[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8496-8500]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2004-OH-0004; FRL-9107-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio New
Source Review Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment new source review (NSR)
construction permit programs to the Ohio State Implementation Plan
(SIP) based on the State's November 15, 2005, letter. The Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) is seeking approval of its rules
to implement the NSR Reform provisions that were not vacated by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC
Circuit) in New York v. EPA. EPA proposed approval of these rules on
May 11, 2005 and received adverse comments. In this action, EPA
responds to these comments and announces EPA's final rulemaking action.
This action affects major stationary sources in Ohio that are subject
to or potentially subject to the PSD and NSR construction permit
programs.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-OH-0004. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Genevieve
Damico, Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the
Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve Damico, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permit Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA Region
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Is Being Addressed by This Document?
II. What Sections of Ohio's Rules Are We Approving in Today's
Action?
III. How Has This Rulemaking Been Affected by the June 24, 2005 DC
Circuit Court of Appeals?
IV. What Are EPA's Responses to Adverse Comments?
V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. What Is Being Addressed by This Document?

    We are partially approving revisions to the PSD and nonattainment
NSR construction permit programs of the State of Ohio. EPA fully
approved Ohio's nonattainment NSR program on January 10, 2003 (68 FR
1366). EPA fully approved Ohio's PSD program on January 22, 2003 (68 FR
2909).
    On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the Federal PSD
and NSR regulations in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 (67 FR 80186). These
revisions are commonly referred to as ``NSR Reform'' regulations and
became effective on March 3, 2003. These regulatory revisions include
provisions for baseline emissions determinations, actual-to-future
actual methodology, plantwide applicability limits (PALs), clean units,
and pollution control projects (PCPs). As stated in the December 31,
2002, EPA rulemaking, State and local permitting agencies must adopt
and submit revisions to their part 51 permitting programs implementing
the minimum program elements of that rulemaking no later than January
2, 2006 (67 FR 80240). OEPA submitted these regulatory revisions for
parallel processing on September 14, 2004, which was prior to final
adoption of the State rules. Ohio adopted the final rules on October
28, 2004. EPA proposed conditional approval of these rules on May 11,
2005 (70 FR 24734). On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling on
challenges to the December 2002 NSR reform revisions. New York v. EPA,
413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). Although the court did uphold most of EPA's
rules, it vacated both the clean unit and the PCP provisions. As a
result of this court ruling, OEPA submitted a letter to EPA on November
15, 2005, amending its request for approval of Ohio's rule.
Specifically, Ohio withdrew its request for approval of the clean units
and PCP portions of the Ohio rules.

II. What Sections of Ohio's Rules Are We Approving in Today's Action?

Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-31-01 Definitions

Definitions Unchanged From Proposal
    In accordance with the May 11, 2005 proposal, EPA is approving the
definitions for actual emissions, actuals PAL, baseline actual
emissions, baseline concentration, best available control technology,
continuous emission monitoring system, continuous emissions rate
monitoring system, continuous parameter monitoring system, emission
unit, lowest achievable emission rate, major source baseline date,
major stationary source, minor source baseline, new source review
project, nonattainment or nonattaiment area, nonattainment new source
review permit, PAL allowable emissions, PAL effective date, PAL
effective period, PAL major emissions unit, PAL major modification, PAL
permit, PAL pollutant, PAL significant emissions unit, PAL small
emissions unit, particulate matter, particulate matter emissions,
plantwide applicability limit, PM10, PM10 emissions, total suspended
particulate, pollution prevention, predictive emissions monitoring
system, prevention of significant deterioration increment, prevention
of significant deterioration permit, projected actual emission,
regulated NSR pollutant, replacement unit, representative actual annual
emissions, significant emissions increase, and stationary source in OAC
3745-31-01(C), (D), (O), (Q), (S), (EE), (FF), (GG), (MM), (FFF),
(JJJ), (KKK), (NNN), (UUU), (VVV), (WWW), (CCCC), (DDDD), (EEEE),
(FFFF), (GGGG), (HHHH), (IIII), (JJJJ), (KKKK), (LLLL), (MMMM), (OOOO),
(PPPP), (QQQQ), (UUUUU), (SSSS), (VVVV), (WWWW), (XXXX), (ZZZZ),
(DDDDD), (EEEEE), (KKKKK), (LLLLL), and (PPPPP) respectively. EPA is
also approving the definitions in OAC 3745-31-01, the non-40 CFR 51.166
and 51.165 definitions in OAC 3745-31-01 (E), (J), (M), (X), (JJ),
(QQ), (DDD), (EEE), (XXX), (HHHHH), and (XXXXX) and the minor revisions
to the definitions for ``available information'', ``baseline area'',
``baseline concentration'', ``best available

