Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

10/23/2007 03:14 PM

To

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

RE: RIA NAAQS Workshop follow-up

Janet Cakir (my project lead) and I will attend.  I have invited Nathalie Simon of OPEI to participate as well.  Call in number to follow.

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 10/23/2007 12:48 PM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: RIA NAAQS Workshop follow-up

Sounds good.  Who'll be joining?

Rob

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:38 PM

To: Johansson, Robert

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: RIA NAAQS Workshop follow-up

How does 1 to 2 sound?

             "Johansson,

             Robert"

             <Robert_C._Johan                                        To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>       Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             >                                                       cc

             10/23/2007 11:53                                   Subject

             AM                       RE: RIA NAAQS Workshop follow-up

Hi Ron,

My Wednesday afternoon looks good.

Rob

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:43 AM

To: Johansson, Robert

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: RIA NAAQS Workshop follow-up

Lets find a time to figure out a plan.  I would like to work thru the

schedule I sent to you in an e-mail on 10/2, I think we need to have one

ozone RIA specific meeting as outlined in that e-mail prior to this

discussion.  When are you free this week to chat about scheduling?

             "Johansson,

             Robert"

             <Robert_C._Johan                                        To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>       Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             >                                                       cc

             10/22/2007 04:52                                   Subject

             PM                       RE:  RIA NAAQS Workshop followup

Hi Ron,

Thanks again for hosting the conference.  It sounded as if you inspired

a good deal of discussion.

Next week is pretty open for me at this time.  What day is best for you

all?

Cheers,

Rob

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:53 PM

To: Johansson, Robert

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RIA NAAQS Workshop followup

When do you want to try to schedule the followup conversation on

Extrapolated costs?

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73756-73758]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23865]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0818]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Vessel Launch, San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters in the vicinity of General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard in
San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA, during the launch of the USNS Robert
Kennedy. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the
launching and subsequent berthing of the USNS Robert Kennedy. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector San Diego.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. on October 28, 2023,
through 10:30 a.m. on October 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0818 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Shelley Turner, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-
7656, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is
impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety
zone by October 28, 2023, to ensure the safety of response personnel
and mariners associated with the launching of the USNS Robert Kennedy.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because this rule is
needed to protect mariners, commercial and recreational waterway users,
and the USNS Robert Kennedy from dangers associated with the launching
and berthing of the USNS Robert Kennedy on October 28, 2023.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with launching of the USNS Robert
Kennedy on October 28, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone in the
vicinity of the General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard, San Diego Bay, San
Diego, CA. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while
the USNS Robert Kennedy is being launched.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 7:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m.
on October 28, 2023. The safety zone will be in the vicinity of General
Dynamics NASSCO shipyard in San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA. The safety
zone will cover all navigable waters, from surface to sea bottom, of
the San Diego Bay, CA, created by connecting the following points:
beginning at 32[deg]41.39' N, 117[deg]08.66' W (Point A); thence
running southwesterly to 32[deg]41.24' N, 117[deg]09.05' W (Point B);
thence running southeasterly to 32[deg]41.05' N, 117[deg]08.73' W
(Point C); thence running northeasterly to 32[deg]41.20' N,
117[deg]08.34' W (Point D); thence running northwesterly to the
beginning point. The duration of the zone is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable
waters while the USNS Robert Kennedy is being launched. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
    To seek permission to enter, hail Coast Guard Sector San Diego on
VHF-FM Channel 16 or call the 24-hour Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative. A designated representative means a Coast Guard
coxswain or petty officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Sector San Diego (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public
through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners
(LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as
appropriate for the enforcement times and dates for the safety zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and limited duration of the safety zone. This safety zone
impacts a small, designated area of the San Diego Bay for a very

limited period during the weekend when vessel traffic is normally low.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting three hours that will prohibit entry within certain
navigable waters of San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA in the vicinity of the
General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-136 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-136  Safety Zone; Vessel Launch, San Diego Bay, San
Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
San Diego Bay, from surface to bottom, encompassed by a line connecting
the following points beginning at 32[deg]41.39' N, 117[deg]08.66' W
(Point A); thence running southwesterly to 32[deg]41.24' N,
117[deg]09.05' W (Point B); thence running southeasterly to
32[deg]41.05' N, 117[deg]08.73' W (Point C); thence running
northeasterly to 32[deg]41.20' N, 117[deg]08.34' W (Point D); thence
running northwesterly to the beginning point.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's

representative by VHF Channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate of the enforcement times and dates for
the safety zone.

