase potential process emissions. Using manufacturer emission factors for the proposed new boiler, and conservatively assuming the boiler will operate full time at maximum load (100%), Chemtrade estimated the potential emissions new project would be below the minor source thresholds of the MNSR Permit Program at 40 CFR 49.153, Table 1. As such, Chemtrade concluded that the proposed project is not subject to review as a modification under the MNSR Permit Program.

During normal operations, spent acid vapors (consisting of H2SO4, SO2 and volatile organic compounds [VOC]) associated with Plant #2 are routed to the spent acid furnace for destruction. However, according to information provided by Chemtrade, during rare Plant #2 shutdowns when the combustion chamber is not operating, spent acid vapor from the Plant #2 tanks are instead routed to the atmosphere. The total emissions from these rare shutdown events are such that the facility to continues to meet permitted emissions limitations, but the spent acid vapors are a potential health and safety hazard for plant staff. To address these health and safety concerns, Chemtrade is proposing to add new blowers and piping to route the spent acid gas stream to a new scrubbing system during Plant #2 shutdowns. The proposed new scrubbing system would reduce actual H2SO4 and SO2 emissions from spent acid vapor during shutdowns and would not require a change to the facility's existing permitted allowable emissions. As such, Chemtrade concluded that the proposed new scrubber project is not subject to review as a modification under the MNSR Permit Program.

DISCUSSION

The MNSR Permit Program at 40 CFR 49.152 defines a minor source as a source "that has the potential to emit regulated NSR pollutants in amounts that are less than the major source thresholds in § 49.167 or § 52.21 of this chapter, as applicable, but equal to or greater than the minor NSR thresholds in                § 49.153", specifically Table 1 of § 49.153. Section 49.152 defines a modification as "any physical or operational change at a source that would cause an increase in the allowable emissions of a minor source or an increase in the actual emissions (based on the applicable test under the major NSR program) of a major source for any regulated NSR pollutant or that would cause the emission of any regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted." The MNSR Permit Program at 49.153(a)(1)(i)(B) specifies that applicability to the program for a modification at an existing minor source is based on determining "whether the increase in allowable emissions from the proposed modification (calculated using the procedures in paragraph (b) of this section) would be equal to or greater than the minor NSR threshold in Table 1 of this section for the pollutant that you are evaluating." If not, the proposed modification is not subject to the MNSR Permit Program.

Paragraph (b) of § 49.153 specifies that to determine the resulting increase in allowable emissions, "for each new emissions unit that is to be added, the emissions increase would be the potential to emit of the emissions unit." It also says that "for each emissions unit with an allowable emissions limit that is to be changed or replaced, the emissions increase would be the allowable emissions of the emissions unit after the change or replacement minus the allowable emissions prior to the change or replacement. However, this may not be a negative value. If the allowable emissions of an emissions unit would be reduced as a result of the change or replacement, use zero in the calculation."

After reviewing the information provided by Chemtrade in its July 13, 2023 requests for formal MNSR Permit Program applicability determinations for the proposed new small boiler and new scrubbing system, we have concluded  the facts support  the proposed changes, and both considered individually and together, would not result in an increase in allowable emissions (in tons per year (tpy)) of any regulated NSR pollutant that exceeds the minor source thresholds in Table 1 of § 49.153. The potential to emit for all regulated NSR pollutants for the proposed new small boiler are below the minor source thresholds in Table 1 of § 49.153, with the highest emissions estimated for nitrogen oxides (NOX) at less than 1 tpy (the minor source threshold for NOX in the project area is 10 tpy). Additionally, the proposed addition of the new scrubbing system to the facility would reduce the actual emissions of H2SO4 and SO2 emissions from spent acid vapor during shutdowns and would not require a change to the facility's existing permitted allowable emissions of those pollutants. Therefore, the EPA concurs with Chemtrade's analysis that proposed projects are not subject to review under the MNSR Permit Program.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Claudia Smith at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                                          Sincerely,