technology'', ``Clean Air Act'', ``Clean Coal Technology'', ``Clean
Coal Technology Demonstration Project'', ``Construction'',
``facility'', ``non-methane organic compound'', ``Non-road engine'',
and ``Temporary clean coal demonstration project'', in accordance with
the May 11, 2005 proposal.
    In a November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA withdrew its request for
approval of the definitions for ``clean unit'' and ``PCP'' found in OAC
3745-31-01(Y) and OAC 3745-31-01(RRRR) respectively. EPA does not
approve these definitions into the SIP.
Definition of Major Modification
    In the November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA withdrew its request for
approval into the SIP of the emission test for NSR projects that
involve clean units and exclusion of a PCP from a physical change or
change in the method of operation from the definition of major
modification found in OAC 3745-31-01(III)(4)(c) and (5)(h)
respectively. OEPA also withdrew the phrase ``3745-31-31 and'' from the
comment in OAC 3745-31-01(III)(2) and the sentence ``For example, if a
NSR project involves both an existing emissions unit and a clean unit,
the projected increase is determined by summing the values determined
using the method specified in paragraph (III)(4)(a) of this rule for
the existing unit and using the method specified in paragraph
(III)(4)(c) of this rule for the clean unit.'' from OAC 3745-31-
01(III)(4)(d). EPA is approving the definition of ``major
modification'' in OAC 3745-31-01(III) with the exception of the
portions withdrawn by OEPA in the November 15, 2005 letter.
Definition of Net Emissions Increase
    In the November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA withdrew its request for
approval of the exemption of increases or decreases in clean units from
the determination of a net emissions increase and the requirements for
credibility of decreases in emissions from clean units and PCPs when
determining a net emissions increase found in OAC 3745-31-01(SSS)(3)(d)
and OAC 3745-31-01(SSS)(3)(f)(iv) respectively. EPA is approving into
the SIP the definition of ``net emissions increase'' in OAC 3745-31-
01(SSS) with the exception of the portions withdrawn by OEPA in the
November 15, 2005 letter.
Incorporation by Reference
    In the November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA withdrew its request for
approval into the SIP the reference to 68 FR 61276, October 27, 2003 in
OAC 3745-31-01(ZZZZZ)(2)(h). This is a reference to the vacated
equipment replacement provisions (ERP). Ohio's rules do not contain any
implementing language for the ERP. OEPA committed in its November 15,
2005 letter to remove the reference to the ERP by June 2006. EPA is
approving OAC 3745-31-01(ZZZZZ) with the exception of the reference to
68 FR 61276, October 27, 2003 in OAC 3745-31-01(ZZZZZ)(2)(h).

OAC 3745-31-09: Air Permit To Install Completeness Determinations,
Public Participation and Public Notice

    EPA is approving OAC 3745-31-09 as proposed on May 11, 2005.

