[Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 7)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1525-1532]
[DOCID:fr11ja11-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0031; FRL-9248-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Revisions to Rules and Regulations for Control of Air Pollution;
Permitting of Grandfathered and Electing Electric Generating Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially
disapprove revisions of the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ, or
Commission) on January 3, 2000, and July 31, 2002, as supplemented on
August 5, 2009. These revisions are to regulations of the TCEQ that
relate to application and permitting procedures for grandfathered
electric generating facilities (EGFs). The revisions address a mandate
by the Texas Legislature under Senate Bill 7 to achieve nitrogen oxide
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate
matter (PM) emission reductions from grandfathered EGFs. The emissions
reductions will contribute to achieving attainment and help ensure
attainment and continued maintenance of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate
matter in the State of Texas. As a result of these mandated emissions
reductions, in accordance with section 110(l) of the Federal Clean Air
Act, as amended (the Act, or CAA), partial approval of these revisions
will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA has
determined that the revisions, but for a severable provision, meet
section 110, part C, and part D of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act
or CAA) and EPA's regulations. Therefore, EPA is taking final action to
approve the revisions but for a severable portion that allows
collateral emissions increases of carbon monoxide (CO) created by the
imposition of technology controls to be permitted under the State's
Standard Permit (SP) for Pollution Control Projects (PCP). EPA is
taking final action to disapprove this severable portion concerning the
issuance of a PCP SP for the CO collateral emissions increases.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0031. All documents in this
docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either

electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:30 pm weekdays except
for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If
possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in
advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making
photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at
the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas.
    The State submittal, which is part of the EPA record, is also
available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below
during official business hours by appointment:
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Barrett, Air Permits Section
(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-7263; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``our,''
and ``us'' refers to EPA.

Outline

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. Background
    A. Texas Senate Bill 7
    B. January 3, 2000 Submittal
    C. July 31, 2002 Submittal
III. What are the grounds for these actions?
    A. January 3, 2000 Submittal
    B. July 31, 2002 Submittal
IV. Did we receive public comments on the proposed rulemaking?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    We are partially approving and partially disapproving the revision
to Title 30, Chapter 116, of the TAC submitted by the State of Texas on
January 3, 2000. We are also fully approving the revision to Title 30,
Chapter 116, of the TAC submitted by the State of Texas on July 31,
2002. The January 3, 2000 submittal concerns Subchapter A:
``Definitions,'' section 116.18; and Subchapter I: ``Electric
Generating Facility Permits,'' sections 116.910-914, 116.916, 116.920-
922, 116.930, and 116.931. We are fully approving all of this 2000
submittal but for the severable reference in 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) that,
if approved, would allow the use of a Texas PCP SP for the permitting
of the CO collateral emissions increases. We are disapproving this
reference in submitted 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) allowing the use of a PCP
SP for the collateral CO emissions. The July 31, 2002 submittal
concerns Subchapter A: ``Definitions,'' sections 116.10 and 116.18; and
Subchapter I: ``Electric Generating Facility Permits,'' sections
116.910, 116.911, 116.913, 116.917, 116.918, 116.921, 116.926, 116.928,
and 116.930. The TCEQ adopted these revisions on December 16, 1999, and
May 22, 2002, respectively.
    Please note that in the July 31, 2002 submittal concerning
Subchapter A: ``Definitions,'' section 116.10 is severable and was
approved in a separate rulemaking (See 75 FR 19468 April 14, 2010).
    EPA is taking final action on the submitted application and
permitting procedures for grandfathered EGFs, as mandated by the Texas
Legislature, to achieve NOX, SO2 and PM emission
reductions (Texas SB7 SIP) by December 31, 2010, as provided in the
Consent Decree entered on January 21, 2010 in BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA,
Case No. 3:08-cv-01491-N (N.D. Tex).

II. Background

A. Texas Senate Bill 7

    Texas Senate Bill 7 (SB 7), formed under the 76th Texas State
Legislature, 1999,amended the Texas Utilities Code (TUC), Title 2,
Public Utility Regulatory Act, Subtitle B, Electric Utilities, and
created a new Texas Utilities Code Chapter 39, ``Restructuring of
Electric Utility Industry.'' SB 7 requires the TCEQ to establish a
regulatory program implementing the statute's mandatory emissions
reductions for ``grandfathered facilities'' under the Texas Utilities
Code section 39.264. A ``grandfathered facility'' is one that existed
at the time the Legislature amended the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) in
1971.
    These facilities were not required to comply with (i.e.,
grandfathered from) the then new requirement to obtain permits for
construction or modifications of facilities that emit air contaminants.
Texas began permitting new and modified sources in 1971, and sources
built before Texas' permitting rules became effective were not required
to obtain permits for air emissions as long as they were not modified
as defined under Texas' New Source Review SIP program.
    Section 39.264 of the TUC now requires EGFs that existed on January
1, 1999, to obtain a permit from the Commission even though these
sources were not previously required to obtain a permit under the TCAA,
section 382.0518(g).
    Section 39.264 of the TUC specifically requires owners or operators
of all grandfathered EGFs to apply for a permit to emit NOX
and, for coal-fired grandfathered EGFs, SO2, and PM through
opacity limitations. These applications were due on or before September
1, 2000. A grandfathered EGF that does not obtain a permit may not
operate after May 1, 2003, unless the Commission finds good cause for
an extension. Section 39.264 of the TUC requires that for the 12-month
period beginning May 1, 2003, and for each 12-month period following,
annual emissions of NOX from grandfathered EGFs not exceed
50% of the NOX emissions reported to the Commission for
1997. Furthermore, it requires that emissions of SO2 from
coal-fired grandfathered EGFs not exceed 75% of the SO2
emissions reported to the Commission in 1997. In addition, TUC section
39.264(e) requires electric generating facility permits (EGFPs) for
coal-fired, grandfathered EGFs to contain appropriate opacity
limitations provided by the commission's rules in 30 Texas
Administrative Code (TAC) Ch.111.111, ``Requirements for Specified
Sources.'' As described in more detail below, the emission limitations
may be satisfied by using control technology or by participating in the
banking and trading of allowances under Texas' Emission Banking and
Trading of Allowances (EBTA) program.
    Overall, SB 7 mandates specific pollution reduction in an area,
while allowing individual sources flexibility in how they meet
emissions reductions. As participants in the program, EGFs must obtain
a permit allocating them a certain level of emissions which they cannot
exceed. In each defined region, the total level of emissions are
restricted, or capped, to a level consistent with the SB 7 statutory
goals. The individual EGF, to meet its allocated emissions level, can
either choose to install pollution controls, shut down operations, or
purchase allowances from another source that already reduced emission
levels below its permitted amount.
    To achieve SB 7's mandate, the TCEQ revised 30 TAC Chapter 116,
``Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or
Modification,'' by establishing an allowance and permitting program for
regulating grandfathered EGFs under Subchapter I.

