[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71018-71023]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29246]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0649-201059; FRL-9229-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve portions of the
revisions to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of Georgia in three submittals dated October 31, 2006, March
5, 2007, and August 22, 2007. The revisions modify Georgia's Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) permitting rules in the SIP to address changes to the federal
New Source Review (NSR) regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on
December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor changes on November 7,
2003 (collectively, these two final actions are referred to as the
``2002 NSR Reform Rules''). EPA proposed to approve these revisions on
September 4, 2008; one comment letter was received. EPA's response to
comments is included in this notice.

DATES: This rule will be effective December 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0649. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, references

to ``EPA,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our,'' are intended to mean the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is
arranged as follows:

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

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is now taking action, consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), to approve portions of SIP submittals made
by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division (EPD), on October 31, 2006, March 5, 2007, and August 22,
2007. These SIP submittals consist of changes to the Georgia Rules for
Air Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-1. Specifically, the October 31,
2006, revisions included changes to Rules 391-3-1-.02(7) ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality'' and 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)
``Permit Requirements'' related to NNSR. The March 5, 2007, submittal
included changes to Rules 391-3-1-.02(7) ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality,'' and 391-3-1-.03(13)(c) ``Emission
Reduction Credits.'' Finally, the August 22, 2007, submittal included
changes to Rules 391-3-1-.02(7) ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality,'' and 391-3-1-.03(8) ``Permit
Requirements.''
    EPA approved most of the non-NSR Reform portions of the submittals
(rules 391-3-1-.01(llll), 391-3-1-.02(2)(jjj), 391-3-1-.02(6)(a)4, 391-
3-1-.02(12), and 391-3-1-.03(6)(b)) in a previous action (74 FR 62249,
November 27, 2009). EPA has not yet acted on rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(ooo).
In addition, EPA is not acting on revisions to rules 391-3-1-.02(8)b,
and 391-3-1-.03(9), because these rules are not part of the federally-
approved SIP. EPA disapproved a portion of the March 5, 2007,
submittal, subparagraph 391-3-1-.03(13)(c), related to ``Emissions
Reduction Credits,'' in a previous action (73 FR 79653, December 30,
2008).

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

    On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52,
regarding the CAA's PSD and NNSR programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR
63021), EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration
of the December 31, 2002, final rule changes. The December 31, 2002,
and the November 7, 2003, final actions are collectively referred to as
the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' For additional information on the 2002
NSR Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002). For information
on the subsequent revisions to these rules, see http://www.epa.gov/nsr.
    On October 31, 2006, March 5, 2007, and August 22, 2007, EPD
submitted revisions to EPA for the purpose of including the revised
State NSR permitting rules in the SIP. Copies of Georgia's revised NSR
rules, as well as the State's Technical Support Document, can be
obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the ADDRESSES section above.
    On September 4, 2008 (73 FR 51606), EPA proposed to approve
portions of the above-summarized SIP submittals as they pertain to
Georgia's NSR program, with the exception of the revision to
subparagraph 391-3-1-.03(13)(c), related to ``Emissions Reduction
Credits,'' which EPA proposed to disapprove.\1\ In response to requests
for an extension of the public comment period, EPA extended the public
comment period on that proposal through November 6, 2008 (73 FR 58084).
One comment letter was received and it contained adverse comments.
EPA's response to this comment letter is below in section III, Response
to Comments. EPA's analysis of the State's NSR reform SIP submittals is
contained in the September 4, 2008, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR). The NPR, the comment letter, and additional information
regarding this action may be obtained from the Docket, as discussed in
the ADDRESSES section above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA took final action to disapprove the revision to
subparagraph 391-3-1-.03(13)(c), related to ``Emissions Reduction
Credits,'' in a previous action (73 FR 79653, December 30, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment letter from the National Resource Defense
Council (NRDC) on the September 4, 2008, NPR; this letter included
adverse comments. NRDC primarily commented on the requirements of the
federal NSR rules, not Georgia's application of the federal
requirements in its own rules. Notably, NRDC participated in litigation
challenging EPA's 2002 promulgation of the NSR Reform Rules, where
similar arguments were made by NRDC and dismissed by the DC Circuit
Court. New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). NRDC's comments,
including exhibits, do not raise any specific concerns with Georgia's
rules, but rather, reiterate arguments made by NRDC to the DC Circuit
regarding Sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NRDC notes that, ``[t]he 2002 rule provisions considered by
the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA were EPA regulations, not state
ones. The court thus had no occasion to decide whether EPA could
approve any state's versions of any of the 2002 rule provisions
consistently with section 110(l) of the Act.'' NRDC Comments at 3.
The Georgia rules at issue here track the federally approved rules,
as upheld by the DC Circuit (which NRDC admits--NRDC Comments at 4)
and NRDC supported all its comments with information related to the
challenge of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. NRDC provided no Georgia-
specific support for its comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NRDC's comments provide citations to five portions of the
Georgia rules, the comments make no attempt to specifically explain or
demonstrate how those identified provisions are inconsistent with
either Section 110(l) or Section 193 of the CAA. Furthermore, NRDC
provides no evidence supporting its allegations that approval of the
specific provisions would result in a violation of the CAA or otherwise
be ``arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not
in accordance with law.'' NRDC Comments at 2.
    The NRDC comments include a list of 31 exhibits which the comment
letter incorporates by reference into the comments. NRDC Comments at 1.
The 31 exhibits appear to all be related to the DC Circuit Court case
New York v. EPA, and were either submitted to that Court for review, or
are relevant to that adjudication. To the extent that these exhibits
were provided to the DC Circuit, those issues were previously resolved
by the Court and/or already responded to by EPA in its responsive court
papers. Any other documents included in the 31 exhibits that were not
provided to the DC Circuit Court do not provide EPA with any comments
specific to the Georgia rules at issue.
    Despite the lack of Georgia-specific discussion in NRDC's letter,
EPA has responded to the few comments that appear related to the
September 4, 2008, NPR to approve portions of Georgia's SIP submittals
pertaining to EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.