    Dated: October 24, 2023.
J.W. Spitler,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2023-23865 Filed 10-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8569-8574]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02558]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0321; FRL-10016-97-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Tioga
County Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the
Commonwealth's plan, submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the
``1997 ozone NAAQS'') in the Tioga County, Pennsylvania area (Tioga
County Area). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0321 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (e.g., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Yarina, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Yarina can also be reached via
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 10, 2020, PADEP submitted a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining
the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Tioga County Area through July 6, 2027, in
accordance with CAA section 175A.

I. Background

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997
(62 FR 38856),\1\ EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone
to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,
averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA designated
the Tioga County Area as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
effective June 15, 2004. The Tioga County Area consists solely of Tioga
County in Pennsylvania.
    Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete and certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the
area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),\2\ the state can submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred to as ``maintenance areas.''
One of the criteria for redesignation is to have an approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must
demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation, and it must contain
such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance as well as
contingency measures as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under section 110(k) of the
applicable SIP, determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
demonstration that the state has met all applicable section 110 and
part D requirements, and a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.

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

    On July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36892, effective the same day), EPA approved
a redesignation request and maintenance plan from PADEP for the Tioga
County Area. In accordance with section 175A(b), at the end of the
eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, the state
must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years.
    EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one consequence of revocation
was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment (i.e.,
maintenance areas) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS no longer needed to submit
second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).\3\ However,
in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA \4\ (South Coast
II), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, second maintenance plans were
not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' (i.e., areas like the
Tioga County Area) that had been redesignated to attainment for the
1997 ozone NAAQS and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Thus, states with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the
1997 ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second
maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
    \4\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of
an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory;
(2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air
quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. The 1992 Calcagni Memo \5\
provides that states may generally demonstrate maintenance by either
performing air quality modeling to show that the future mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by
showing that future emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will
not exceed the level of emissions during a year when the area was
attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment year inventory). See 1992
Calcagni Memo at p. 9. EPA further clarified in three subsequent
guidance memos describing ``limited maintenance plans'' (LMPs) \6\ that
the requirements of CAA section 175A could be met by demonstrating that
the area's design value \7\ was well below the NAAQS and that the
historical stability of the area's air quality levels showed that the
area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. Specifically, EPA
believes that if the most recent air quality design value for the area
is at a level that is below 85% of the standard, or in this case below
0.071 ppm, then EPA considers the state to have met the section 175A
requirement for a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS
for the requisite period. Accordingly, on March 10, 2020, PADEP
submitted an LMP for the Tioga County Area, following EPA's LMP
guidance and demonstrating that the area will maintain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS through July 6, 2027, i.e., through the entire 20-year
maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (1992 Calcagni Memo).
    \6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
    \7\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    PADEP's March 10, 2020 SIP submittal outlines a plan for continued
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the criteria set
forth in the 1992 Calcagni Memo as follows.

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive and
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year which
identifies the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
maintain the NAAQS. The inventory should be developed consistent with
EPA's most recent guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on
typical summer day's emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone
formation. In the first maintenance plan for the Tioga County Area,
PADEP used 2004 for the attainment year inventory, because 2004 was a
reasonable year within the 2002-2004 3-year block and is one of the
years in the 2003-2005 three-year period when the area first attained
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\8\ The Tioga County Area continued to monitor
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2014. Therefore, the emissions
inventory from 2014 represents emissions levels conducive to continued
attainment (i.e., maintenance) of the NAAQS. Thus, PADEP is using 2014
as representing attainment level emissions for its second maintenance
plan. Pennsylvania used 2014 summer day emissions from EPA's 2014
version 7.0 modeling platform as the basis for the 2014 inventory
presented in Table 1.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For more information, see EPA's May 8, 2007 notice proposing
to redesignate the Tioga County Area to attainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS (72 FR 26046).
    \9\ For more information, visit https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_1997_naaqs_emiss_inv_data_nov_19_2018_0.xlsx.

  Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day NOX and VOC Emissions for the Tioga
                               County Area
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category             NOX emissions       VOC emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................                1.16                0.27
Nonpoint........................                1.72                3.43
Onroad..........................                3.41                1.23
Nonroad.........................                0.86                1.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data shown in Table 1 is based on the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) version 2.\10\ The inventory addresses four
anthropogenic emission source categories: Stationary (point) sources,
stationary nonpoint (area) sources, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile
sources. Point sources are stationary sources that have the potential
to emit (PTE) more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC, or more than 50
tpy of NOX, and which are required to obtain an operating
permit. Data are collected for each source at a facility and reported
to PADEP. Examples of point sources include kraft mills, electrical
generating units (EGUs), and pharmaceutical factories. Nonpoint sources
include emissions from equipment, operations, and activities that are
numerous and in total have significant emissions. Examples include
emissions from commercial and consumer products, portable fuel
containers, home heating, repair and refinishing operations, and
crematories. The onroad emissions sector includes emissions from
engines used primarily to propel equipment on highways and other roads,
including passenger vehicles, motorcycles, and heavy-duty diesel
trucks. The nonroad emissions sector includes emissions from engines
that are not primarily used to propel transportation equipment, such as
generators, forklifts, and marine pleasure craft. EPA reviewed the
emissions inventory submitted by PADEP and proposes to conclude that
the plan's inventory is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous
air pollutants from air emissions sources. The NEI is released every
three years based primarily upon data provided by State, Local, and
Tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions and
supplemented by data developed by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    In order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily average ozone concentrations (design value, or
``DV'') at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based
on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the
standard is attained if the DV is 0.084 or below. CAA section 175A
requires a demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the
NAAQS throughout the duration of the requisite maintenance period.
Consistent with the prior guidance documents discussed previously in
this document as well as EPA's November 20, 2018 ``Resource Document
for 1997 Ozone NAAQS Areas: Supporting Information for States
Developing Maintenance Plans'' (2018 Resource Document),\11\ EPA
believes that if the most recent DV for the area is well below the
NAAQS (i.e., below 85%, or in this case below 0.071 ppm), the section
175A demonstration requirement has been met, provided that Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, any control measures
already in the SIP, and any Federal measures remain in place through
the end of the second 10-year maintenance period (absent a showing
consistent with section 110(l) that such measures are not necessary to
assure maintenance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This resource document is included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0316 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/ozone_1997_naaqs_lmp_resource_document_nov_20_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of demonstrating continued maintenance with the
1997 ozone NAAQS, PADEP provided 3-year DVs at the monitor located in
the Tioga County Area from 2007 to 2018. This includes DVs for 2005-
2007, 2006-2008, 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012, 2011-2013,
2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016, 2015-2017, and 2016-2018, which are
shown in Table 2.\12\ In addition, EPA has reviewed the most recent
ambient air quality monitoring data for ozone in the Tioga County Area,
as submitted by Pennsylvania and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS). The most recent DVs (i.e., 2017-2019) at monitors located in the
Tioga County Area are also shown in Table 2.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also Table II-2 of PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal,
included in the docket for this rulemaking available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0316.
    \13\ This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0316 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

                                                   Table 2--1997 Ozone NAAQS Design Values (Parts per Million [ppm]) for the Tioga County Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            County                 AQS Site ID     2005-2007  2006-2008  2007-2009  2008-2010  2009-2011  2010-2012  2011-2013  2012-2014  2013-2015  2014-2016  2015-2017  2016-2018  2017-2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tioga.........................  42-117-4000......      .075       .073       .070       .070       .069       .071       .069       .065       .063       .063       .064       .064       .060
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data in Table 2 show that the DVs for the Tioga County Area
have been below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (i.e., less than or equal
to 0.071 ppm) since the 2007-2009 period. The DV for the 2017-2019
period at the monitor in the Tioga County Area is 0.060 ppm, which is
well below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    States can also support the demonstration of continued maintenance
by showing stable or improving air quality trends; several kinds of
analyses can be performed by states wishing to make such a showing,
according to EPA's 2018 Resource Document. One approach is to take the
most recent DV at a monitor located in the area and add the maximum DV
increase over one or more consecutive years that has been observed in
the area over the past several years. A sum of these two values that
does not exceed