OAC 3745-31-10 Air Stationary Source Obligations

    In the November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA withdrew its request for
approval of the phrase ``3745-31-30 to'' from OAC 3745-31-10(B) and the
phrase ``at a clean unit or'' from OAC 3745-31-10(C). EPA is approving
OAC 3745-31-10 into the SIP with the exceptions of these two phrases.
    OAC 3745-31-10(C) specifies record keeping and reporting
requirements for sources that elect to use the actual-to-projected-
actual emission test and where there is a reasonable possibility that a
project may result in a significant net emissions increase. In 2005, in
New York v. EPA, the DC Circuit Court remanded to EPA this provision of
the Federal rule (40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)) because ``EPA has failed to
explain how it can ensure NSR compliance without the relevant data'' in
the circumstances where a facility concludes that a significant
emissions increase is not a reasonably possible. 413 F.3d at 35-36. As
stated in the November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA believes its rules
addressed the court's decision remanding the record keeping and
reporting requirements when there is not ``reasonable possibility'' of
a significant emissions increase. Ohio incorporated a requirement that
all facilities ``where the sum of the Federally enforceable potential
to emit of the new or modified emissions units associated with the NSR
project prior to the issuance of the NSR project's [minor NSR] permit-
to-install is greater than any one of the significant levels found in
the significant definition of rule 3745-31-01 of the Administrative
Code'' must record and submit the documents required under the original
rule regardless of a reasonable possibility determination.
    EPA promulgated regulations to clarify the ``reasonable
possibility'' record keeping and reporting standard of the 2002 NSR
reform rules on December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72607). EPA's rules allow
permitting authorities three years to incorporate these changes. Ohio
has three years to change OAC 3745-31-10 to meet the requirements of
the December 21, 2007 rulemaking.

OAC 3745-31-13 Attainment Provisions--Review of Major Stationary
Sources and Major Modifications, Stationary Source Applicability and
Exemptions

    EPA is approving OAC 3745-31-13 as proposed on May 11, 2005.

OAC 3745-31-15 Attainment Provisions--Control Technology Review

    EPA is approving OAC 3745-31-15 as proposed on May 11, 2005.

OAC 3745-31-21 Nonattainment Provisions

    EPA is approving OAC 3745-31-21 as proposed on May 11, 2005.

OAC 3745-31-22 Nonattainment Provisions--Conditions for Approval

    In the November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA withdrew its request for
approval for the exclusion of clean unit or PCP emission reductions
from use in determining emissions offsets found in OAC 3745-31-
22(A)(3)(e) and (A)(3)(f). EPA is approving OAC 3745-31-22 with the
exception of OAC 3745-31-22(A)(3)(e) and (A)(3)(f).

OAC 3745-31-24 Nonattainment Provisions--Baseline for Determining
Credit for Emission and Air Quality Offsets

    EPA is approving OAC 3745-31-24 as proposed on May 11, 2005.

OAC 3745-31-26 Nonattainment Provisions--Offset Ratio Requirements

    EPA is approving OAC 3745-31-26 as proposed on May 11, 2005.

OAC 3745-31-30 Clean Units

    In the November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA withdrew its request for
approval for OAC 3745-31-30 in its entirety. By removing OAC 3745-31-30
from the request for approval and its rules, the portions of OAC 3745-
31 which were the basis for proposing conditional approval in the May
11, 2005 Federal Register are no longer under consideration by EPA. EPA
is not approving OAC 3745-31-30 into the SIP.

OAC 3745-31-31 Pollution Control Project

    In the November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA withdrew its request for
approval for OAC 3745-31-31 in its entirety. EPA is not approving OAC
3745-31-31 into the SIP.

OAC 3745-31-32 Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL)

    EPA is approving OAC 3745-31-32 as proposed on May 11, 2005.

III. How Has This Rulemaking Been Affected by the June 24, 2005 DC
Circuit Court of Appeals?

    On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling on challenges to the
December 2002 NSR reform revisions. New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC
Cir. 2005). Although the Court did uphold most of EPA's rules, it
vacated both the clean unit and the PCP provisions. As a result of this
court ruling, OEPA submitted a letter to EPA on November 15, 2005,
amending its request for approval of Ohio's rule. Specifically, Ohio
withdrew its request for approval of the clean unit and PCP portions of
the Ohio rules. By removing the clean unit provisions from the request
for approval and its rules, the portions of OAC 3745-31 which were the
basis for proposing conditional approval in the May 11, 2005 Federal
Register are no longer under consideration by EPA. Therefore, the basis
for proposing conditional approval instead of approval is no longer
present. EPA is instead partially approving Ohio's rules in this action
with no conditions.