Summary of Comments Regarding Section 110(l)--NRDC Comments at 1-6

    NRDC stated that finalizing the EPA rulemaking proposal at issue
here would violate section 110(l) of the Act. As support for its
conclusion, NRDC asserted that ``[t]he 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions
that were not vacated by the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA [citation
omitted] allow previously-prohibited emissions-increases to occur.''
NRDC Comments at 3. Further, that ``Georgia nevertheless made no

`demonstration that the emissions that are allowed by its revised rule
but are prohibited by the current SIP would not interfere with
attainment or other applicable requirements.' '' As a result, NRDC
stated that, ``it cannot be said of Georgia's plan that it `will cause
no degradation of air quality.' '' NRDC Comments at 5. NRDC also stated
that EPA has not made any findings that Georgia's rule will not cause
degradation of air quality or interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirements of the CAA. NRDC Comments at 5.

EPA Response to Section 110(l) Comments

    EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules were upheld by the DC Circuit Court
which reviewed them, with the exception of the pollution control
project and clean unit provisions (and the remanded matters). The three
significant changes in NSR Reform that were upheld by the DC Circuit
were (1) Plantwide applicability limits (PALs), (2) the 2-in-10
baseline, and (3) the actual-to-projected actual emission test. The
Supplemental Environmental Analysis of the Impact of the 2002 Final NSR
Improvement Rules (November 21, 2002) (Supplemental Analysis) discussed
each of these three changes individually, and addresses some of the
issues raised by NRDC.
    With regard to PALs, the Supplemental Analysis explained, ``[t]he
EPA expects that the adoption of PAL provisions will result in a net
environmental benefit. Our experience to date is that the emissions
caps found in PAL-type permits result in real emissions reductions, as
well as other benefits.'' Supplemental Analysis at 6. EPA further
explained that,

    Although it is impossible to predict how many and which sources
will take PALs, and what actual reductions those sources will
achieve for what pollutants, we believe that, on a nationwide basis,
PALs are certain to lead to tens of thousands of tons of reductions
of volatile organic compounds from source categories where frequent
operational changes are made, where these changes are time-
sensitive, and where there are opportunities for economical air
pollution control measures. These reductions occur because of the
incentives that the PAL creates to control existing and new units in
order to provide room under the cap to make necessary operational
changes over the life of the PAL.

Supplemental Analysis at 7. The Supplemental Analysis, and particularly
Appendix B, provided additional details regarding EPA's analysis of
PALs and anticipated associated emissions decreases.