                                    Adrienne Sandoval
                                    Director
                                    Air and Radiation Division

cc:	Honorable Lloyd Goggles, Chairperson, Northern Arapaho Tribe<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      Lee Spoonhunter, Council Member, Northern Arapaho Tribe<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      Dean Goggles, Environmental Director, Northern Arapaho Tribe<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      Crystal C'Bearing, Deputy Director, Northern Arapaho Tribal Historic Preservation Office<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      Patrick Ramsey, Chemtrade<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      Jenar Jasso, Chemtrade<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      Kevin Ross, Senior Managing Consultant  -  Air Sciences, Ramboll<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      Craig Harne, Ramboll<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: August 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 42139]
[DOCID:fr20au09-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: [74 FR 41466,
August 17, 2009].

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: Thursday, August 20,
2009 at 2 p.m.

Change in the Meeting: Cancellation of Meeting.
    The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 20, 2009 at 2
p.m. has been cancelled.
    For further information please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 18, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20099 Filed 8-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39961-39966]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16922]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0943, FRL-9930-25-OAR]

Findings of Failure To Submit a Section 110 State Implementation
Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action finding that 24 states have failed to submit infrastructure
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to satisfy certain interstate
transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect to the
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
Specifically, these requirements pertain to significant contribution to
nonattainment, or interference with maintenance, of the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in other states. These findings of failure to submit
establish a 2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the interstate transport SIP
requirements pertaining to significant

contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance unless,
prior to the EPA promulgating a FIP, the state submits, and the EPA
approves, a SIP that meets these requirements.

DATES: Effective date of this action is August 12, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General questions concerning this
document should be addressed to Mrs. Gobeail McKinley, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code
C539-04, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

    Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when
an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the
agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for
making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for
comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a
finding of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the
CAA, where states have made no submissions or incomplete submissions,
to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedure are
unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0943. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, William Jefferson
Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone
number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

C. How is the preamble organized?

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA)
    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
    C. How is the preamble organized?
    D. Where do I go if I have specific state questions?
II. Background and Overview
    A. Interstate Transport SIPs
    B. Background on 2008 Ozone NAAQS and Related Rulemakings
    C. Mandatory Duty Suit for the EPA's Failure to Make Findings of
Failure to Submit for States that Did Not Submit SIPs
    D. Further Background Specific to North Carolina SIP Status
III. Findings of Failure to Submit for States That Failed to Make a
Good Neighbor SIP Submission for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

D. Where do I go if I have specific state questions?

    The table below lists the states that failed to make an interstate
transport SIP submittal addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For questions related to
specific states mentioned in this document, please contact the
appropriate EPA Regional Office:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Regional offices                          States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region 1: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air  Maine, Massachusetts, New
 Quality Planning Unit (OEP05-02), EPA    Hampshire, Vermont
 Region I, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. (617) 918-
 1047.
EPA Region 3: Cristina Fernandez,        Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
 Associate Director, Office of Air        Virginia
 Program Planning (3AP30), Air
 Protection Division, EPA Region III,
 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
 19103-2187.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 4: R. Scott Davis, Chief,     Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
 Air Planning & Implementation Branch,    Mississippi, North Carolina,
 EPA Region IV, Sam Nunn Atlanta          South Carolina, Tennessee
 Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
 12th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303. (404)
 562-9127.
EPA Region 5: John Mooney, Air Program   Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota
 Branch Manager, Air Programs Branch,
 EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Street,
 Chicago, IL 60604-3590.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 6: Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air  Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma
 Planning Section, EPA Region VI, 1445
 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 7: Joshua A. Tapp, Branch     Iowa, Kansas, Missouri
 Chief, Air Planning and Development
 Branch, EPA Region VII, 11201 Renner
 Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219. (913) 551-
 7606.
EPA Region 9: Matt Lakin, Air Program    California
 Manager, Air Planning Office, EPA
 Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
 Francisco, CA 94105.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Overview