TCEQ concurrently adopted Chapter 101, Subchapter H, ``Emissions
Banking and Trading,'' that establishes a regional cap and trade system
to distribute emission allowances for use by EGFs. The new Division 2,
Chapter 101, Subchapter H, concerning EBTA, sets out the allowance
system to be used to assist grandfathered and electing EGFs in meeting
the emission reduction requirements of TUC, section 39.264. Together,
the two rules define categories of EGFs that are eligible to use the
trading system. As discussed above, the first category consists of
grandfathered facilities. The second category of EGFs consist of
currently permitted EGFs that are not subject to the permitting
requirements mandated by SB 7, yet elect to participate in the
allowance trading system. These are referred to as ``electing'' EGFs
and participation in the permitting program will allow electing EGFs to
obtain allowances under the EBTA.
    Please note that EPA's action on 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H,
Division 2, concerning Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances, is
being finalized in a separate notice and is evaluated in a separate
TSD. (RME Docket R06-OAR-2005-TX-0012).
    The background for today's actions is also discussed in more detail
in our October 19, 2010, proposal to partially approve and partially
disapprove revisions to the Texas SIP (75 FR 64235-64240).

B. January 3, 2000 Submittal

    Regarding the January 3, 2000 submittal, SB 7 requires that for the
12-month period beginning May 1, 2003, and for each 12-month period
following, annual emissions of NOX from all grandfathered
EGFs not exceed 50% of the NOX emissions reported to the
Commission for 1997. Furthermore, the legislation requires that
emissions of SO2 from all coal-fired grandfathered EGFs not
exceed 75% of the SO2 emissions reported to the Commission
in 1997, and to contain appropriate opacity limitations by way of
permitting the emissions of particulate matter.

C. July 31, 2002 Submittal

    Regarding the July 31, 2002 submittal, this submittal allows the
owners or operators of previously grandfathered and electing EGFs who
have already applied for an electric generating facility (EGF) permit
required by SB 7 to also obtain a permit for all air contaminants,
certain generators and auxiliary fossil fuel fired combustion
facilities.

III. What are the grounds for these actions?

A. January 3, 2000 Submittal

    These submitted provisions, with the exception of 116.911(a)(2)
discussed below, meet the requirement in 40 CFR 51.160(a) that each
plan include legally enforceable procedures to determine whether the
construction or modification of a facility, building, structure, or
installation, or combination of these will result in (1) a violation of
applicable portions of the control strategy; or (2) interference with
attainment or maintenance of a national standard in the State in which
the proposed source (or modification) is located or in a neighboring
State. As such, they are consistent with the Act and its permitting
requirements.
    Regarding the submitted 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2), EPA approved Texas's
general regulations for Standard Permits in 30 TAC Subchapter F of 30
TAC Chapter 116 on November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64548) as meeting the minor
NSR SIP requirements. The Texas Clean Air Act provides that the TCEQ
may issue a standard permit for ``new or existing similar facilities''
if it is enforceable and compliance can be adequately monitored. See
section 382.05195 of the TCAA. EPA approved the State's Standard Permit
program as part of the Texas Minor NSR SIP program on November 14, 2003
(68 FR 64548). However, when EPA approved the Texas Standard Permits
Program as part of the Texas Minor NSR SIP, it explicitly did not
approve the Pollution Control Project (PCP) Standard Permit (30 TAC
116.617). This is the PCP SP referenced in 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) of this
SIP submittal which owners or operators of grandfathered or electing
electric generating facilities used to permit collateral emissions of
CO which, otherwise, would have triggered PSD review. Following the
State of New York, et al. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 801 (D.C. Cir. 2005) court
decision (New York I), Texas submitted a repeal of the previously
submitted PCP Standard Permit and submitted the adoption of a new PCP
Standard Permit at 30 TAC 116.617--State Pollution Control Project
Standard Permit, on February 1, 2006. One of the main reasons Texas
adopted a new PCP Standard Permit was to meet the new Federal
requirements to explicitly limit this PCP Standard Permit only to Minor
NSR. In New York I, the Court vacated the federal pollution control
project provisions for NNSR and PSD. Although the new PCP Standard
Permit explicitly prohibits the use of it for Major NSR purposes, TCEQ
failed to demonstrate how this particular Standard Permit met the Texas
Standard Permits NSR SIP since it applies to numerous types of
pollution control projects, which can be used at any source that wants
to use a PCP, and is not an authorization for similar sources. EPA
disapproved the new PCP Standard Permit submittal on September 15,
2010. 75 FR 56,424 (September 15, 2010). Thus, we are disapproving the
submitted 116.911 (a)(2) because it refers to and relies on the PCP SP
that does not meet the applicable requirements of the Act, and was
previously disapproved by EPA as a part of the Texas SIP.
    The rationale for today's actions is also discussed in more detail
in our October 19, 2010, proposal to partially approve and partially
disapprove revisions to the Texas SIP (75 FR 64237-64239). See our
Technical Support Document, Attachment A, for additional details.

B. July 31, 2002 Submittal

    These provisions meet the requirement in 40 CFR 51.160(a) that each
plan include legally enforceable procedures to determine whether the
construction or modification of a facility, building, structure, or
installation, or combination of these will result in (1) a violation of
applicable portions of the control strategy; or (2) interference with
attainment or maintenance of a national standard in the state in which
the proposed source (or modification) is located or in a neighboring
state. As such, they are consistent with the Act and its permitting
requirements.
    The rationale for today's actions is also discussed in more detail
in our October 19, 2010, proposal to partially approve and partially
disapprove revisions to the Texas SIP (75 FR 64239). See our Technical
Support Document, Attachment B, for additional details.