    With regard to the 2-in-10 baseline, EPA concluded that, ``[t]he
EPA believes that the environmental impact from the change in baseline
EPA is now finalizing will not result in any significant change in
benefits derived from the NSR program.'' Supplemental Analysis at 13.
This is mainly because ``the number of sources receiving different
baselines likely represents a very small fraction of the overall NSR
permit universe, excludes new sources and coal fired power plants, and
because the baseline may shift in either direction, we conclude that
any overall consequences would be negligible.'' Supplemental Analysis
at 14. Additional information regarding the 2-in-10 baseline changes is
available in the Supplemental Analysis, Appendix F.
    With regard to the actual-to-projected actual test, EPA concluded,
``we believe that the environmental impacts of the switch to the
actual-to-projected actual test are likely to be environmentally
beneficial. However, as with the change to the baseline, we believe the
vast majority of sources, including new sources, new units, electric
utility steam generating units, and units that actually increase
emissions as a result of a change, will be unaffected by this change.
Thus, the overall impacts of the NSR changes are likely to be
environmentally beneficial, but only to a small extent.'' Supplemental
Analysis at 14 (see also Supplemental Analysis Appendix G).
    For more information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, and its
supporting technical documents, see, http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#2002 (last visited November 2, 2010).
    Section 110(l) of the CAA states, in relevant part, 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.'' CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). In ``Approval
and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Source Review; State of
Nevada, Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental
Management,'' 69 FR 54006 (September 7, 2004), EPA stated that Section
110(l) does not preclude SIP relaxations. Rather, EPA stated that
Section 110(l) only requires that the ``relaxations not interfere with
specified requirements of the Act 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 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and meet
any applicable reasonable further progress goals or other specific
requirements. 69 FR at 54011-12.
    Georgia's Proposed NSR reform rules track the federal NSR Reform
Rules, with enhancements, as described in Georgia's submittal. EPA
evaluated Georgia's rules consistent with its evaluation of the federal
rules, and determined that Georgia's rules were equivalent to or more
stringent than the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. Overall, as summarized above,
EPA expects that changes in air quality as a result of implementing
Georgia's rules will be consistent with EPA's position on the federal
NSR Reform Rules--that there will be somewhere between neutral and
providing a modest contribution to reasonable further progress between
the NSR Reform and pre-Reform provisions. EPA's analysis for the
environmental impacts of the three components of the NSR Reform rules
(discussed earlier) is informative of how Georgia's adoption of NSR
Reform (based on the federal rules) will affect emissions. EPA has no
reason to believe that the environmental impacts will be different from
those discussed in the Supplemental Analysis for the NSR Reform rules,
and thus, approval of Georgia's SIP revision would not be contrary to
Section 110(l) of the CAA.
    NRDC cites to five general portions of Georgia's rules as
provisions that would violate Section 110(l). These provisions are:
Administrative Code of Georgia (ACG) 391-3-1-.02(7)(a), (7)(b)15, and
(7)(b)(21) (from Georgia's PSD rules); and 391-3-1-.03(8)(c) and (8)(g)
(from Georgia's NNSR rules). NRDC Comments at 2. NRDC provides no
evidence supporting its contention that these specific provisions
violate Section 110(l). The first provision noted by NRDC, 391-3-
1-.02(7)(a), represents general requirements regarding Georgia's PSD
program, which do include some changes per the SIP revision at issue.
Nonetheless, without further specificity, it is not clear why or how
NRDC believes this provision is a violation of Section 110(l). In
addition, NRDC has provided no Georgia-specific documentation that
indicates that EPA's analysis and conclusions regarding the impact of
NSR Reform, in the Supplemental Analysis, is not applicable to
Georgia's rules, which are equivalent to or more stringent than the
federal rules.
    In evaluating Georgia's SIP submissions, EPA compared Georgia's
rules with the existing federal rules and determined that Georgia's
rules were

equivalent to or more stringent than the NSR reform (federal) rules.
EPA also considered Georgia's approximately thirty enhancements to the
federal NSR Reform provisions, including specific anti-backsliding
provisions. This comparison was discussed in the proposal to approve
Georgia's SIP revision. Georgia's anti-backsliding provisions are
discussed in their SIP submittal and included in EPA's docket. EPA also
considered Georgia's numerous responses to comments, included as part
of the submittals, wherein Georgia discussed the two-year stakeholder
process, as well as answered questions as to why it was including anti-
backsliding provisions and discussed the NSR Reform changes in relation
to their air quality program. Georgia determined that ``the NAAQS, PSD
increment, RFP demonstration and visibility will be protected if these
SIP revisions are approved and implemented.'' See Technical Support for
SIP Submittal dated August 4, 2007. Finally, EPA also considered the
Supplemental Analysis in reviewing Georgia's submittal and NRDC's
comments. EPA concluded that approval of Georgia's SIP revision would
not be contrary to Section 110(l) of the CAA. Absent more explicit
information demonstrating that Georgia's plan for implementation of a
specific provision of its rules would interfere with any applicable
requirement of the CAA and thus should be disapproved under Section
110(l), Georgia's Technical Support and the Supplemental Analysis
support approval. As a result, there is no basis to determine that
approval of Georgia's rules would violate Section 110(l).

Summary of Comments Regarding Section 193 of the CAA--NRDC Comments at
7-10

    NRDC states that NSR is a ``control requirement'' and thus the
requirements of Section 193 apply to the NSR rules at issue in the
Georgia SIP revision. NRDC Comments at 7. NRDC further alleges that
Georgia's revisions ``ensure that emissions will not be reduced as much
as under the pre-existing rules. In fact, the modifications allow
emissions to increase in Georgia's nonattainment areas.'' NRDC Comments
at 9. Finally, NRDC states that ``because section 193 lies within part
D,'' ``if EPA approves Georgia's revised plan, that action will
additionally exceed the agency's authority under section 110(k)(3) and
violate section 100(l).'' (Note, the last citation to 100(l) appears to
be a typo and should read 110(l).) NRDC Comments at 10.