the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS may be a good indicator of expected
continued attainment. The data in Table 2 of this document show that
the largest DV increase at the monitor located in the Tioga County Area
was 0.002 ppm, which occurred between the 2009-2011 (0.069 ppm) and
2010-2012 (0.071 ppm) DVs. Adding 0.002 ppm to the DV for the 2017-2019
period (0.060 ppm) results in 0.062 ppm, a sum that is still below the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
    The Tioga County Area has maintained air quality levels below the
1997 ozone NAAQS since the Area first attained the NAAQS in 2006, and
maintained air quality levels at or below 85% of the NAAQS since
2009.\14\ Additional supporting information that the area is expected
to continue to maintain the standard can be found in projections of
future year DVs that EPA recently completed to assist states with the
development of interstate transport SIPs for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Those projections, made for the year 2023, show that the DV at
the monitor located in the Tioga County Area is expected to be 0.0573
ppm.\15\ Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that future violations of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Tioga County Area are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As explained in EPA's May 8, 2007 notice proposing to
redesignate the Tioga County Area as attainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS (72 FR 26046), the 2003-2005 DV for the Tioga County Area was
0.081 ppm.
    \15\ See U.S. EPA, ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Updated 2023 Projected Ozone Design Values'',
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 2018,
available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/air-quality-modeling-technical-support-document-updated-2023-projected-ozone-design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continued
Attainment

    Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the state remains
obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, in order to verify the area's attainment status. In the March
10, 2020 submittal, PADEP commits to continue to operate their air
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. PADEP also
commits to track the attainment status of the Tioga County Area for the
1997 ozone NAAQS through the review of air quality and emissions data
during the second maintenance period. This includes an annual
evaluation of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and stationary source
emissions data compared to the assumptions included in the LMP. PADEP
also states that it will evaluate the periodic (i.e., every three
years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's Air Emission Reporting
Requirements (40 CFR part 51, subpart A). Based on these evaluations,
PADEP will consider whether any further emission control measures
should be implemented for the Tioga County Area. EPA has analyzed the
commitments in PADEP's submittal and is proposing to determine that
they meet the requirements for continued air quality monitoring and
verification of continued attainment.

D. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must require that the state will implement all
pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175(A)(d) of the
CAA.
    PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal includes a contingency plan for
the Tioga County Area. In the event that the fourth highest eight-hour
ozone concentrations at a monitor in the Tioga County Area exceeds 84
ppb (equivalent to 0.084 ppm) for two consecutive years, but prior to
an actual violation of the NAAQS, PADEP will evaluate whether
additional local emission control measures should be implemented that
may prevent a violation of the NAAQS.\16\ After analyzing the
conditions causing the excessive ozone levels, evaluating the
effectiveness of potential corrective measures, and considering the
potential effects of Federal, state, and local measures that have been
adopted but not yet implemented, PADEP will begin the process of
implementing selected measures so that they can be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable following a violation of the NAAQS. In the
event of a violation, PADEP commits to adopting additional emission
reduction measures as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with
the schedule included in the contingency plan as well as the CAA and
applicable Pennsylvania statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A violation of the NAAQS occurs when an area's 3-year
design value exceeds the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP will use the following criteria when considering additional
emission reduction measures to adopt to address a violation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the Tioga County Area: (1) Air quality analysis
indicating the nature of the violation, including the cause, location,
and source; (2) emission reduction potential, including extent to which
emission generating sources occur in the nonattainment area; (3)
timeliness of implementation in terms of the potential to return the
area to attainment as expeditiously as practicable; and (4) costs,
equity, and cost-effectiveness. The measures PADEP would consider
pursuing for adoption in the Tioga County Area include, but are not
limited to, those summarized in Table 3. If additional emission
reductions are necessary, PADEP commits to adopt additional emission
reduction measures to attain and maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

 Table 3--Tioga County Area Second Maintenance Plan Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Regulatory Measures:
    Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash'' (installation software to
     correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel
     engines).
    Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative
     fuel use) for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.
    Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.
    Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops,
     warehouses, and other freight-handling facilities.
    Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially
     commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.
    Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home
     heating and agricultural use.
Regulatory Measures: \17\

    Additional control on consumer products \18\.
    Additional controls on portable fuel containers \19\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contingency plan includes schedules for the adoption and
implementation of both non-regulatory and regulatory contingency
measures, which are summarized in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ These regulatory measures were considered potential cost-
effective and timely control strategies by the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) as well as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. The OTC
is a multi-state organization responsible for developing regional
solutions to ground-level ozone pollution in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic, including the development of model rules that member
states may adopt. OTC member states include: Connecticut, Delaware,
the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Virginia. For more information on the OTC, visit
https://otcair.org/index.asp. To view the model rules developed by
the OTC, including those for consumer products and portable fuel
containers, visit https://otcair.org/document.asp?fview=modelrules.
    \18\ Pennsylvania's existing controls on consumer products are
under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapters B and C (38 Pa.B. 5598).
This contingency measure includes the adoption of additional
controls on consumer products such as VOC limits for adhesive
removers.
    \19\ Existing controls on portable fuel containers can be found
under 40 CFR part 59, subpart F--Control of Evaporative Emissions
From New and In-Use Portable Fuel Containers.