IV. Did we receive public comments on the proposed rulemaking?

    In response to our October 19, 2010, proposal, we received comments
from the following: Association of Electric Companies of Texas (AECT);
Baker Botts, L.L.P., on behalf of Texas Industrial Project (TIP);
Jackson Walker L.L.P., on behalf of the Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition
(GCLC); Luminant Generation Company LLC (Luminant); Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ); and Texas Mining and Reclamation
Association (TMRA).
    We respond to these comments in our evaluation and review under
this final action below.

    Comment 1: TMRA, Luminant, GCLC, AECT, and TCEQ commented generally
that the submitted 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) was in compliance with all
federal regulations and policies at the time it was adopted and
submitted to EPA, and the subsequent court decisions including the EPA
appeal decision, to vacate the provision should not be applied
retroactively. Further, these commenters assert that EPA action on this
provision should apply prospectively only and not to any permits issued
prior to the court decisions.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. As discussed above, EPA
approved the State's Standard Permit program as part of the Texas Minor
NSR SIP program on November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64548). When EPA approved
the Texas Standard Permits Program as part of the Texas Minor NSR SIP,
it explicitly DID NOT approve the Pollution Control Project (PCP)
Standard Permit (30 TAC 116.617). This is the PCP SP referenced in 30
TAC 116.911(a)(2) of this SIP submittal which owners or operators of
grandfathered or electing electric generating facilities used to permit
collateral emissions of CO which, otherwise, would have triggered PSD
review. Following New York 1, Texas submitted a repeal of the
previously submitted PCP Standard Permit and submitted the adoption of
a new PCP Standard Permit at 30 TAC 116.617--State Pollution Control
Project Standard Permit, on February 1, 2006. One of the main reasons
Texas adopted a new PCP Standard Permit was to meet the new Federal
requirements to explicitly limit this PCP Standard Permit only to Minor
NSR. In New York 1, the Court vacated the federal pollution control
project provisions for NNSR and PSD. Although the new PCP Standard
Permit explicitly prohibits the use of it for Major NSR purposes, TCEQ
has failed to demonstrate how this particular Standard Permit meets the
Texas Standard Permits NSR SIP since it applies to numerous types of
pollution control projects, which can be used at any source that wants
to use a PCP, and is not an authorization for similar sources. EPA
disapproved the new PCP Standard Permit submittal on September 15,
2010. 75 FR 56,424 (September 15, 2010).
    We are disapproving the submitted 116.911(a)(2) because the
reference in it which allows obtaining a PCP SP for the collateral
emissions does not meet the applicable requirements of the Act, as
discussed herein, and was disapproved by EPA as a part of the Texas
SIP. EPA is required to review a SIP revision for its compliance with
the Act and EPA regulations. See CAA section 110(k)(3); see also BCCA
Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F 3d.817, 822 (5th Cir 2003); Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C.
Cir 1995).
    Comment 2: TMRA, TIP, Luminant, GCLC, and AECT commented generally
that the Clean Air Act requires that EPA ``shall not approve a revision
of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress * *
*.'' EPA should therefore approve 116.911(a)(2) because EPA discusses
in its proposed rule dated October 19, 2010, that the CO increases do
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS for CO, nor
cause or contribute to increase in PSD increments, much less a
violation of any NAAQS.
    Response: This comment misunderstands the basis on which we are
disapproving 116.911(a)(2). We are disapproving the submitted 30 TAC
116.911(a)(2) because it allows the source to obtain a permit for its
collateral CO emissions that is not a part of the Texas SIP. EPA
previously disapproved the permit allowed for the collateral CO
emissions because it did not meet the applicable requirements of the
Act. EPA is required to review a SIP revision for its compliance with
the Act and EPA regulations. See CAA section 110(k)(3); see also BCCA
Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F 3d.817, 822 (5th Cir 2003); Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C.
Cir 1995).
    Comment 3: TIP, Luminant, and GCLC commented generally that the
court decision of June 24, 2005, does not apply to 116.911(a)(2). That
court decision dealt with an exclusion from major NSR, whereas the PCP
SP is a minor NSR permitting process and authorization tool and the SP
cannot be used to circumvent major NSR. One commenter noted that ``in
light of'' the court decision, on February 1, 2006, Texas submitted to
EPA a revised version of 30 TAC Sec.  116.617 (Standard Permits for
Pollution Control Projects) to ``limit the use of the state's PCP SP to
Minor NSR''.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. See response to comment
1.
    Comment 4: TMRA, Luminant, and AECT commented generally that they
disagree with EPA's allegation that there were two facilities where
collateral emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) above the PSD significance
level occurred following the installation of pollution control
equipment. Further, that they disagree with EPA's proposal to
disapprove these already issued permits.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA is not disapproving
these two already issued permits with this SIP action. Our disapproval
is strictly limited to the provision 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) of the
January 3, 2000, SIP submittal. Although it is not a basis for EPA's
final action here, EPA stands by its previous discussion of the
facilities where collateral emissions of CO above PSD significance
levels occurred following the installation of pollution control
equipment.
    Comment 5: TMRA, Luminant, and AECT commented that EPA should
follow its established position that Pollution Control Project permits
are acceptable under the Clean Air Act.
    Response: It is not EPA's position, established or otherwise, that
PCP permits are acceptable under the Clean Air Act for Major NSR.
Furthermore, the New York I opinion addressed the use of PCPs and
disapproved their use for Major NSR requirements. In that decision, the
court vacated the provisions of the Federal 2002 NSR Reform rule that
specifically related to PCPs. The EPA must comply with the court
decision. EPA disapproved the State's submitted PCP SP for Minor NSR.
See response to comment 1.
    Comment 6: TMRA and AECT commented generally that the proposed
disapproval has a chilling effect on much needed economic investment
and makes it even more difficult for companies to create jobs and
provide for economic growth. Further, that the Senate Bill 7 program
has achieved substantial emission reductions while providing a fair and
predictable regulatory framework that is protective of human health and
the environment.
    Response: Under the NAAQS provisions of the CAA, air pollution
control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local
governments. EPA is respectful of the Act and cognizant of the
cooperative federalism principle contained therein. However, while the
Act does give States a fair degree of latitude in choosing the mix of
controls necessary to meet and maintain the NAAQS, it also places some
limits on the choices States can make. EPA's role is to ensure that the
SIP submittal is consistent with the CAA. Any SIP submittal must adhere
to applicable requirements of the federal CAA, including the obligation
to provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and to ensure
that the SIP may be adequately enforced. EPA's statutory
responsibilities in reviewing a SIP are to ensure it meets the
requirements of the Act. As explained in