EPA Response to Section 193 Related Comments

    The response to the Section 193 issues raised by NRDC involves many
of the same elements of the response above, to the Section 110(l)
comments, which is also incorporated by reference here.
    Section 193 states, in relevant part, that ``[n]o control
requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order,
settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in
any area which is a nonattainment 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.''
    Assuming for purposes of this discussion that Section 193 does
apply to the instant action, as was discussed earlier in this notice,
EPA has previously determined and explained in the Supplemental
Analysis, that implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions
still in effect (that is, those not vacated by the DC Circuit) are
expected to have at least a neutral environmental benefit. In addition,
Georgia's rules include several differences from the federal rule that
are likely to result in greater environmental protection. These
provisions include, among others: (1) Adjusting the PAL limits downward
upon renewal if average actual emissions are less than 80 percent of
the PAL limit; (2) anti-backsliding provisions included in the major
source baseline date to ensure that baseline dates established prior to
the effective date of the rule changes remain in effect; (3) additional
requirements related to the definition of projected actual emissions
intended to result in more accurate estimates of emissions increases;
(4) provisions that make the ``demand growth'' exclusion optional, and
require additional recordkeeping to ensure the rules are implemented
properly; (5) a requirement that baseline actual emissions not be based
on a period for which there is inadequate information; (6) a
requirement to adjust baseline actual emissions for new applicable
requirements; (7) provisions that require submission of an application
prior to construction for all major and minor sources; (8) requirements
that the ``reasonable possibility'' recordkeeping reporting
requirements are triggered whenever a minor source permit is required.
Therefore, even if Section 193 did apply to this action, EPA does not
agree with commenter's assertions that the SIP submissions approved in
this action raise a Section 193 concern.
    In addition, the core of NRDC's argument seems to revolve around
the DC Circuit Court decision in South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) (finding that NSR
associated with the 1-hour ozone standard included control
requirements). At issue in South Coast was EPA's determination
regarding the revocation of the entire 1-hour ozone program (and
corresponding SIP elements), including all the 1-hour nonattainment NSR
elements, and whether such elements would continue to be required as
part of SIPs implementing the new (at that time) 8-hour ozone standard.
The facts in the South Coast case are distinguishable from the instant
matter where the Georgia SIP is merely being updated to include changes
to the Federal NSR program. EPA is not removing the entirety of
Georgia's NNSR program from the SIP as it pertains to a particular
NAAQS. Rather, EPA is simply approving Georgia's SIP revision that
implements rules equivalent to or more stringent than the federal
rules; and as discussed earlier in this notice, EPA developed a
Supplemental Analysis to support adoption of the federal rules. The
Georgia SIP will continue to operate with the full suite of NSR related
elements, including a comprehensive minor source program, and the
restrictive `de-minimus rule,' which requires sources to aggregate 5-
year emissions increases and offset emissions increases greater than 25
tons.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve portions of three revisions
to the Georgia SIP submitted by the State of Georgia on October 31,
2006, March 5, 2007, and August 22, 2007, which address changes to
Georgia's PSD and NNSR programs.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
ensures that State law meets 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 21, 2011. 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.

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

    Dated: November 12, 2010.
Gwendolyn Keyes-Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

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 L--Georgia

0
2. In Sec.  52.570(c) the table is amended by revising the entries for
``391-3-1-.02(7)'' and ``391-3-1-.03'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State
        State citation             Title/subject      effective date    EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(7)...............  Prevention of               7/25/2007  11/22/2010 [Insert    This rule contains
                                Significant                            citation of           NOX as a precursor
                                Deterioration of Air                   publication].         to ozone for PSD
                                Quality (PSD).                                               and NSR.

                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.03..................  Permits..............       7/25/2007  11/22/2010 [Insert    Changes specifically
                                                                       citation of           to (8)--Permit
                                                                       publication].         Requirements.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-29246 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 150)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43539-43544]
[DOCID:fr06au07-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0347; FRL-8450-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Iowa; Clean
Air Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the Iowa
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on August 15, 2006. This
revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April
28, 2006, and December 13, 2006. EPA has determined that the SIP
revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Iowa. As a result
of this action, EPA will also withdraw, through a separate rulemaking,
the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) concerning SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season emissions for
Iowa. The CAIR FIPs for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated
on April 28, 2006, and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006.
    CAIR requires States to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) that
significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance of, the
national ambient air quality standards for fine particulates and/or
ozone in any downwind state. CAIR establishes State budgets for
SO2 and NOX and requires States to submit SIP
revisions that implement these budgets in States that EPA concluded did
contribute to nonattainment in downwind states. States have the
flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the
budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs. In the SIP revision that EPA is approving today, Iowa has met
the CAIR requirements by electing to participate in the EPA-
administered cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season emissions.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0347. 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., 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, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Jay at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
IV. Analysis of Iowa's CAIR SIP Submittal

    A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations
    B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs
    C. NOX Allowance Allocations
    D. Allocation of NOX Allowances from Compliance
Supplement Pool
    E. Individual Opt-in Units
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to Iowa's SIP
submitted on August 15, 2006. In its SIP revision, Iowa has met the
CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units (EGUs)
to participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade
programs addressing SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions, as finalized in the Iowa
Administrative Bulletin on June 7, 2006 (567-20.1(455B,17A), 21.1(4),
and Chapter 34). Iowa's regulations adopt by reference most of the
provisions of EPA's SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season model trading rules, with certain changes
discussed below. EPA has determined that the SIP as revised will meet
the applicable requirements of CAIR. As a result of this action, the
Administrator of EPA will also issue a final rule to withdraw the FIPs
concerning SO2, NOX annual, and NOX
ozone season emissions for Iowa. The Administrator's action will delete
and reserve 40 CFR 52.840 and 40 CFR 52.841, relating to the CAIR FIP
obligations for Iowa. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIPs for Iowa is a
conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because
EPA's authority to issue the FIPs was premised on a deficiency in the
SIP for Iowa. Once a SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority
for the FIPs. Thus, EPA does not have the option of maintaining the
FIPs following full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to
offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity
for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIPs.
    EPA proposed to approve Iowa's request to amend the SIP on May 8,
2007 (72 FR 26040). In that proposal, EPA also stated its intent to
withdraw the FIP, as described above. The comment period closed on June
7, 2007. No comments were received. EPA is finalizing the approval as
proposed based on the rationale stated in the proposal and in this
final action.