  Table 4--Implementation Schedule for Tioga County Area Non-Regulatory
                          Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Time after triggering event                     Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 2 months..............  PADEP will identify stakeholders for
                                potential non-regulatory measures for
                                further development.
Within 3 months..............  If funding is necessary, PADEP will
                                identify potential sources of funding
                                and the timeframe for when funds would
                                be available.
Within 9 months..............  If state loans or grants are required,
                                PADEP will enter into agreements with
                                implementing organizations. PADEP will
                                also quantify projected emission
                                benefits.
Within 12 months.............  PADEP will submit revised SIP to EPA.
Within 12-24 months..........  PADEP will implement strategies and
                                projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 5--Implementation Schedule for Tioga Area Regulatory Contingency
                                Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Time after triggering event                     Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 1 month...............  PADEP will submit request to begin
                                regulatory development process.
Within 3 months..............  Request will be reviewed by the Air
                                Quality Technical Advisory Committee
                                (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council, and
                                other advisory committees as
                                appropriate.
Within 6 months..............  Environmental Quality Board (EQB) meeting/
                                action.
Within 8 months..............  PADEP will publish regulatory measure in
                                the Pennsylvania Bulletin for comment as
                                proposed rulemaking.
Within 10 months.............  PADEP will hold a public hearing and
                                comment period on proposed rulemaking.
Within 11 months.............  House and Senate Standing Committee and
                                Independent Regulatory Review Commission
                                (IRCC) comment on proposed rulemaking.
Within 13 months.............  AQTAC, Citizens Advisory Council, and
                                other committees will review responses
                                to comment(s), if applicable, and the
                                draft final rulemaking.
Within 16 months.............  EQB meeting/action.
Within 17 months.............  The IRCC will take action on final rule
Within 18 months.............  Attorney General's review/action.
Within 19 months.............  PADEP will publish the regulatory measure
                                as a final rule in the Pennsylvania
                                Bulletin and submit to EPA as a SIP
                                revision. The regulation will become
                                effective upon publication in the
                                Pennsylvania Bulletin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that the contingency plan included in PADEP's
March 10, 2020 submittal satisfies the pertinent requirements of CAA
section 175A(d). EPA notes that while five of the potential contingency
measures included in the Commonwealth's second maintenance plan are
non-regulatory, their inclusion among other measures is overall SIP-
strengthening, and their inclusion does not alter EPA's proposal to
find the LMP is fully approvable. EPA also finds that the submittal
acknowledges Pennsylvania's continuing requirement to implement all
pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the Tioga County Area to attainment.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity
rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An MVEB is defined as ``that
portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance
plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further
progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).''
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a

regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). However, because LMP
areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of transportation
conformity determinations still will be required for transportation
plans, programs, and projects. Specifically, for such determination,
RTPs, TIPs, and transportation projects still will have to demonstrate
that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet the criteria
for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 93.112) and transportation control
measure implementation in the conformity rule provisions (40 CFR
93.113). Additionally, conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs must
be determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity
of plan and TIP amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated
in accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104.
In addition, for projects to be approved, they must come from a
currently conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115). The Tioga
County Area remains under the obligation to meet the applicable
conformity requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal indicates that it
meets all applicable CAA requirements, specifically the requirements of
CAA section 175A. EPA is proposing to approve the second maintenance
plan for the Tioga County Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rulemaking, proposing approval of
Pennsylvania's second maintenance plan for the Tioga County Area, does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply
in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmentalrelations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organiccompounds.