A. Interstate Transport SIPs

    The CAA section 110(a) imposes an obligation upon states to submit
SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement
of a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of
that NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states
must meet in these SIP submissions, as applicable. The EPA refers to
this type of SIP submission as the ``infrastructure'' SIP because it
ensures that states can implement, maintain and enforce the air
standards. Within these requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains
requirements to address interstate transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP
revision submitted for this sub-section is referred to as an
``interstate transport SIP.'' In turn, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requires that such a plan contain adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions from the state that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state (``prong 1'') or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (``prong
2''). Interstate transport prongs 1 and 2, also called the ``good
neighbor'' provisions, are the requirements relevant to this findings
document.
    Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the EPA must determine no
later than 6 months after the date by which a state is required to
submit a SIP whether a state has made a submission that meets the
minimum completeness criteria established per section 110(k)(1)(A). The
EPA refers to the determination that a state has not submitted a SIP
submission that meets the minimum completeness criteria as a ``finding
of failure to submit.'' If the EPA finds a state has failed to submit a
SIP to meet its statutory obligation to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
pursuant to section 110(c)(1) the EPA has not only the authority, but
the obligation, to promulgate a FIP within 2 years to address the CAA
requirement. This finding therefore starts a 2-year clock for
promulgation by the EPA of a FIP, in accordance with CAA section
110(c)(1), unless prior to such promulgation the state submits, and the
EPA approves, a submittal from the state to meet the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA
will work with states subject to these findings of failure to submit
and provide assistance as necessary to help them develop approvable
submittals in a timely manner. The EPA notes this action does not start
a mandatory sanctions clock pursuant to CAA section 179 because this
finding of failure to submit does not pertain to a part D plan for
nonattainment areas required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP
call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).

B. Background on 2008 Ozone NAAQS and Related Rulemakings

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ozone.\1\ The
EPA revised the previous 8-hour primary ozone standard of 0.08 parts
per millions (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. The EPA also revised the secondary 8-
hour standard to the level of 0.075 ppm making it identical to the
revised primary standard. Infrastructure SIPs addressing the revised
standard were due March 12, 2011. In September 2009, the EPA announced
it would reconsider the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ To reduce the
workload for states during the interim period of reconsideration, the
EPA also announced its intention to propose staying implementation of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS for a number of the requirements. Then, on January
6, 2010, as part of its voluntary rulemaking on reconsideration, the
EPA proposed to revise the 2008 NAAQS for ozone from 75 ppb to a level
within the range of 60 to 70 ppb. See 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 2010).
The EPA indicated its intent to issue final standards, based upon the
reconsideration, by summer 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008) (National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule).
    \2\ The EPA's Fact Sheet, EPA to reconsider Ozone Pollution
Standards, is available at http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/O3_Reconsideration_FACT%20SHEET_091609.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2011, the EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208, in response to the remand by the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC
Circuit) of the EPA's earlier rule, the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR).\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
modified by 550 F.3d 1176 (remanding CAIR). CSAPR addresses ozone
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but does not address
the 2008 ozone standard, because the 2008 ozone NAAQS was under
reconsideration by the EPA during the analytical work for CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (Rule To Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate
Rule); Revisions to the Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the
NOX SIP Call, Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 2, 2011, consistent with the direction of the
President, the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget returned the
draft final 2008 ozone NAAQS rule to the EPA for further
consideration.\4\ In view of this direction and the timing of the EPA's
ongoing periodic review of the ozone NAAQS required under CAA section
109 (as announced on September 29, 2008), the EPA decided to coordinate
further proceedings on its voluntary rulemaking on reconsideration of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS with that ongoing periodic review, by deferring
the completion of its voluntary rulemaking on reconsideration until it
completed its statutorily-required periodic review.\5\ During this time
period for renewed implementation of the 2008 ozone standard, however,
a number of legal developments pertaining to the EPA's promulgation of
CSAPR created uncertainty over the EPA's statutory interpretation and
implementation of the ``good neighbor'' requirement as to that
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, August 2014, pages 1-9. The Policy
assessment is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/20140829pa.pdf.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 21, 2012, the DC Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA addressing several legal challenges to
CSAPR and holding, among other things, that states had no obligation to
submit good neighbor SIPs until the EPA had first quantified each
state's good neighbor obligation.\6\ Accordingly, under that decision
the submission deadline for good neighbor SIPs under the CAA would not
necessarily be tied to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
While the EPA disagreed with this interpretation of the statute and
sought review first with the DC Circuit en banc and then with the
United States Supreme Court, the EPA complied with the DC Circuit's
ruling during the pendency of its appeal. In particular, the EPA
indicated that consistent with the DC Circuit's opinion, it would not
at that time issue findings that states had failed to submit SIPs
addressing the good neighbor requirements in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\7\ Moreover, when the EPA made findings that states
had failed to submit infrastructure SIPs