II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    The CAIR was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In
this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia
contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
fine particles (PM2.5) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind
States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required
those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures
that reduce emissions of SO2, which is a precursor to
PM2.5 formation, and/or NOX, which is a precursor
to both ozone and PM2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that
contribute significantly to downwind PM2.5 nonattainment,
CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e.,
budgets) for SO2 and annual State-wide emission reduction
requirements for NOX. Similarly, for jurisdictions that
contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets
State-wide emission reduction requirements for NOX for the
ozone season (May 1 to September 30). Under CAIR, States may implement
these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered
cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control measures.
    CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective
on May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3
years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS.
    Iowa submitted its SIP in response to EPA's section 110(a)(2)(D)
finding, which EPA approved in a rule published March 8, 2007 (72 FR
10380). In that rule, EPA stated that Iowa had met its obligation with
regard to interstate transport by adoption of the CAIR model rule. EPA
also stated that it would review and act on Iowa's CAIR rule in a
separate rulemaking. This document takes final action on Iowa's CAIR
rule as explained below.

III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO2 and
NOX and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase
of NOX reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014,
while the first phase of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 and
continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both
NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs; or (2) adopting other control measures of the State's
choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in
compliance with the applicable State SO2 and NOX
budgets.
    The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, CAIR rules provide model
rules that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired)
if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.
    With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the
requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are
allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One
exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model
rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered
trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all
non-EGUs from their NOX SIP Call trading programs in their
CAIR NOX ozone season trading programs.

IV. Analysis of Iowa's CAIR SIP Submittal

A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

    In this action, EPA is taking final action to approve Iowa's SIP
revision that adopts the budgets established for the State in CAIR,
i.e., 32,692 (2009-2014) and 27,243 (2015-thereafter) tons for
NOX annual emissions, 14,263 (2009-2014) and 11,886 (2015-
thereafter) tons for NOX ozone season emissions, and 64,095
(2010-2014) and 44,866 (2015-thereafter) tons for SO2
emissions. Iowa's SIP revision sets these budgets as the total amounts
of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-
administered cap-and-trade programs.
    Iowa has committed to revising a definition in all three CAIR rules
in order to fully ensure allowances can be traded among all sources
participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs as
intended. EPA discovered after review of other States' rules, but after
Iowa had adopted its CAIR rules, that there was an issue related to the
definition of ``permitting authority'' when it is revised to refer to a
specific State's permitting authority.
    In each of Iowa's rules for CAIR, the EPA model trading rules were
revised to limit all references to ``permitting authority'' to refer to
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. This change is acceptable in
most, but not all, instances under the current model rules. In certain
definitions in the model rules incorporated by Iowa (i.e., ``allocate''
or

``allocation,'' ``CAIR NOX allowance,'' ``CAIR
SO2 allowance,'' and ``CAIR NOX Ozone Season
allowance''), it is important that the term ``permitting authority''
cover permitting authorities in all States that choose to participate
in the respective EPA-administered trading programs. This is necessary
to ensure that all allowances issued in each EPA-administered trading
program are fungible and can be traded and used for compliance with the
allowance-holding requirement in any State in the program.
    On February 17, 2007, EPA provided a letter to Iowa that requested
and outlined necessary definition revisions. EPA received a letter from
Iowa on February 28, 2007, that provided a commitment to make the EPA
suggested rule revisions as soon as is practicable upon publication of
the final rule concerning the proposed Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)
Federal plan. On April 11, 2007, EPA received an electronic
correspondence from Iowa stating that Iowa will, in any event, complete
these rule revisions before January 1, 2008. The State will be able to
simultaneously revise the ``permitting authority'' definition in all
cap-and-trade rules for both CAIR and CAMR, and properly update the
State's rule as necessary to meet the requirements of the EPA-
administered cap-and-trade-program for mercury.
    The final rule concerning the CAMR Federal plan is expected to be
published before the earliest, major deadline for compliance with
requirements for source owners and operators under the CAIR trading
programs, i.e., the January 1, 2008, deadline for emissions monitoring
requirements under the CAIR Annual Trading Program. EPA expects that,
by timing adoption of the EPA requested rule revisions to be soon after
the publication of the final rule concerning the CAMR Federal plan, the
State will ensure the revisions to the definition of ``permitting
authority'' will be completed prior to any of the major compliance
deadlines for source owners and operators under the CAIR trading
programs. In the event the final rule concerning the CAMR Federal plan
is not published in the expected timeframe, the State will need to
ensure the necessary State rule revisions are completed and submitted
to EPA in advance of the January 1, 2008, monitoring deadline for the
CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program.
    To be clear, EPA notes that it is not proposing to approve the
State's rule to comply with CAMR as part of this rulemaking. EPA will
propose a separate rulemaking for the Iowa rule relating to CAMR.