the proposal and above, as part of EPA's review, we determined that the
provision providing for the obtaining of a non-SIP PCP SP is
inconsistent with the CAA. See CAA section 110(k)(3); see also BCCA
Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F 3d.817, 822 (5th Cir 2003); Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C.
Cir 1995).
    Comment 7: Luminant commented that EPA incorrectly concludes that
its prior disapproval of 30 TAC 116.617 necessitates disapproval of 30
TAC 116.911(a)(2). Rather, EPA must independently justify its
disapproval of these provisions relating to the Texas Senate Bill No. 7
(``SB7'') permitting program. Further, that EPA's disapproval of 30 TAC
116.617 does not justify or require disapproval of 30 TAC
116.911(a)(2). Also, the obligation thus originates from the SB7 permit
rules, and EPA has an independent obligation to justify its disapproval
of the substance of those requirements in this rulemaking and not
simply rely on a prior one that did not involve the SB7 permit program.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2)
allows a SB7 source that has collateral emissions of CO to obtain a
TCEQ PCP SP rather than obtaining a Texas NSR SIP permit, for its CO
collateral emissions. The PCP SP is not a part of the Texas NSR SIP.
See the response to comment 1. Moreover, EPA is required to review a
SIP revision for its compliance with the Act and EPA regulations. See
CAA section 110(k)(3); see also BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F 3d.817,
822 (5th Cir 2003); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Browner,
57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir 1995).
    Comment 8: Luminant commented that it supports the remainder of
proposed approval of the January 3, 2000 and July 31, 2002 submittals.
It also supports the EPA's November 16, 2010 direct final rule to
approve the EBTA program.
    Response: EPA acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 9: The TCEQ commented that it maintains its position that
Sec.  116.617 is an efficient and legally supportable authorization for
pollution control projects in Texas.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. We disapproved the PCP
SP on September 15, 2010. See 75 FR 56,424 (September 15, 2010).

IV. Final Action

    EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving revisions to
the Texas SIP that include 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter A:
``Definitions,'' section 116.18; and Subchapter I: ``Electric
Generating Facility Permits,'' sections 116.910-914, 116.916, 116.920-
922, 116.930, and 116.931, which Texas submitted on January 3, 2000.
    EPA is approving all of the January 3, 2000, SIP revision submittal
as part of the Texas NSR SIP but for 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2). EPA is
disapproving the submitted severable 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) for
collateral emissions increases of CO that are allowed to be permitted
under the Texas PCP SP.
    Further, EPA is approving revisions to the Texas SIP that include
30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter A: ``Definitions,'' section 116.18; and
Subchapter I: ``Electric Generating Facility Permits,'' sections
116.910, 116.911, 116.913, 116.917, 116.918, 116.921, 116.926, 116.928,
and 116.930, which Texas submitted on July 31, 2002. We are taking no
action on Chapter 116, Subchapter H: ``Permits for Grandfathered
Facilities,'' which Texas submitted on July 31, 2002. The State
understands that EPA will take future action on Subchapter H because it
is independent from Subchapters A and I, and action is not necessary at
this time.
    The January 3, 2000 and July 31, 2002 submittals address the
applicability and permitting requirements for grandfathered and
electing electric generating facilities. The revisions will contribute
to improvement in overall air quality in Texas. There will be no
increase in ozone, SO2, and PM concentration levels because
of approving the revisions. We have evaluated the State's submittal,
determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA
air quality regulations, and is consistent with EPA policy.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This final action has been determined not to be a ``significant
regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D
of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b). Because this final action does not impose an information
collection burden, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. This rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals
and disapprovals under section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act do
not create any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove
requirements that the States are already imposing.
    Furthermore, as explained in this action, the submissions do not
meet the requirements of the Act and EPA cannot approve the
submissions. The final disapproval will not affect any existing State
requirements applicable to small entities in the State of Texas.
Federal disapproval of a State submittal does not affect its State
enforceability. After considering the economic impacts of today's
rulemaking on small entities, and because the Federal SIP disapproval
does not create any new requirements or impact a substantial number of
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air
Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 ``for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector.'' EPA has determined that the disapproval action does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action determines
that pre-existing requirements under State or local law should not be
approved as part of the Federally approved SIP. It imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.''
``Policies that have Federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is disapproving would not 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. This final rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. This action does not involve or impose
any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but
simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the
SIP.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. Today's action does not require
the public to perform activities conducive to the use of voluntary
consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, (February 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the Clean
Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act and will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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 E`xecutive Order
12898.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 14, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Nonattainment, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

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

    Dated: December 29, 2010.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. The table in Sec.  52.2270 (c) entitled ``EPA Approved Regulations
in the Texas SIP'' is amended under Chapter 116--Control of Air
Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification, as follows:
0
a. Immediately following the entry for Section 116.14, by adding a new
entry for Section 116.18, Electric Generating Facility Permits
Definitions; and
0
b. Immediately following section 116.615, by adding a new centered
heading entitled ``Subchapter I--Electric Generating Facility Permits''
followed by new entries for Sections 116.910, 116.911, 116.912,
116.913, 116.914, 116.916, 116.917, 116.918, 116.920, 116.921, 116.922,
116.926, 116.928, 116.930, and 116.931.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                                          approval/
         State citation              Title/subject        submittal      EPA approval date       Explanation
                                                            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
          Chapter 116 (Reg 6)--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                            Subchapter A--Definitions

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 116.18.................  Electric Generating        5/22/2002  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                  Facility Permits                      FR page number
                                  Definitions.                          where document
                                                                        begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
                               Subchapter I--Electric Generating Facility Permits