IV. What Are EPA's Responses to Adverse Comments?

    EPA received comments in support of Ohio's rules, as well as
adverse comments. Several commenters provided comments on the May 11,
2005 proposal prior to the June 24, 2005 court ruling. Therefore, the
comments do not reflect the DC Circuit Court decision. This final
action takes into consideration the court's ruling on the Federal NSR
reform regulations. Therefore, Ohio's approved SIP is consistent with
the Federal NSR reform regulations. This action discusses three
significant adverse comments. However, EPA responds to all adverse
comments in three documents that can be found in the docket for this
action. These documents are: Response to Comments of the National
Resources Defense Council to EPA's Proposed Rule to Conditionally
Approve Ohio's Changes to Its New Source Review Rules, Response to the
State of Vermont's Comments, and Response to Comments of the Ohio
Environmental Council to EPA's Proposed Rule to Conditionally Approve
Ohio's Changes to its New Source Review Rules.

A. Provisions in Ohio's Submission Cause the State's Revised Plan To
Interfere With Applicable Requirements Concerning Attainment and
Reasonable Further Progress

    Commenters express concern that the EPA has never made, or even
proposed to make, a finding that revising Ohio's permit provisions so
that they track the non-vacated provisions of the 2002 rules ``would
not interfere with attainment or other applicable requirements.''
Commenters state that neither Ohio nor EPA has analyzed the particular
impact of each part of the rule, much less the particular impact that
each part's adoption by Ohio would have on that State's compliance with
the requirements that it provide for attainment, prohibit emissions
that interfere with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and require reasonable further progress
toward expeditious attainment. Therefore, commenters believe that
finalizing the EPA rulemaking proposal at issue here would violate
section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    EPA responds that Section 110(l) of the CAA states that ``[t]he
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
    In ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; NSR; State
of Nevada, Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental
Management'', 69 FR 54006 (Sept. 7, 2004), EPA stated that section
110(l) does not preclude SIP relaxations. EPA stated that Section
110(l) only requires that the ``relaxations not interfere with
specified requirements of the CAA including requirements for attainment
and reasonable further progress'', and that therefore, a State can
relax its SIP provisions if it is able to show that it can ``attain or
maintain the NAAQS and meet any applicable reasonable further progress
goals or other specific requirements.'' 69 FR 54011-12.
    The Ohio Proposed NSR Reform Rules track the Federal NSR Reform
Rules, and EPA previously determined that the implementation of the
Federal NSR Reform Rules will be environmentally beneficial. (See 68 FR
44620 and 63021). EPA's Supplemental Analysis for the Federal NSR
Reform Rules estimated that there are likely to be reductions in
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to the use of PALs.
Using the same methodology used in the Supplemental Analysis to assess
the emissions benefits of the Ohio's NSR Reform Rules in Ohio as EPA
used to assess the benefits nationally, we conclude that the PAL option
would result in a net reduction of VOC emissions.
    It is more difficult to assess the environmental impacts of the
actual-to-projected-actual test and the ``2 in 10'' baseline
provisions. The Supplemental Analysis determined that there is a slight
national environmental benefit brought about by these NSR reform
provisions. However, in Ohio, sources undergoing construction which are
not subject to the best available control technology or lowest
achievable emission reduction NSR requirements will need to comply with
Ohio's best available technology provisions under OAC 3745-31-05(A)(3).
    Overall, we expect changes in air quality as a result of
implementing PALs, the actual-to-projected-actual test, and the ``2 in
10'' baseline provisions in Ohio to be somewhere between neutral and
providing modest contribution to reasonable further progress.
Accordingly, EPA determines that these changes will not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

B. Provisions in Ohio's Submission Cause the State's Revised Plan To
Interfere With Applicable Requirements Concerning Backsliding in
Nonattainment Areas.