    Dated: February 3, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021-02558 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50807-50811]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23461]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0327; FRL-9970-14-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; State Board Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) submission from Minnesota addressing the
state board requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is also
approving elements of Minnesota's submission addressing the
infrastructure requirements relating to state boards for the 1997
ozone, 1997 fine particulate (PM2.5), 2006 PM2.5,
2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 2012 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proposed rulemaking
associated with this final action was published on July 17, 2017, and
EPA received no comments during the comment period, which ended on
August 16, 2017.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0327. 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 (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Eric Svingen, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?
III. What is the result of EPA's review of this SIP submission?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a SIP submission from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) dated May 26, 2016, which addresses CAA
requirements relating to the state board requirements under section
128, as well as infrastructure requirements of section 110 relating to
state boards for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The requirement for states to make infrastructure SIP submissions
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1),
states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision
thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)
as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA. This
specific rulemaking is only taking action on the CAA 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
element of these infrastructure SIP requirements.

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?

    EPA's guidance relating to infrastructure SIP submissions can be
found in a guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
Guidance). Further guidance is provided in a September 13, 2013,
document entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' (2013
Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, oftentimes
referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the result of EPA's review of this SIP submission?

    Pursuant to section 110(a), states must provide reasonable notice
and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP
submissions. MPCA provided public notice for the SIP revision on April
4, 2016, commenced a public comment period on April 5, 2016, and closed
the public comment period on May 5, 2016. No comments were received nor
were there any requests for a public hearing.
    Minnesota provided a detailed synopsis of how various components of
its SIP meet each of the applicable requirements in sections 128 and
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as applicable.
    On July 17, 2017 (82 FR 32669), EPA published a proposed rule that
would approve these submissions into Minnesota's SIP. This proposed
rule contained a detailed evaluation of how Minnesota's submission
satisfies certain requirements under CAA sections 110 and 128. No
comments were received. Therefore, EPA is finalizing this rule as
proposed.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to incorporate Minn. Stat. 10A.07, Minn.
Stat. 10A.09, and Minn. R. 7000.0300 into Minnesota's SIP. EPA is
further approving this submission as meeting CAA obligations under
section 128, as well as 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Minnesota
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5
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 by the Director
of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 2, 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, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 17, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (c):
0
i. Add the heading entitled ``CHAPTER 7000 PROCEDURAL RULES'' at the
beginning of the table and the entry ``7000.0300''.
0
ii. Add the entries ``10A.07'' and ``10A.09'' in numerical order under
the subheading entitled ``Minnesota Statutes''.
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e):
0
i. Revise the entry ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for
the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS''.
0
ii. Revise the entry ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS''.
0
iii. Revise the entry currently named ``Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' to read
``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS''.
0
iv. Revise the entry ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS''.
0
v. Revise the entry ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS''.
0
vi. Revise the entry ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS''.
0
vii. Revise the entry ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS,''.
0
viii. Revise the entry ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                       EPA-Approved Minnesota Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    State
      Minnesota citation         Title/subject    effective     EPA approval date              Comments
                                                     date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          CHAPTER 7000 PROCEDURAL RULES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7000.0300....................  Duty of candor..    4/19/2004  11/2/2017, [insert
                                                               Federal Register
                                                               citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minnesota Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10A.07.......................  Conflicts of        5/25/2013  11/2/2017, [insert
                                interest.                      Federal Register
                                                               citation].
10A.09.......................  Statements of       5/23/2015  11/2/2017, [insert
                                economic                       Federal Register
                                interest.                      citation].