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 116.910................  Applicability.......       5/22/2002  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                                                        FR page number
                                                                        where document
                                                                        begins].
Section 116.911................  Electric Generating        5/22/2002  1/11/2011, [Insert    116.911(a)(2) is
                                  Facility Permit.                      FR page number        not in the SIP.
                                                                        where document
                                                                        begins].
Section 116.912................  Electric Generating       12/16/1999  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                  Facilities.                           FR page number
                                                                        where document
                                                                        begins].
Section 116.913................  General and Special        5/22/2002  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                  Conditions.                           FR page number
                                                                        where document
                                                                        begins].
Section 116.914................  Emissions Monitoring      12/16/1999  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                  and Reporting                         FR page number
                                  Requirements.                         where document
                                                                        begins].
Section 116.916................  Permits for               12/16/1999  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                  Grandfathered and                     FR page number
                                  Electing Generating                   where document
                                  Facilities in El                      begins].
                                  Paso County.
Section 116.917................  Electric Generating        5/22/2002  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                  Facility Permit                       FR page number
                                  Application for                       where document
                                  Certain                               begins].
                                  Grandfathered Coal-
                                  Fired Electric
                                  Generating
                                  Facilities and
                                  Certain Facilities
                                  Located at Electric
                                  Generating Facility
                                  Sites.
Section 116.918................  Additional General         5/22/2002  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                  Special Conditions                    FR page number
                                  for Grandfathered                     where document
                                  Coal-Fired Electric                   begins].
                                  Generating
                                  Facilities and
                                  Certain Facilities
                                  Located at Electric
                                  Generating Facility
                                  Sites.
Section 116.920................  Applicability.......      12/16/1999  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                                                        FR page number
                                                                        where document
                                                                        begins].
Section 116.921................  Notice and Comment         5/22/2002  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                  Hearings for                          FR page number
                                  Initial Issuance.                     where document
                                                                        begins].

Section 116.922................  Notice of Final           12/16/1999  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                  Action.                               FR page number
                                                                        where document
                                                                        begins].
Section 116.926................  Permit Fee..........       5/22/2002  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                                                        FR page number
                                                                        where document
                                                                        begins].
Section 116.928................  Delegation..........       5/22/2002  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                                                        FR page number
                                                                        where document
                                                                        begins].
Section 116.930................  Amendments and             5/22/2002  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                  Alterations Issued                    FR page number
                                  Under this                            where document
                                  Subchapter.                           begins].
Section 116.931................  Renewal.............      12/16/1999  1/11/2011, [Insert    ...................
                                                                        FR page number
                                                                        where document
                                                                        begins].

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

0
3. Section 52.2273 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2273  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (f) EPA is disapproving the Texas SIP revision submittals under 30
TAC Chapter 116--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New
Construction or Modification as follows:
    (1) Subchapter I--Electric Generating Facility Permits--Section
116.911(a)(2) (Electric Generating Facility Permit), adopted December
16, 1999, and submitted January 3, 2000.

[FR Doc. 2011-222 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5129-5130]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0341; Airspace Docket No. 12-AEA-4]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Wilkes-Barre, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at Wilkes-Barre, PA,
creating controlled airspace to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Wilkes-Barre Wyoming Valley
Airport. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary for the continued safety
and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the
Wilkes-Barre, PA, area. This action also recognizes the name change of
Hanover Township Fire Station 5 Heliport. The BARTY LOM
navigation aid is removed, as this navigation aid has been
decommissioned.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 7, 2013. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P. O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 18, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace in the
Wilkes-Barre, PA, area by creating controlled airspace at Wilkes-Barre/
Wyoming Valley Airport, Wilkes-Barre, PA (77 FR 42228). Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One positive
comment was received. Subsequent to publication the FAA found that the
BARTY LOM navigation aid was decommissioned and, therefore, is being
removed from the Class E airspace designation of Class E airspace
designated as an extension.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and
effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace in the Wilkes-Barre, PA, area by
creating controlled airspace extending upward form 700 feet above the
surface at Wilkes-Barre/Wyoming Valley Airport to support the new RNAV
standard instrument approach procedures for the airport. Additionally,
the BARTY LOM has been decommissioned, and is removed from the Class E
airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area and the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface.
These modifications are necessary for the safety and management of IFR
operations in the Wilkes-Barre, PA, area. Also, the heliport formerly
known as Fire Station Helipad at Mercy Hospital is renamed Hanover
Township Fire Station 5 Heliport. Except for editorial changes
and the changes listed above, this rule is the same as that proposed in
the NPRM.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace in the Wilkes-Barre, PA area.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D surface area.

* * * * *

AEA PA E4 Wilkes-Barre, PA [Amended]

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport
    (lat. 41[deg]20'19'' N., long 75[deg]43'24'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.4 miles
each side of a 033[deg] bearing from Wilkes-Barre/Scranton
International Airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 11 miles
northeast of the airport, and within 1 mile either side of a
213[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius
to 7.3 miles southwest of the airport. This Class E airspace area is
effective during specific dates and times established in advance by
a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Wilkes-Barre, PA [Amended]

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport
    (Lat. 41[deg]20'19'' N., long 75[deg]43'24'' W.)
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International ILS Localizer Northeast Course
    (Lat. 41[deg]19'54'' N., long 75[deg]43'49'' W.)
Wilkes-Barre Wyoming Valley Airport
    (Lat. 41[deg]17'50'' N., long. 75[deg]51'09'' W.)
Wyoming Valley Medical Center
    (Lat. 41[deg]15'45'' N., long 75[deg]48'40'' W.)
ZIGAL Waypoint
    (Lat. 41[deg]16'08'' N., long 75[deg]48'36'' W.)
Scranton, Community Medical Center, PA
    (Lat. 41[deg]24'00'' N., long 75[deg]38'49'' W.)
ZESMA Waypoint
    (Lat. 41[deg]24'00'' N., long 75[deg]39'39'' W.)
Hanover Township Fire Station 5 Heliport
    (Lat. 41[deg]14'08'' N., long 75[deg]56'03'' W.)
ZIDKA Waypoint
    (Lat. 41[deg]14'14'' N., long 75[deg]55'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
of the Earth within a 11.8-mile radius of Wilkes-Barre/Scranton
International Airport, and within an 11.6- mile radius of Wilkes-
Barre Wyoming Valley Airport, and including that airspace within a
6-mile radius of each of the Point in Space Waypoints ZIGAL, ZESMA,
and ZIDKA serving the Wyoming Medical Center, the Community Medical
Center, and the Hanover Township Fire Station 5 Heliport,
respectively.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 12, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-01363 Filed 1-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17966-17971]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06861]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0787; FRL-9908-12-OAR]