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone season model trading rules
both largely mirror the structure of the NOX SIP Call model
trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the
provisions of the NOX annual and ozone season model rules
are similar, there are some differences. For example, the
NOX annual model rule (but not the NOX ozone
season model rule) provides for a compliance supplement pool (CSP),
which is discussed below and under which allowances may be awarded for
early reductions of NOX annual emissions. As a further
example, the NOX ozone season model rule reflects the fact
that the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program replaces the
NOX SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and
is coordinated with the NOX SIP Call program. The
NOX ozone season model rule provides incentives for early
emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NOX SIP
Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NOX
ozone season trading program. In addition, States have the option of
continuing to meet their NOX SIP Call requirement by
participating in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program
and including all their NOX SIP Call trading sources in that
program.
    The provisions of the CAIR SO2 model rule are also
similar to the provisions of the NOX annual and ozone season
model rules. However, the SO2 model rule is coordinated with
the ongoing Acid Rain SO2 cap-and-trade program under CAA
title IV. The SO2 model rule uses the title IV allowances
for compliance, with each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing
only 0.50 ton of emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and
thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV
allowances allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in
the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance
authorizing one ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely
transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources
covered by the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program.
    EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the
trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are
virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made
to account for Federal rather than State implementation. The CAIR model
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to
work together as integrated SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs.
    In the SIP revision, Iowa has chosen to implement its CAIR budgets
by requiring EGUs to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs for SO2, NOX annual, and NOX
ozone season emissions. Iowa has adopted a full SIP revision (with the
revisions discussed above) that adopts, with certain allowed changes
discussed below, the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season emissions.

C. NOX Allowance Allocations

    Under the NOX allowance allocation methodology in the
CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NOX annual and
ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for
five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that are
adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for
oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR
FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five
years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior
year emissions.
    States may establish in their SIP submissions a different
NOX allowance allocation methodology that will be used to
allocate allowances to sources in the States if certain requirements
are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to
the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances
allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative
NOX allowance allocation methodologies, States have
flexibility with regard to: (1) The cost to recipients of the
allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned; (2) the
frequency of allocations; (3) the basis for allocating allowances,
which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input
or electric and thermal output; and (4) the use of allowance set-asides
and, if used, their size.
    Iowa has chosen to adopt generally the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual and CAIR NOX ozone season model
trading rules concerning the allocation of allowances with two notable
exceptions. Language is provided in Iowa's rules that states that
allowances will be allocated in future years only ``to meet the minimum
timing requirements'' specified in the Federal regulations. As
explained in the proposed approval, EPA understands that the language
is intended to mean that allocations will be determined by the dates
and only for the years identified or described in 40 CFR 96.141

and 40 CFR 96.341. EPA did not receive any comments on this issue, and
concludes that this understanding is a correct interpretation of Iowa's
rules. Additionally, Iowa's CAIR NOX Annual and CAIR
NOX ozone season rules establish permanent allocations for
specified units designated as ``existing units'' or ``new units'' and
do not include provisions of the EPA's model rules that call for
adjusting the allocations for existing units to provide allocations for
future, new units. EPA is taking final action to approve these
variations from the model rule provisions because the changes are
consistent with the flexibility that CAIR provides States with regard
to allocation methodologies.

D. Allocation of NOX Allowances From Compliance Supplement
Pool

    The CAIR establishes a compliance supplement pool to provide an
incentive for early reductions in NOX annual emissions. The
CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR NOX annual allowances of
vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR region, and a State's share of the CSP
is based upon the projected magnitude of the emission reductions
required by CAIR in that State. States may distribute CSP allowances,
one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to sources that make
NOX reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond what is required
by any applicable State or Federal emission limitation. States also may
distribute CSP allowances based upon a demonstration of need for an
extension of the 2009 deadline for implementing emission controls.
    The CAIR annual NOX model trading rule establishes
specific methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may
choose an allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to
allocate CSP allowances to sources in the States.
    Iowa has not chosen to modify the provisions from the CAIR
NOX annual model trading rule concerning the allocation of
allowances from the CSP. Iowa has chosen to distribute CSP allowances
using the allocation methodology provided in 40 CFR 96.143 and has
adopted this section by reference.

E. Individual Opt-In Units

    The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow
certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other
stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the
applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate
voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may
opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify
to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions
through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and
recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators
seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR
opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit
becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same
allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements
as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in
provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for
opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general
and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units
that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.
    States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions.
States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them
but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States
may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all.
    Iowa has chosen to allow non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to
opt into the CAIR trading programs by adopting by reference the
entirety of EPA's model rule provisions for opt-in units in the CAIR
SO2, CAIR NOX annual, and CAIR NOX
ozone season trading programs.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Iowa's full CAIR SIP revision
submitted on August 15, 2006. Under this SIP revision, Iowa is choosing
to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
emissions. EPA has determined that the SIP revision meets the
applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to
NOX annual and NOX ozone season emissions, and 40
CFR 51.124(o), with regard to SO2 emissions. EPA has
determined that the SIP as revised will meet the requirements of CAIR.
The Administrator of EPA will also issue, without providing an
opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for
written public comment, a final rule to withdraw the CAIR FIPs
concerning SO2, NOX annual, and NOX
ozone season emissions for Iowa. The Administrator's action will delete
and reserve 40 CFR 52.840 and 40 CFR 52.841. EPA will take final action
to withdraw the CAIR FIPs for Iowa in a separate rulemaking.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and would
impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this action approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
State law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission
for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable
law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a
SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA.
Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
    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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 5, 2007. 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, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 26, 2007
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 Q--Iowa