addressing the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA explained that it was not
issuing findings as to the good neighbor requirements in accordance
with the court's holding in EME Homer City Generation. 78 FR 2882, 2884
(January 15, 2013) (Findings of Failure To Submit a Complete State
Implementation Plan for Section 110(a) Pertaining to the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C.
Cir. 2012).
    \7\ See, e.g., Memorandum from the Office of Air and Radiation
former Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy to the EPA Regions,
``Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and State
Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court Decision
Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,'' November 19,
2012; 78 FR 65559 (November 1, 2013) (final action on Florida
infrastructure SIP submission for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS); and 78
FR 14450 (March 6, 2013) (final action on Tennessee infrastructure
SIP submissions for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the DC Circuit declined to consider the EPA's appeal en
banc,\8\ on January 23, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the EPA's
petition for certiorari.\9\ During 2013 and early 2014, as the EPA
awaited a decision from the Supreme Court, the EPA initiated efforts
and technical analyses aimed at identifying and quantifying state good
neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As part of this effort,
the EPA solicited stakeholder input and also provided states with, and
requested input on, emissions inventories for 2011 and emissions
inventory projections for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C.
Cir. January 24, 2013), ECF No. 1417012 (denying the EPA's motion
for rehearing en banc).
    \9\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857
(2013) (granting the EPA's and other parties' petitions for
certiorari).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing
the DC Circuit's EME Homer City opinion on CSAPR and held, among other
things, that under the plain language of the CAA, states must submit
SIPs addressing the good neighbor requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA first provides guidance, technical
data or rulemaking to quantify the state's obligation. Thus, the
Supreme Court affirmed that states have an obligation in the first
instance to address the good neighbor provision after promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS, a holding that also applies to states' obligation
to address interstate transport for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

C. Mandatory Duty Suit for the EPA's Failure to Make Findings of
Failure To Submit for States That Did Not Submit SIPs

    On March 15, 2013, several states and the District of Columbia
filed a complaint challenging the EPA's assertion in the January 15,
2013 findings of failure to submit for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIPs that it did not have the authority to issue
findings as to the good neighbor provision.\10\ After the Supreme Court
issued its decision reversing the DC Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR, the
EPA requested partial vacatur and remand of the January 15, 2013
portion of the findings that pertained to the good neighbor provision.
On August 1, 2014, the court granted the EPA's request, vacating the
EPA's decision not to make findings of failure to submit with respect
to the good neighbor provision and remanding the findings to the EPA
for further consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Maryland v. EPA, Case No. 13-1070 (D.C. Cir., filed March
15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians filed two
separate cases alleging that the EPA had not fulfilled its mandatory
duty to make findings of failure to submit good neighbor SIPs
addressing interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In the first case, Sierra Club filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Northern District of California) on July 15, 2014, seeking
an order to compel the EPA to make findings of failure to submit with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS good neighbor SIP for the state of
Tennessee.\11\ On November 18, 2014, Sierra Club and WildEarth
Guardians filed another complaint in the same court seeking an order to
compel the EPA to make findings of failure to submit with respect to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS good neighbor SIPs for the following states:
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia,
Washington and West Virginia.\12\ On January 15, 2015, the plaintiffs
amended their complaint in the second case to add Alabama, Florida,
North Carolina and Mississippi. On May 15, 2015, the court entered
judgment ordering the EPA to, by June 30, 2015, sign a notice issuing
its findings of failure to submit with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
interstate transport SIPs for the 26 states addressed in both
cases.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Complaint, Sierra Club vs. McCarthy, Case 4:14-cv-3198-JSW
(N.D. Cal. July 15, 2014). The complaint also included a separate
claim regarding the EPA's alleged failure to take final action to
approve or disapprove infrastructure SIPs as to a number of states.
    \12\ Complaint, Sierra Club vs. McCarthy, Case 4:14-cv-05091-YGR
(N.D. Cal. November. 18, 2014).
    \13\ See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 4:14-cv-05091-
YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA recognizes the practical and legal uncertainty that has
surrounded the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the proper interpretation of the
good neighbor provision. States were given the impression that if the
NAAQS were revised as a result of the reconsideration, the 3-year SIP
deadline would reset. The EPA also recognizes that this uncertainty may
have influenced states' efforts to develop SIPs to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Given that
the NAAQS have not been revised and the United States Supreme Court
overturned the DC Circuit opinion on CSAPR, March 12, 2011, remains the
legally applicable deadline for good neighbor SIPs for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    In response to the orders from the DC Circuit and the Northern
District of California, the EPA is taking this action for all states
that have failed to submit complete SIPs addressing CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. To date, 26 states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have submitted complete SIPs
addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Three states specifically identified in the Northern District of
California's order have made complete submissions as of the date of
this document. Therefore, the EPA is issuing national findings of
failure to submit good neighbor SIPs addressing the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, addressing all
states that have not made complete submissions as to the date of this
document.