Approval of States' Requests To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor
Pressure Volatility Standard in Florida, and the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Areas in North Carolina

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve requests from Florida and North Carolina for the EPA to relax
the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Standard applicable to gasoline
introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year in
six counties in Florida, and in counties in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill Area (also referred to as the ``Triangle Area'') and the
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Area (also referred to as the
``Triad Area'') in North Carolina. Specifically, the EPA is proposing
to amend the regulations to change the RVP standard for six counties in
Florida and for the counties in the Triangle and Triad Areas from 7.8
pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline in the
aforementioned areas. The EPA has preliminarily determined that these
changes to the federal RVP regulation are consistent with the
applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 30, 2014.
Request for a public hearing must be received by April 15, 2014. If the
EPA receives a request for a public hearing, the Agency will publish
information related to the timing and location of the hearing and the
timing of a new deadline for public comments.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0787, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include two
copies.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0787. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the Agency may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rudolph Kapichak, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of this document. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
IV. Details of the Proposal
V. Legal Authority
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VII. Legal Authority

I. General Information

    Throughout this document, ``the Agency'' is used to mean the EPA.
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register,
the EPA is making these revisions as a direct final rule without prior
proposal, because the Agency views these revisions as noncontroversial
and anticipates no adverse comment. The rationale for this rulemaking
is described both in this proposal and in the direct final rule.
    The regulatory text for this proposed rule is included in the
direct final rule and parties should review that rule for the
regulatory text. If the EPA receives no adverse comment, the Agency
will not take further action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives
adverse comment on the rule or any portion of the rule, the Agency will
withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that received
adverse comment. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this rulemaking. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and
distributors who do business in Florida and in North Carolina.
Regulated entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            NAICS codes
       Examples of potentially  regulated entities              \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum refineries....................................          324110
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.....................          424710
                                                                  424720
Gasoline Retail Stations................................          447110
Gasoline Transporters...................................          484220
                                                                  484230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    This table provides only a guide for readers regarding entities
likely to be regulated by this action. You should carefully examine the
regulations in 40 CFR 80.27 to determine whether your facility is
impacted. If you have further questions, call the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

IV. Details of the Proposal

A. Summary of the Proposal

    The EPA is proposing to approve a request from Florida to change
the summertime RVP standard for Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough,
Palm Beach and Pinellas counties in Florida from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by
amending the EPA's

regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). Additionally, the EPA is proposing
to approve a request from North Carolina to change the summertime RVP
standard for the Triangle and Triad Areas from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by
amending the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). The Triangle Area
is comprised of Durham and Wake Counties, and the Dutchville Township
portion of Granville County. The Triad Area is comprised of the
counties of Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford in their entirety, and the
portion of Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek,
North Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek and back to Yadkin River.
    In previous rulemakings, the EPA approved state implementation plan
(SIP) revisions from Florida and North Carolina which provided
technical analyses that demonstrated that removal of the Federal RVP
requirements of 7.8 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September
15 of each year in the six counties in Florida, and the Triangle and
Triad Areas in North Carolina would not interfere with maintenance of
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in these areas. For
more information on Florida's SIP revision for the six Florida counties
and the EPA's analysis of Florida's SIP revision refer to the January
6, 2014, final rule at 79 FR 573; on North Carolina's SIP revision for
the Triangle Area refer to the January 2, 2014, final rule at 79 FR 47;
and on North Carolina's SIP revision for the Triad Area refer to the
January 24, 2014, final rule at 79 FR 4082.
    As mentioned above, the EPA is proposing to approve requests from
Florida and North Carolina to change the summertime RVP standard for
six Florida counties, and for the Triangle and Triad Areas from 7.8 psi
to 9.0 psi by amending the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). The
preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows. Section IV.B
provides the history of federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section
IV.C describes the policy regarding relaxation of volatility standards
in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas.
Section IV.D provides information specific to Florida's request for the
six counties currently subject to the 7.8 psi summertime RVP
requirements. Section IV.E provides information specific to North
Carolina's requests for the counties in the Triangle and Triad Areas
that are currently subject to the 7.8 psi summertime RVP requirements.
Finally, Section V briefly discusses the associated direct final rule.

B. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), the EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone
and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to
ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma
or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to
respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people
with heart and lung disease.
    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c)
of the CAA, the EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR
11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the
regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state
basis in the final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the
portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These
regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program,
which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline
during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), the EPA
promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the
volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP
standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and
the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS).
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires the EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. Section 211(h) prohibits the EPA from establishing a volatility
standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that
the Agency may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former
ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), the EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA.
The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP
above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning
in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations
retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55
FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for
certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility
controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility
standards published in 1991, the EPA will rely on states to initiate
changes to the volatility program. The EPA's policy for approving such
changes is described in Section III of this notice.
    Florida and North Carolina have initiated these changes by
requesting that the EPA relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard for counties
that are in ozone maintenance areas. Accordingly, the States revised
their original modeling and maintenance demonstrations for these areas
to reflect continued attainment under the relaxed 9.0 psi RVP standard
that the states have requested.

C. EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards in Ozone
Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas

    As stated in the preamble for the EPA's amended Phase II volatility
standards (56 FR 64706), any change in the volatility standard for a
nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment
area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises
the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas where the EPA mandated a Phase II volatility
standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the 7.8
psi RVP will remain in effect, even after such an area is redesignated
to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that revises
the RVP standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
    As explained in the December 12, 1991, rulemaking, the EPA believes
that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard is best accomplished in
conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone
nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, section
107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to
section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable of maintaining
attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's
circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the
area is capable of maintaining

attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard
or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the
area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the
context of a request for redesignation, the EPA will not relax the
volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the
maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the EPA, that the
area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the
more stringent volatility standard.