0
2. In Sec.  52.820(c) the table is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries for 567-20.1 and 567-21.1.
0
b. Adding in numerical order a heading for Chapter 34 and entries for
chapter 34 subsections.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                          EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
      Iowa citation                 Title             effective      EPA approval date          Explanation
                                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Chapter 20--Scope of Title--Definitions--Forms--Rule of Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
567-20.1.................  Scope of Title.........           N/A  8/6/07 [insert FR page  This rule is a non-
                                                                   number where the        substantive
                                                                   document begins].       description of the
                                                                                Chapters contained in
                                                                                the Iowa rules. EPA
                                                                                has not approved all
                                                                                of the Chapters to
                                                                                which this rule
                                                                                refers.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Chapter 21--Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
567-21.1.................  Compliance Schedule....     7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                                                                   number where the
                                                                   document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Chapter 34--Provisions for Air Quality Emissions Trading Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
567-34.1.................  Purpose................     7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                                                                   number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.2 to 567-34.199...  Reserved...............     7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                                                                   number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.201...............  CAIR NOX annual trading     7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                            program provisions.                    number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.202...............  CAIR designated             7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                            representative for                     number where the
                            CAIR NOX sources.                      document begins].
567-34.203...............  Permits................     7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                                                                   number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.204...............  Reserved...............     7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                                                                   number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.205...............  CAIR NOX allowance          7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                            allocations.                           number where the
                                                                   document begins].

567-34.206...............  CAIR NOX allowance          7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                            tracking system.                       number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.207...............  CAIR NOX allowance          7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                            transfers.                             number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.208...............  Monitoring and              7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                            reporting.                             number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.209...............  CAIR NOX opt-in units..     7/12/2006  8/6/07 [insert FR page
                                                                   number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.210...............  CAIR SO2 trading            7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                            program.                               page number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.211 to 567-34.219.  Reserved...............     7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                                                                   page number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.220...............  CAIR NOX ozone season       7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                            trading program.                       page number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.221...............  CAIR NOX ozone season       7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                            trading program                        page number where the
                            general provisions.                    document begins].
567-34.222...............  CAIR designated             7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                            representative for                     page number where the
                            CAIR NOX ozone season                  document begins].
                            sources.
567-34.223...............  CAIR NOX ozone season       7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                            permits.                               page number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.224...............  Reserved...............     7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                                                                   page number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.225...............  CAIR NOX ozone season       7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                            allowance allocations.                 page number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.226...............  CAIR NOX ozone season       7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                            allowance tracking                     page number where the
                            system.                                document begins].
567-34.227...............  CAIR NOX ozone season       7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                            allowance transfers.                   page number where the
                                                                   document begins].
567-34.228...............  CAIR NOX ozone season       7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                            monitoring and                         page number where the
                            reporting.                             document begins].
567-34.229...............  CAIR NOX ozone season       7/12/2006  8/6/2007 [insert FR
                            opt-in units.                          page number where the
                                                                   document begins].

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

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-15121 Filed 8-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 74)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20294-20297]
[DOCID:fr19ap10-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0102]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation for Marine Events; Temporary Change of
Dates for Recurring Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the enforcement
period of special local regulations for recurring marine events in the
Fifth Coast Guard District. These regulations apply to only two
recurring marine events that conduct power boat races. Special local
regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict
vessel traffic in portions of the Western Branch, Elizabeth River, VA,
and North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD during each event.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective in the CFR on April 19,
2010. This rule is effective with actual notice for purposes of
enforcement from April 17, 2010 through May 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0102 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0102 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call LT Tiffany Duffy, Project Manager, Sector Hampton
Roads, Waterways Management Division, United States Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because delaying the effective date would be
contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to
ensure the public's safety during the Virginia State Hydroplane
Championships and the Geico Offshore Grand Prix.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal

Register. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public
interest since immediate action is needed to ensure the public's safety
during the Virginia State Hydroplane Championships and the Geico
Offshore Grand Prix.