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP       geographic or     State submittal
           provision               nonattainment      date/effective   EPA approved date         Comments
                                        area               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide........  11/29/2007 and 5/  11/2/2017,         CAA elements
 Infrastructure Requirements                         26/2016.           [insert Federal    110(a)(2)(A), (B),
 for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone                                              Register           (C) with respect to
 NAAQS.                                                                 citation].         enforcement, (D)(ii),
                                                                                (E) through (H), (J)
                                                                                except for prevention
                                                                                of significant
                                                                                deterioration (PSD),
                                                                                and (K) through (M)
                                                                                have been approved.
                                                                                CAA elements
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C) and (J)
                                                                                with respect to PSD
                                                                                have been
                                                                                disapproved.
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide........  11/29/2007 and 5/  11/2/2017,         CAA elements
 Infrastructure Requirements                         26/2016.           [insert Federal    110(a)(2)(A), (B),
 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                              Register           (C) with respect to
                                                                        citation].         enforcement, (D)(ii),
                                                                                (E) through (H), (J)
                                                                                except for prevention
                                                                                of significant
                                                                                deterioration (PSD),
                                                                                and (K) through (M)
                                                                                have been approved.
                                                                                CAA elements
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C) and (J)
                                                                                with respect to PSD
                                                                                have been
                                                                                disapproved.
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide........  5/23/2011, 6/27/   11/2/2017,         These actions address
 Infrastructure Requirements                         2012 and 5/26/     [insert Federal    the following CAA
 for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5                          2016.              Register           elements:
 NAAQS.                                                                 citation].         110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We have
                                                                                not finalized action
                                                                                on the visibility
                                                                                protection
                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action.
                                                                                Although EPA has
                                                                                disapproved portions
                                                                                of Minnesota's
                                                                                submission addressing
                                                                                the prevention of
                                                                                significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                Minnesota continues
                                                                                to implement the
                                                                                Federally promulgated
                                                                                rules for this
                                                                                purpose as they
                                                                                pertain to section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
                                                                                and (J).
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide........  6/19/2012 and 5/   11/2/2017,         These actions address
 Infrastructure Requirements                         26/2016.           [insert Federal    the following CAA
 for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS.                                          Register           elements:
                                                                        citation].         110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M).
                                                                                Although EPA has
                                                                                disapproved portions
                                                                                of Minnesota's
                                                                                submission addressing
                                                                                the prevention of
                                                                                significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                Minnesota continues
                                                                                to implement the
                                                                                Federally promulgated
                                                                                rules for this
                                                                                purpose as they
                                                                                pertain to section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
                                                                                and (J).
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide........  6/12/2014 and 5/   11/2/2017,         These actions address
 Infrastructure Requirements                         26/2016.           [insert Federal    the following CAA
 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.                                              Register           elements:
                                                                        citation].         110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We are
                                                                                not taking action on
                                                                                (D)(i)(I) or the
                                                                                visibility portion of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action. EPA
                                                                                has disapproved the
                                                                                elements related to
                                                                                the prevention of
                                                                                significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                specifically as they
                                                                                pertain to section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
                                                                                and (J); however,
                                                                                Minnesota continues
                                                                                to implement the
                                                                                Federally promulgated
                                                                                rules for this
                                                                                purpose.
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide........  6/12/2014 and 5/   11/2/2017,         These actions address
 Infrastructure Requirements                         26/2016.           [insert Federal    the following CAA
 for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide                                          Register           elements:
 (NO2) NAAQS.                                                           citation].         110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We have
                                                                                not taken action on
                                                                                the visibility
                                                                                portion of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action. EPA
                                                                                is disapproving the
                                                                                elements related to
                                                                                the prevention of
                                                                                significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                specifically as they
                                                                                pertain to section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
                                                                                and (J); however,
                                                                                Minnesota continues
                                                                                to implement the
                                                                                Federally promulgated
                                                                                rules for this
                                                                                purpose.

Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide........  6/12/2014 and 5/   11/2/2017,         These actions address
 Infrastructure Requirements                         26/2016.           [insert Federal    the following CAA
 for the 2010 sulfur dioxide                                            Register           elements:
 (SO2) NAAQS.                                                           citation].         110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We have
                                                                                not taken action on
                                                                                (D)(i)(I) or the
                                                                                visibility portion of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action. EPA
                                                                                has disapproved the
                                                                                elements related to
                                                                                the prevention of
                                                                                significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                specifically as they
                                                                                pertain to section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
                                                                                and (J); however,
                                                                                Minnesota continues
                                                                                to implement the
                                                                                Federally promulgated
                                                                                rules for this
                                                                                purpose.
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide........  6/12/2014 and 5/   11/2/2017,         These actions address
 Infrastructure Requirements                         26/2016.           [insert Federal    the following CAA
 for the 2012 fine particulate                                          Register           elements:
 matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.                                                  citation].         110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We are
                                                                                not taking action on
                                                                                (D)(i)(I) or the
                                                                                visibility portion of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action. EPA
                                                                                has disapproved the
                                                                                elements related to
                                                                                the prevention of
                                                                                significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                specifically as they
                                                                                pertain to section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
                                                                                and (J); however,
                                                                                Minnesota continues
                                                                                to implement the
                                                                                Federally promulgated
                                                                                rules for this
                                                                                purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-23461 Filed 11-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P