    Commenters expressed concern that EPA's approval will allow sources
in Ohio's nonattainment areas to ``backslide'' on more stringent
pollution control requirements contrary to section 193 of the CAA.
Section 193 of the CAA provides in part that: ``No control requirement
in effect * * * before November 15, 1990, in any area which is a non-
attainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after November
15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or
greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.'' 42 U.S.C. 7515.
According to commenters, Ohio has made no demonstration, and EPA has
proposed no finding, that the modifications to Ohio's NSR rules ensure
``equivalent or greater emissions reductions.'' Moreover, commenters
state, Ohio cannot make a demonstration of equivalency, and EPA cannot
make such a finding. Because, far from ensuring ``equivalent or greater
emission reductions'' than Ohio's preexisting permit provisions, the
modifications ensure that emissions will

not be reduced as much as under the preexisting rules. In fact,
commenters believe, the modifications allow emissions to increase in
Ohio's nonattainment areas.
    EPA responds that assuming that section 193 applies to NSR, section
193 does not require additional emission reductions before this SIP
revision is approved. As of November 15, 1990, the approved SIP did not
contain a major source NSR program consistent with the requirements of
the CAA, which requires offsets for construction of major sources or
major modifications in nonattainment areas. The SIP in effect on
November 15, 1990 did include a preconstruction permitting program, but
that program did not require offsets for any sources. Under Ohio's new
rules, major sources are subject to permitting requirements that are
consistent with current CAA requirements (while minor sources remain
subject to the 1990 permitting program). This SIP revision affects only
the major source permitting program.
    Thus, assuming that section 193 applies in some fashion to the
permitting program in the SIP as of November 15, 1990 as it applied to
major sources, that program did not achieve any ``emission reductions''
from major sources because it did not require offsets for any sources.
It follows that if there were no emission reductions generated by the
1990 permitting program, then the section 193 requirement to provide
``equivalent or greater emission reductions'' of any air pollutant as
part of this SIP revision would be satisfied with no additional
reductions. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed above with respect
to Section 110(l), EPA has found that the net effect of these changes
will be neutral or environmentally beneficial.

C. Ohio's Incorporation of EPA's 2003 New Source Review Rule by
Reference

    Commenters express concern that EPA's May 11, 2005, action appears
to propose to approve Ohio provisions that incorporate by reference an
EPA rule that has been stayed by order of the DC Circuit, as well as a
second EPA rule--a related Federal implementation plan rule--that the
agency has acknowledged to be stayed by virtue of the same DC Circuit
order. If EPA approves those provisions, the action will be a violation
of the DC Circuit's order. Additionally, the action will exceed EPA's
authority under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA while violating sections
110(l) and 193.
    EPA responds that in a November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA withdrew its
request for approval of the phrase ``68 FR 61276, Oct. 27, 2003:'' in
OAC 3745-31-01 (ZZZZZ)(2)(h). EPA is not approving this section into
the SIP. Furthermore, in the November 15, 2005 letter, OEPA commits to
strike this phrase during its next five-year review which is expected
to be completed by June 2006.