Basis and Purpose

    Marine events are frequently held on the navigable waters within
the boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard District. The on water activities
that typically comprise marine events include sailing regattas, power
boat races, swim races and holiday boat parades. For a description of
the geographical area of each Coast Guard Sector--Captain of the Port
Zone, please see 33 CFR 3.25.
    This regulation temporarily changes the enforcement period of
special local regulations for recurring marine events within the Fifth
Coast Guard District. This regulation applies to two marine events in
33 CFR 100.501, Table to Sec.  100.501.
    On April 17 and 18, 2010, the Virginia Boat Racing Association will
sponsor the ``Virginia State Hydroplane Championship'' hydroplane races
on the waters of the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River near
Portsmouth, Virginia. The regulation at 33 CFR 100.501 is effective
annually for this river boat race marine event. The event will consist
of approximately 60 hydroplane powerboats conducting high-speed
competitive races on the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River in the
vicinity of Portsmouth City Park, Portsmouth, Virginia. A fleet of
spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the
competition. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators,
support and transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily
restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the hydroplane races.
The regulation at 33 CFR 100.501 would be enforced for the duration of
the event. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.501, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
on April 17 and 18, 2010, vessels may not enter the regulated area
unless they receive permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
    The Offshore Performance Association (OPA) Racing LLC annually
sponsors the ``Offshore Grand Prix'', on the waters of the North
Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, MD. The regulation at 33 CFR 100.501 is
effective annually for the Ocean City Offshore race marine event. The
event is conducted on the waters of the North Atlantic Ocean along the
shoreline near Ocean City, MD. The event consists of approximately 50
V-hull and twin-hull inboard hydroplanes racing in heats counter-
clockwise around an oval race course. A fleet of spectator vessels is
anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Therefore, to
ensure the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels,
33 CFR 100.501 would be enforced for the duration of the event. Under
provisions of 33 CFR 100.501, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 30 and
31, 2010, vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive
permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Due to the need for
vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily
restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and
transiting vessels.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations
on specified waters of the Western Branch, Elizabeth River, near
Portsmouth, Virginia; and North Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, MD. The
regulated areas will be established in the interest of public safety
during the Virginia State Hydroplane Championships and the Geico
Offshore Grand Prix, and will be enforced on April 17 until April 18,
2010, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on May 30 until May 31, 2010, from
9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during
the specified date and times or until the powerboat races are complete,
whichever is sooner. Except for participants and vessels authorized by
the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this rule prevents traffic from transiting a portion of
certain waterways during specified events, the effect of this
regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the
regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance
notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine
information broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers so
mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, this
rulemaking does not change the permanent regulated areas that have been
published in 33 CFR 100.501, Table to Sec.  100.501. In some cases
vessel traffic may be able to transit the regulated area when the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in the areas where marine events are being held. This
regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities because it will be enforced only during marine events
that have been permitted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. The
Captain of the Port will ensure that small entities are able to operate
in the areas where events are occurring when it is safe to do so. This
safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) In
some cases, vessels will be able to safely transit around the regulated
area at various times; (ii) with the permission of the Patrol
Commander, vessels may transit through the regulated area; and (iii)
before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime
advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees

who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of
the Instruction. This rule involves implementation of regulations
within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the
navigable waters of the United States that may have potential for
negative impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users and
shore side activities in the event area. The category of water
activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat
parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail
board racing.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. In Sec.  100.501, suspend line No. 31 and 38 in the Table to Sec.
100.501.

0
3. In Sec.  100.501 on April 17 and 18, 2010, add line No. 58 in Table
to Sec.  100.501; on May 30 and 31, 2010, add line No. 59 in Table to
Sec.  100.501; to read as follows:

Sec.  100.501-T05-0102  Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in the
Fifth Coast Guard District.

* * * * *
    Table To Sec.  100.501.--All coordinates listed in the Table to
Sec.  100.501 reference Datum NAD 1983.

                                   Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads--COTP Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No.             Date              Event             Sponsor                        Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
58.........  April 17-April     Virginia state     Virginia Boat      The waters of the Western Branch,
              18, 2010.          hydroplane         Racing             Elizabeth River bounded by a line
                                 championships.     Association.       connecting the following points: latitude
                                                                       36[deg]50'06'' N, longitude
                                                                       076[deg]22'27'' W, thence to latitude
                                                                       36[deg]50'06'' N, longitude
                                                                       076[deg]21'57'' W, thence to latitude
                                                                       36[deg]50'15'' N, longitude
                                                                       076[deg]21'55.8'' W, thence to latitude
                                                                       36[deg]50'15'' N, longitude
                                                                       076[deg]22'27'' W, thence to point of
                                                                       origin.
59.........  May 30-May 31,     Ocean City         Offshore           The waters of the Atlantic Ocean
              2010.              Maryland           Performance        commencing at a point on the shoreline at
                                 Offshore Grand     Association, OPA   latitude 38[deg]25'42'' N, longitude
                                 Prix.              Racing, LLC.       075[deg]03'06'' W; thence east southeast
                                                                       to latitude 38[deg]25'30'' N, longitude
                                                                       075[deg]02'12'' W, thence south southwest
                                                                       parallel to the Ocean City shoreline to
                                                                       latitude 38[deg]19'12'' N, longitude
                                                                       075[deg]03'48'' W; thence west northwest
                                                                       to the shoreline at latitude
                                                                       38[deg]19'30'' N, longitude
                                                                       075[deg]05'00'' W. The waters of the
                                                                       Atlantic Ocean bounded by a line drawn
                                                                       from a position along the shoreline near
                                                                       Ocean City, MD at latitude
                                                                       38[deg]22'25.2'' N, longitude
                                                                       075[deg]03'49.4'' W, thence easterly to
                                                                       latitude 38[deg]22'00.4'' N, longitude
                                                                       075[deg]02'34.8'' W, thence southwesterly
                                                                       to latitude 38[deg]19'35.9'' N, longitude
                                                                       075[deg]03'35.4'' W, thence westerly to a
                                                                       position near the shoreline at latitude
                                                                       38[deg]20'05'' N, longitude
                                                                       075[deg]04'48.4'' W, thence northerly
                                                                       along the shoreline to the point of
                                                                       origin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: April 7, 2010.
M.S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2010-8861 Filed 4-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P