D. EPA's Analysis of Florida's Request To Relax the Federal RVP
Requirements in the State

    On November 6, 1991, the EPA designated and classified the
Southeast Florida area (i.e., Broward, Dade and Palm Beach counties) as
Moderate; the Jacksonville area (i.e., Duval County) as Transitional;
and the Tampa area (i.e., Hillsborough and Pinellas counties) as
Marginal nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR
56694 (November 6, 1991). Among the requirements applicable to
nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to
meet certain RVP standards for gasoline sold commercially during the
high ozone season. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). Thus, the RVP
requirements for gasoline sold in these three 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas was 7.8 psi from June 1 through September 15 of
each year. Subsequently, each area was redesignated to attainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ Florida's redesignation requests did not
include a request for relaxation of the gasoline volatility standard
and thus, the requirement to use gasoline with a 7.8 psi RVP during the
high ozone season remained in effect.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 60 FR 41, (January 3, 1995); 60 FR 10326 (February 24,
1995); and 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995), respectively).
    \2\ Effective on June 15, 2004, Broward, Dade, Duval,
Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties were designated
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR
23857.
    \3\ Effective on July 20, 2012, the same counties were
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 15, 2013, the State of Florida, through the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), submitted a request for
the EPA to relax the Federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi in Broward,
Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties in Florida.
The State also submitted a technical analysis which demonstrated that
the less-stringent RVP in these counties would not interfere with
continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or any other
applicable standard.\4\ Specifically, the State updated the 10-year
maintenance plans that were submitted for the three 1-hour ozone
maintenance areas under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.\5\ As required, these section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans
provided for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective date of these
areas' designation as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These
plans also included components demonstrating how each area will
continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provided
contingency measures should an area violate the NAAQS. Florida's
previous ozone redesignation requests and maintenance plans for these
areas did not remove the 7.8 psi RVP standard. See 75 FR 29671 (May 27,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone standard designated
attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard are
required to submit a maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the
CAA demonstrating maintenance out to 10 years after designation. See
69 FR 23996 (April 30, 2004).
    \5\ The EPA has determined that redesignated 1-hour ozone
attainment areas that are designated 8-hour ozone attainment areas
may rely on the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for purposes of
requesting relaxation of the more stringent volatility standard. See
73 FR 8202, 8205 (February 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, on August 15, 2013, FDEP submitted changes to
the three section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans that collectively cover
Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties in
Florida. Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision modifies the existing
section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans to account for a less stringent
applicable RVP gasoline requirement of 9.0 psi for these areas.
Specifically, Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision included an
evaluation of the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP
requirement would have on maintenance of the 1997 and 2008 ozone
standards, and on other applicable NAAQS. The EPA evaluated Florida's
August 15, 2013, SIP revision in a previous rulemaking that was subject
to public notice-and-comment and no comments were received. The EPA
approved Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision on January 6, 2014.
See 79 FR 573. In this action, based on the previous approval of
Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision, and the fact that the areas
are currently attaining all ozone NAAQS, the EPA is proposing to
approve Florida's request to relax the high ozone season RVP standard
for Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas
counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

E. EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Requests To Relax the Federal RVP
Requirements in the Triangle and Triad Areas

    The following two sections provide the EPA's analysis of North
Carolina's requests to relax the Federal RVP requirements in the
Triangle and Triad Areas.
1. EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Requests To Relax the Federal RVP
Requirement in the Triangle Area
    On November 6, 1991, the EPA designated and classified Durham and
Wake Counties, and the Dutchville Township portion of Granville County
(also known as the Triangle Area at the time) as a Moderate
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). Among the requirements applicable to nonattainment
areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain
RVP standards for gasoline sold commercially during the high ozone
season. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). Thus, the RVP requirement for
gasoline sold in the Triangle Area was 7.8 psi from June 1 through
September 15 of each year. On April 18, 1994, the Triangle Area was
redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. See 59 FR
18300. North Carolina's redesignation request for the Triangle Area did
not include a request for relaxation of the gasoline volatility
standard.6 7 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Effective on June 15, 2004, the nonattainment area for the
Triangle Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS was expanded from Durham and
Wake Counties, and the Dutchville Township portion of Granville
County, to also include Franklin, Johnston, Orange, and Person
Counties, and the remainder of Granville County and Baldwin, Center,
New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County. See 69 FR 23857.
    \7\ On December 26, 2007 the Triangle Area was redesignated to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 72 FR 72948.
    \8\ Effective on July 20, 2012, the same counties were
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 27, 2013, the State of North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environment, and Natural Resources (NC DENR),
submitted a request for the EPA to relax the Federal RVP requirement of
7.8 psi in Wake and Durham Counties, and the Dutchville Township
portion of Granville County that was originally included in the 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area. The State also submitted a technical analysis
which demonstrated that the less-stringent RVP in the aforementioned
counties would not interfere with continued maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS or any other applicable