V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is partially approving revisions to Ohio's permit to install
provisions, which were submitted by Ohio to EPA on September 14, 2004.
These revisions meet the minimum program requirements of the December
31, 2002 EPA NSR Reform rulemaking. As requested by OEPA's November 15,
2005 letter, EPA is not taking action on the provisions of Ohio's rule
relating to clean units, PCP, and ERP. Furthermore, OEPA has removed
the respective clean unit, PCP and ERP provisions from its rules.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 April 26, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 21, 2010.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart K--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(145) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (145) On September 14, 2004, Ohio submitted modifications to its
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and nonattainment New Source
Review rules as a revision to the State implementation plan.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-31-01, Definitions: (C),
(D), (E), (J), (M), (N), (O), (P), (Q), (S), (T), (U), (V), (W), (X),
(DD), (EE), (FF), (GG), (JJ), (MM), (NN), (QQ), (DDD), (EEE), (FFF),
(JJJ), (KKK), (NNN), (UUU), (VVV), (WWW), (XXX), (YYY), (ZZZ), (CCCC),
(DDDD), (EEEE), (FFFF), (GGGG), (HHHH), (IIII), (JJJJ), (KKKK), (LLLL),
(MMMM), (OOOO), (PPPP), (QQQQ), (SSSS), (VVVV), (WWWW), (XXXX), (ZZZZ),
(DDDDD), (EEEEE), (HHHHH), (KKKKK), (LLLLL), (PPPPP), (QQQQQ), (UUUUU),
and (XXXXX), adopted on October 18, 2004, effective October 28, 2004.
    (B) Ohio Administrative Code Rules 3745-31-01, Definitions: (III)
and (SSS), 3745-31-10 ``Air Stationary Source Obligations.'', and 3745-
31-22 ``Nonattainment Provisions--Conditions for Approval'', adopted on
October 18, 2004, effective October 28, 2004 and revised by the
November 15, 2005 letter from Joseph P. Koncelik to Thomas Skinner.
This letter, included as Additional material in paragraph (145)(ii)(B)
below, removes references to the Pollution Control Project (PCP) and
Clean Unit provisions vacated by a June 24, 2005 DC Circuit Court of
Appeals decision.
    (C) Ohio Administrative Code Rules 3745-31-09 ``Air permit to
install completeness determinations, public participation and public
notice.'', 3745-31-13 ``Attainment provisions--review of major
stationary sources and major modifications, stationary source
applicability and exemptions.'', 3745-31-15 ``Attainment provisions--
Control Technology Review.'', 3745-31-21 ``Nonattainment provisions--
review of major stationary sources and major modifications--stationary
source applicability and exemptions.'', 3745-31-24 ``Non-attainment
Provisions--Baseline for Determining Credit for Emission and Air
Quality Offsets.'', 3745-31-26 ``Nonattainment Provisions--Offset Ratio
Requirements.'', and 3745-31-32 ``Plantwide applicability limit
(PAL).'', adopted on October 18, 2004, effective October 28, 2004.
    (D) October 18, 2004, ``Director's Final Findings and Orders'',
signed by Christopher Jones, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, adopting rules 3745-31-01, 3745-31-09, 3745-31-10, 3745-31-13,
3745-31-15, 3745-31-21, 3745-31-22, 3745-31-24, 3745-31-26, 3745-31-30,
3745-31-31, and 3745-31-32.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-31-01, Definitions: (ZZZZZ)
adopted on October 18, 2004, effective October 28, 2004.
    (B) Letter dated November 15, 2005, from Ohio EPA Director Joseph
P. Koncelik to Regional Administrator Thomas Skinner, titled Request
for Approval of Ohio Administrative Code (``OAC'') Chapter 3745-31 NSR
Reform Rule Changes into the State Implementation Plan (``SIP'').
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-3831 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 66353]
[DOCID:fr15de09-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0855; FRL-8800-3]

Citric Acid Registration Review Final Decision; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's final
registration review decision for the pesticide citric acid, case 4024.
Registration Review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its
intended function without causing unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that
each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For pesticide specific information,
contact: K. Avivah Jakob, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Lance Wormell, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0855. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), this notice announces the
availability of EPA's final registration review decision for citric
acid, case 4024. Citric acid is a food-contact and non-food contact
antimicrobial pesticide used in many products for residential and
public access premises (e.g. kitchen counter tops, bathroom shower
stalls, toilets, utensils, kitchen cutting boards, diaper pails,
changing tables, garbage cans, pet area, cafeterias and doctor's
offices) and as a disinfectant, fruit and vegetable wash, sanitizer,
virucide, and germicide. It is also an inert ingredient in other
pesticide products. In addition, citric acid is characterized by low
toxicity, is biodegradable, and is found extensively in nature.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.57, a registration review decision is the
Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet, the
standard for registration in FIFRA. EPA has considered citric acid in
light of the FIFRA standard for registration. The citric acid Final
Decision document in the docket describes the Agency's rationale for
issuing a registration review final decision for this pesticide.
    In addition to the final registration review decision document, the
registration review docket for citric acid also includes other relevant
documents related to the registration review of this case. The proposed
registration review decision was posted to the docket and the public
was invited to submit any comments or new information. During the 60-
day comment period, no public comments were received.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket
for citric acid will remain open until all actions required in the
final decision have been completed.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review. Links to earlier
documents related to the registration review of this pesticide are
provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/citric_
acid/index.htm.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 3(g) of FIFRA and 40 CFR part 155, subpart C, provide
authority for this action.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Antimicrobials, Citric acid, Pesticides
and pests, Registration review.