D. Further Background Specific to North Carolina SIP Status

    On November 12, 2012, the state of North Carolina submitted a SIP
revision to the EPA addressing, among other things, the good neighbor
provision of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The submission was determined to be complete by a letter dated November
15, 2012. On July 15, 2014, Sierra Club filed a complaint in the
Northern District of California alleging that the EPA had failed to
take final action on the North Carolina SIP submission, including the
interstate transport provisions, by the statutory deadline and asked
the court to order the EPA to take such final action by a date
certain.\14\ Subsequently, on September 3, 2014, the state of North
Carolina submitted a letter withdrawing the good neighbor provision of
the November 12, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission addressing CAA
section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\15\ In reliance on the withdrawal, Sierra Club
filed an amended complaint on December 12, 2014, that revised its claim
to remove the allegation that the EPA had failed to act the good
neighbor provision of North Carolina's SIP.\16\ The parties to the
litigation subsequently entered into a consent decree that settled the
remaining claim as to North Carolina.\17\ In further reliance on the
withdrawal, Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians also filed an amended
complaint in case number 4:14-cv-05091, discussed above, alleging that
the EPA had failed to make a finding of failure to submit as to North
Carolina's good neighbor SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Complaint, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 4:14-cv-03198-JSW,
(N.D. Cal. July 15, 2014).
    \15\ See, Letter from Sheila Holman, Director, Division of Air
Quality, NCDENR, to Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator,
USEPA Region 4, ``Withdrawal of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) from
North Carolina's 2008 Ozone Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
Submittal'' (September 3, 2014).
    \16\ First Amended Complaint, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case
4:14-cv-03198-JSW, (N.D. Cal. December 12, 2014).
    \17\ See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 4:14-cv-03198-
JSW, (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015).
    \18\ See Amended Complaint, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No.
4:14-cv-05091 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 26, 2015, North Carolina submitted a letter indicating that
it wished to ``rescind'' its September 3, 2014 withdrawal of its good
neighbor SIP to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\19\ The letter explained
that the November 12, 2012 submittal did not include modeling and that
preliminary air quality modeling released by the EPA on January 22,
2015, supported its interstate transport SIP. The letter also explained
that, based on this modeling, the state concluded ``it has met its
obligations under CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)(D) related to
interstate transport . . . and therefore, does not expect'' to be
subject to this document finding certain states' failure to submit
interstate transport SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Letter from Sheila C. Holman, NCDENR, to Heather McTeer
Toney, USEPA Region 4, ``Recession [sic] of North Carolina's
September 3, 2014, Withdrawal of 2008 Ozone Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Certification Pertaining to Interstate Transport
(Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I))'' (June 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 2015, the EPA responded to North Carolina's June 26,
2015 letter.\20\ Because the EPA determined that it was not appropriate
to rescind North Carolina's prior withdrawal of its November 12, 2012
SIP submission, and because the June 25, 2015, letter relies on new
information and analysis to support the state's conclusion regarding
its statutory interstate transport obligations that was not contained
in its November 12, 2012, SIP submission (i.e., the preliminary air
quality modeling released by the EPA on January 22, 2015), the EPA
views the June 26, 2015 letter as a new SIP submission. Accordingly,
the EPA has evaluated the June 26, 2015 letter for completeness as a
SIP revision pursuant to the criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V,
and concluded that the June 26, 2015, letter is an incomplete SIP
submission. The incompleteness letter notes that North Carolina's June
26, 2015, letter contains new information and analysis upon which North
Carolina now relies to support its conclusions regarding the state's
statutory obligations to address interstate transport, in particular
the EPA's air quality modeling, and that neither the new information
nor North Carolina's conclusions relying upon that information were
subject to public notice and comment per criteria 2.1(f)-(h) of
appendix V. Accordingly, the EPA is finding in this document that North