standard. Specifically, the State updated the 10-year maintenance plan
that was submitted for the Triangle 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area
under section 175A of the CAA. As required, this section 175A
maintenance plan provided for continued attainment and maintenance of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the EPA's
redesignation of the area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. This plan also included components demonstrating
how the area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
provided contingency measures should the area violate the NAAQS. North
Carolina's previous ozone redesignation requests and maintenance plans
for this area did not remove the 7.8 psi RVP standard. See 72 FR 72948
(December 26, 2007).
    As mentioned above, on March 27, 2013, NC DENR submitted changes to
the 175A maintenance plan for the Triangle Area. North Carolina's March
27, 2013, SIP revision modifies the existing section 175A maintenance
plan to account for a less stringent applicable RVP gasoline
requirement of 9.0 psi for the Triangle Area. Specifically, North
Carolina's March 27, 2013, SIP revision included an evaluation of the
impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would have on
maintenance of the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, and on other
applicable NAAQS. The EPA evaluated North Carolina's March 27, 2013,
SIP revision in a previous rulemaking that was subject to public
notice-and-comment, and no adverse comments and one supportive comment
were received on that proposed action. The EPA approved North
Carolina's March 27, 2013, SIP revision on January 2, 2014. See 79 FR
47. In this action, based on the EPA's previous approval of North
Carolina's March 27, 2013, SIP revision, and the fact that the Triangle
Area is currently attaining all ozone NAAQS, the EPA is proposing to
approve North Carolina's request to relax the high ozone season RVP
standard for Wake and Durham Counties, and a portion of Granville
County in North Carolina from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
2. EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Requests To Relax the Federal RVP
Requirement in the Triad Area
    On November 6, 1991, the EPA designated Davidson, Forsyth and
Guilford counties in their entirety and the portion of Davie County
bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North Carolina Highway
801, Fulton Creek and back to Yadkin River in the Triad Area as a
Moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). Among the requirements applicable to nonattainment
areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain
RVP standards for gasoline sold commercially during the ozone season.
See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). Thus, the RVP requirement for gasoline
sold in the Triad Area was 7.8 psi during the high ozone season. On
April 18, 1994, the Triad Area was redesignated to attainment for the
1-hour ozone standard. See 59 FR 18300. North Carolina's redesignation
request for the Triad Area did not include a request for the relaxation
of the gasoline volatility standard.9 10 11 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Effective June 15, 2004 for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Triad
Area was designated as nonattainment with a deferred effective date
as part of the Early Action Compact (EAC) program. As part of this
action the Triad Area was expanded to include the entire county of
Davie, and Alamance, Caswell, Randolph, and Rockingham Counties in
their entirety. See 69 FR 23857.
    \10\ For more information on the EAC program, see, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/eac/fs20080331_eac.html.
    \11\ The Triad Area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS and on
February 2, 2008, the EPA finalized an action for 13 nonattainment
areas with deferred effective dates, including the Triad Area,
designating these areas attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
However, as a former 1-hour ozone maintenance area the Triad Area
was required to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section
110(a)(1) of the CAA. See 73 FR 17897.
    \12\ Effective July 20, 2012, the Triad Area counties were
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 12, 2013, the State of North Carolina, through NC DENR,
submitted a request for the EPA to relax the Federal RVP requirement of
7.8 psi in Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford Counties and the relevant
portion of Davie County. The State also submitted a technical analysis
which demonstrated that the less-stringent RVP in the aforementioned
counties would not interfere with continued maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS or any other applicable standard. Specifically, the
State updated the 10-year maintenance plan that was submitted for the
Triad 1-hour ozone maintenance area under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\13\ As required, this section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan provided for continued attainment and maintenance of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective
date of the area's designation as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This plan also included components demonstrating how the area
will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provided
contingency measures should an area violate the NAAQS. North Carolina's
previous ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan for this area
did not remove the 7.8 psi RVP standard. See 77 FR 3611 (January 25,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The EPA has determined that redesignated 1-hour ozone
attainment areas that are designated 8-hour ozone attainment areas
may rely on the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for purposes of
requesting relaxation of the more stringent volatility standard. 73
FR 8202, 8205 (February 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, on April 12, 2013, NC DENR submitted changes to
the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the Triad Area. North
Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision modifies the existing section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan to account for a less stringent applicable
RVP gasoline requirement of 9.0 psi for the area. Specifically, North
Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision included an evaluation of the
impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would have on
maintenance of the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, and on other
applicable NAAQS. The EPA evaluated North Carolina's April 12, 2013,
SIP revision in a previous rulemaking that was subject to public
notice-and-comment, and no adverse comments and one supportive comment
were received on that proposed action. The EPA approved North
Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision on January 24, 2014. See 79 FR
4082. In this action, based on the previous approval of North
Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision, and the fact that the Triad
Area is currently attaining all ozone NAAQS, the EPA is proposing to
approve North Carolina's request to relax the summertime RVP standard
for Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford Counties and a portion of Davie
County from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

V. Direct Final Rule

    A direct final rule that would make the same changes as those
proposed in this notice appears in the Rules and Regulations section of
this Federal Register. The EPA is taking direct final action on these
revisions, because the Agency views the revisions as noncontroversial
and anticipates no adverse comment. The EPA has explained the reasons
for the amendments in this proposal and in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received, no further action will be taken on the
proposal, and the direct final rule will become effective as provided
in that action.
    If the EPA receives adverse comments on the rule or any portion of
the rule, the Agency will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion
of the rule that received adverse comment. The EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register indicating which provisions will become effective and
which provisions are being withdrawn. All public comments received will
then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the
subsequent final action. Any parties interested in commenting must do
so at this time.
    The changes to the regulatory text proposed in this notice are
identical to those for the direct final rule published in the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register. For further information,
including the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published
in a separate part of this Federal Register.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements
applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register.

VII. Legal Authority

    Authority for this action is in sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Incorporation by
reference, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle
pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 19, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-06861 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


List of Documents Submitted from the State of Virginia
   * July 23, 2012, Letter from David K. Paylor, Director, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Ms. Dana Esher, Director, Air Programs Division, U.S. EPA Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

   * Enclosure 1, State of Virginia 110(a)(2) requirements in the state implementation plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.

   * Enclosure 2, State of Virginia certification of public participation activities.

   * Enclosure 2a, State of Virginia general notices of the proposed state implementation plan.

   * Enclosure 3, State of Virginia 110(a)(2) Public Participation Record.


[Federal Register: August 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 163)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51968-51969]
[DOCID:fr24au10-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 55

[EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0442; A-1-FRL-9167-8]

Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Consistency Update for
Massachusetts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule-consistency update.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update to a portion of the Outer
Continental Shelf (``OCS'') Air Regulations. Requirements applying to
OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries must
be updated periodically to remain

consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore area
(``COA''), as mandated by the Clean Air Act (``the Act''). The portion
of the OCS air regulations that is being updated pertains to the
requirements for OCS sources in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The
intended effect of approving the OCS requirements for the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in
accordance with the requirements onshore. The change to the existing
requirements discussed below is incorporated by reference into the Code
of Federal Regulations and is listed in the appendix to the OCS air
regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 23,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2010-0442 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0442'',
Ida McDonnell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Ida
McDonnell, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Air Unit, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida E. McDonnell, Air Permits, Toxics
and Indoor Air Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square-Suite 100, (Mail Code
OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is incorporating applicable provisions of 310 Code of
Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 4.00: Timely Action Schedule and Fee
Provisions, as amended through September 4, 2009 and 310 CMR 6.00:
Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
310 CMR 7.00: Air Pollution Control, and 310 CMR 8:00: The Prevention
and/or Abatement of Air Pollution Episode and Air Pollution Incident
Emergencies, as amended through May 20, 2010 as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action
rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: June 8, 2010.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2010-20726 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P