    Dated: November 19, 2009.
Betty Shackleford,
Acting Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-29593 Filed 12-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65462-65463]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0586; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-29]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; La Belle, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at La Belle, FL, to
accommodate the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at La Belle Municipal
Airport. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace
System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 10, 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 5, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at La
Belle, FL (77 FR 39652) Docket No. FAA-2012-0586. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 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 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at La Belle, FL, to provide the controlled airspace
required to accommodate the new RNAV GPS Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures developed for La Belle Municipal Airport. This action is
necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    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 establishes controlled airspace at La Belle Municipal Airport, La
Belle, FL.

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

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 La Belle, FL [New]

La Belle Municipal Airport, FL
    (lat. 26[deg]44'26'' N., long. 81[deg]25'42'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of La Belle Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 11, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012-26333 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39489-39491]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12957]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0029; FRL-10010-90-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Single Source Order for PSI
Molded Plastics

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New
Hampshire. The revision consists of a single source Order that New
Hampshire issued to PSI Molded Plastics defining reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements for the facility. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0029. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 05-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Table of Contents

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

I. Background and Purpose

    On February 14, 2020, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) (see 85 FR 8520) with an associated Direct Final Rule (DFR) (see
85 FR 8408) for the State of New Hampshire. The DFR approved a single
source RACT Order for PSI Molded Plastics in Wolfeboro, identified as
RACT Order RO-0005. We received one, relevant adverse comment on that
action, and so withdrew the DFR via a Withdrawal Notice published on
April 10, 2020. See 85 FR 20165. Other specific requirements of the
State's submittals and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are
explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. Our response to
the adverse comment on the NPRM is summarized and responded to in
section II below.

II. Response to Comment

    We received one relevant, adverse comment on the NPRM. A summary of
the comment, and our response, follows.
    Comment: EPA must explain how this RACT bubble order complies with
past EPA guidance. Particularly how allowing this bubble with a month
long compliance time frame complies with guidance for VOCs that
prescribes no longer than 24 hour averages. The attached guidance
identifies four principles that must be honored and identifies a list
of five items that, as the guidance specifically states, must be
included in detail in the SIP submission. It does not appear EPA is
following its own guidance in this case, please explain how the SIP
submission identified, in detail, the list of five items to ensure
compliance with this guidance.
    Response: First, we note that the commenter does not specify
specific changes that should be made to the Order. The EPA guidance
referenced by the commenter was issued on January 20, 1984, and is
entitled, ``Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits--
SIP Revision Policy,'' herein referred to as the January 1984 guidance.
A copy of this guidance is included within the Docket for this action.
EPA created the January 1984 guidance to assist states that had
nonattainment areas for the 1979 one-hour ozone standard with the
development of VOC control requirements to help meet that standard. We
note that New Hampshire's current obligation to implement RACT stems
not from its status as a nonattainment area,\1\ but rather from its
inclusion within the Ozone Transport Region established by section 184
of the CAA. Although the January 1984 guidance was issued under a prior
ozone standard, its general concepts are still applicable to the
control of VOCs, and RACT Order RO-0005 issued by New Hampshire to PSI
Molded Plastics adheres to the concepts espoused by that guidance. Put
another way, EPA has determined that the SIP revision that we are
approving with this final action comports with the guidance document
cited by commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA designated all portions of New Hampshire as attainment
of the 2015 and 2008 ozone standards (see 82 FR 54232, and 77 FR
30088, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The January 1984 guidance articulates a preference for short term,
24-hour or less averaging times for VOC regulations, but acknowledges
the use of longer time frames may be appropriate if certain conditions
are met such as a demonstration that the application of RACT on each
emission point, line, machine, etc, is not economically or technically
feasible. The facility submitted documentation, which is included
within the Docket, to New Hampshire that traditional VOC control
options, such as the installation of capture and control systems, was
not economically feasible. Therefore, RACT Order RO-0005 allows the
facility to use a bubbling methodology with monthly averaging times \2\
and is consistent with the conditions outlined within EPA's January
1984 guidance for when longer term averaging times should be
considered. The commenter points to ``the list of five items to ensure
compliance with the guidance.'' Presumably, this is a reference to the
five items listed on page 3 of the January 1984 guidance. The Order for
PSI Molded Plastics, which is included in the Docket for this action,
is consistent with these 5 items in that it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although monthly averaging periods would for some months be
31 days, EPA finds this is a minor acceptable accommodation since
the Order comports with our guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Contains VOC emission limits in an enforceable form (section D1
of the order contains limits in units of lbs. of VOC per gallon of
coating, as applied, excluding water and exempt compounds) with an
appropriate compliance date (the Order was effective upon its issuance
on 11/20/2019);
    2. Contains a description of affected processes (section C1 of the
Order describes the affected metal and plastic parts coating process at
the facility) and historical production and operating