Carolina has failed to submit a complete SIP revision addressing CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Letter from Beverly H. Banister, USEPA Region 4, to
Sheila Holman, NCDENR, ``Response to North Carolina's June 26, 2015
Letter Seeking to Rescind the September 3, 2014 Withdrawal of the
2008 Ozone Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Certification
Regarding Interstate Transport'' (June 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Findings of Failure To Submit for States That Failed To Make a
Good Neighbor SIP Submission for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    Three states (i.e., Connecticut, Rhode Island and Washington)
addressed by the Northern District of California's order have made
complete SIP submittals addressing the good neighbor provision for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Hawaii was not addressed by the Northern District of
California's order and the state has submitted a complete SIP submittal
addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
EPA is making findings of failure to submit for 24 states. The EPA is
finding that the following states have not made a complete good
neighbor SIP submittal to meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia,
Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont,\21\
Virginia and West Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ We are making a finding for the state of Vermont even
though the state was not addressed by the Northern District of
California's order. In fairness and to fulfill its statutory
obligations, the EPA is addressing all states that have not made a
submittal in this findings document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    This document is making a procedural finding that certain states
have failed to submit a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA did not conduct an environmental
analysis for this rule because this rule would not directly affect the
air emissions of particular sources. Because this rule will not
directly affect the air emissions of particular sources, it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. Therefore, this action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This final rule does not establish any new information collection
requirement apart from what is already required by law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to
rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute.
This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the
agency has invoked the APA ``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C.
553(b).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and
explicitly set forth in the CAA under section 110(a) without the
exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule responds to the requirement in the CAA
for states to submit SIPs under section 110(a) to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the
requirement to submit an implementation plan under section 110(a)
within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. The EPA's
evaluation of environmental justice considerations is contained in
section IV of this document.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(l) of the CAA indicates which federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by
the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions
for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
    The EPA has determined that this final rule consisting of findings
of failure to submit certain of the required good neighbor SIP
provisions is ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of section
307(b)(1). This rule affects 24 states across the country that are
located in seven of the ten EPA Regions, 10 different federal circuits,
and multiple time zones.
    This determination is appropriate because, in the 1977 CAA
Amendments that revised CAA section 307(b)(l), Congress noted that the
Administrator's determination that an action is of ``nationwide scope
or effect'' would be appropriate for any action that has ``scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit.'' H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323-
324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect
of this action extends to the 10 judicial circuits that include the
states across the country affected by this action. In these
circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history authorize
the Administrator to find the rule to be of ``nationwide scope or
effect'' and thus to indicate that venue for challenges lies in the DC
Circuit. Accordingly, the EPA is determining that this is a rule of
nationwide scope or effect. 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 District of Columbia within 60
days from the date this final action is published in the Federal
Register. Filing a petition for review by the Administrator of this
final action does not affect the finality of the action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 30, 2015.
Janet G. McCabe,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-16922 Filed 7-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P