rates (contained within support material submitted with the Order,
which have been added the Docket);
    3. Contains a description of control techniques (sections D1-5 of
the Order describe the applicable emission limits and compliance
calculation methodologies the source is to follow);
    4. Contains a description of the nature of the control program
(sections D1-5 provides that emissions be controlled by VOC content
limits for coatings used by the facility), and;
    5. Outlines recordkeeping and reporting requirements that will be
used to demonstrate compliance (Part 6 of the Order contains
recordkeeping and reporting requirements).\3\ Therefore, as noted
within our February 14, 2020 Direct Final Rule referenced above, we
believe that New Hampshire's allowance for the facility to demonstrate
compliance using a weighted averaging technique (bubble calculation)
described within RACT Order RO-0005, on a monthly basis, is an
acceptable, enforceable approach, and we are therefore approving the
Order into the New Hampshire SIP. In conclusion, we note that the 1984
guidance referenced by the commenter references 4 principles from which
the 5 criteria mentioned above are derived. Since the SIP submittal
addresses all 5 items, it therefore meets the 4 principles and thus
comports with the guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Item 5 also references a showing that the emission limits
are consistent with the reasonable further progress plan and
attainment demonstration, but as an attainment area, New Hampshire
is not required to prepare those plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    We are approving a RACT Order RO-0005 for PSI Molded Plastics in
Wolfeboro, into the New Hampshire SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of New
Hampshire RACT Order RO-0005, dated November 20, 2019, described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
https://www.regulations.gov (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
    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 August 31, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: June 10, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

0
2. In Sec.  52.1520, amend paragraph (d) by adding an entry in the
table for ``PSI Molded Plastics'' at the end of the table, to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                             EPA-Approved New Hampshire Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State                              Additional
         Name of source                 Permit No.           effective     EPA approval date   explanations/Sec.
                                                               date               \2\           52.1535 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
PSI Molded Plastics.............  RO-0005...............      11/20/2019  7/1/2020 [Insert    VOC RACT Order.
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2020-12957 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3127-3128]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00963]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER15-1250-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Formal Challenge of Interstate Power and Light Company
to Inputs into Formula Rate of ITC Midwest, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20151218-5279.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-193-001.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: WECC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation
Plan Rev 2b Deficiency Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160112-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-206-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ITC
Midwest LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-01-12_SA 2862 Deficiency
Response ITCM-WPL FSA (G870) to be effective 11/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160112-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-487-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata Filing for the Transmission
Access Charge Balancing Account Adjustment to be effective 3/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160112-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-696-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-01-12_Amendment to Attachment
X Funding Options Filing to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160112-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-721-000.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment K eTariff Record
Cleanup Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160112-5220.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-722-000.
    Applicants: Current Power & Gas Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Current Power & Gas Inc. FERC
Tariff Filing to be effective 1/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20160113-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-723-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 4331; Queue AA1-015 (ISA) to be effective 12/14/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20160113-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:
    Docket Numbers: PH16-3-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison, Inc.
    Description: Consolidated Edison, Inc. submits FERC 65-B Material
Change in Facts of Waiver Notification.
    Filed Date: 1/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20160113-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/16.

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

    Dated: January 13, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00963 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P