[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37141-37144]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16631]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81286; File No. SR-NSCC-2017-804]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Advance Notice To Expand the
Application of the Family-Issued Securities Charge

August 2, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing
Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ notice is hereby given that on July
10, 2017, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
advance notice SR-NSCC-2017-804 (``Advance Notice'') as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
clearing agency.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the Advance Notice from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ On July 10, 2017, NSCC filed this Advance Notice as a
proposed rule change (SR-NSCC-2017-010) with the Commission pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), and Rule 19b-4,
17 CFR 240.19b-4. A copy of the proposed rule change is available at
http://www.dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance
Notice

    The Advance Notice consists of amendments to the NSCC Rules and
Procedures (``Rules'') \4\ in order to (i) expand the application of
NSCC's existing family-issued securities charge \5\ to apply to all
Members, as described below, and (ii) include a definition of ``Family-
Issued Security'' as a security that was issued by a Member or by an
affiliate of that Member, as described in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available
at www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
    \5\ The family-issued securities charge is currently described
in Procedure XV, Section I.(B)(1) of the Rules, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice
and discussed any comments it received on the Advance Notice. The text
of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by NSCC.

(B) Advance Notice Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act

Description of Proposed Changes
    Currently, in calculating its Members' required deposits to the
Clearing Fund, NSCC excludes positions in Family-Issued Securities of
certain Members from its parametric volatility Clearing Fund component
(``VaR Charge''), and instead charges an amount calculated by
multiplying the absolute value of the long, net unsettled positions in
that Member's Family-Issued Securities by a percentage that is no less
than 40 percent (``FIS Charge''). The FIS Charge is currently only
applied to Members that are rated 5, 6, or 7 on the Credit Risk Rating
Matrix (``CRRM''). The proposed change would expand the application of
the FIS Charge to the positions in Family-Issued Securities of all
Members to help NSCC cover the specific wrong-way risk posed by Family-
Issued Securities, as described further below.\6\ Therefore, NSCC is
proposing to amend (i) Rule 1 (Definitions and Descriptions) to add a
definition of ``Family-Issued Security,'' and (ii) Procedure XV
(Clearing Fund Formula and Other Matters) to expand the application of
the FIS Charge to all Members by moving the description of FIS Charge
from Section I.(B)(1) to Sections I.(A)(1) and I.(A)(2) in order to
make clear that the FIS Charge would be included as a component of the
Clearing Fund formula calculated for all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Members that do not trade in Family-Issued Securities would
not be subject to the FIS Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a central counterparty, NSCC occupies an important role in the
securities settlement system by interposing itself between
counterparties to financial transactions and thereby reducing the risk
faced by participants and contributing to global financial stability.
The effectiveness of a central counterparty's risk controls and the
adequacy of its financial resources are critical to achieving these
risk-reducing goals. In that context, NSCC continuously reviews its
margining methodology in order to ensure the reliability of its
margining in achieving the desired coverage. In order to be most
effective, NSCC must take into consideration the risk characteristics
specific to certain securities when margining those securities.
    Among the various risks that NSCC considers when evaluating the
effectiveness of its margining methodology are its counterparty risks
and identification and mitigation of ``wrong-way'' risk, particularly
specific wrong-way risk, defined as the risk that an exposure to a
counterparty is highly likely to increase when the creditworthiness of
that counterparty deteriorates. \7\ NSCC has identified an exposure to
specific wrong-way risk when it acts as central counterparty to a
Member with respect to positions in Family-Issued Securities. In the
event that a Member with unsettled long positions in Family-Issued
Securities defaults, NSCC would close out those positions following a
likely drop in the credit-worthiness of the issuer, possibly resulting
in a loss to NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Principles for financial market infrastructures, issued
by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and the Technical
Committee of the International Organization of Securities
Commissions 47 n.65 (April 2012), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/cpss101a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, NSCC proposed to address its exposure to specific wrong-
way risk in two ways.\8\ First, NSCC proposed to apply the FIS Charge
to its Members that are rated a 5, 6, or 7 on the CRRM (i.e., Members
on the Watch List).\9\

Today, following implementation of the FIS Phase 1 Rule Change, the FIS
Charge is applied by excluding positions in Family-Issued Securities of
those Members from NSCC's VaR Charge, and instead charging an amount
calculated by multiplying the absolute value of the long net unsettled
positions in that Member's Family-Issued Securities by a
percentage.\10\ That percentage is no less than 40 percent and up to
100 percent, and is determined by NSCC based on the Member's rating on
the CRRM and on the type of Family-Issued Securities submitted to NSCC.
As such, under Procedure XV (1) fixed income securities that are
Family-Issued Securities are charged a haircut rate of no less than 80
percent for Members that are rated 6 or 7 on the CRRM, and no less than
40 percent for Members rated 5 on the CRRM; and (2) equity securities
that are Family-Issued Securities are charged a haircut rate of 100
percent for Members that are rated 6 or 7 on the CRRM, and no less than
50 percent for Members that are rated 5 on the CRRM. Members that have
a rating on the CRRM of 1 through 4 are not currently subject to the
FIS Charge. As stated above, Family-Issued Securities present NSCC with
specific wrong-way risk such that, in the event that a Member with
unsettled long positions in Family-Issued Securities defaults, NSCC
would close out those positions following a likely drop in the credit-
worthiness of the issuer, possibly resulting in a loss to NSCC.
Therefore, the FIS Charge is applied to the unsettled long positions in
Family-Issued Securities, which are the positions that NSCC would close
out following a Member default, as opposed to the short positions in
net unsettled securities. The haircut rates were calibrated based on
historical corporate issue recovery rate data, and address the risk
that the Family-Issued Securities of a Member would be devalued in the
event of that Member's default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76077 (October 5,
2015), 80 FR 61256 (October 9, 2015), (SR-NSCC-2015-003) (``FIS
Phase 1 Rule Change'').
    \9\ As part of its ongoing monitoring of its membership, NSCC
utilizes the CRRM to rate its risk exposures to its Members based on
a scale from 1 (the strongest) to 7 (the weakest). Members that fall
within the higher risk rating categories (i.e., 5, 6, and 7) are
placed on NSCC's ``Watch List,'' and may be subject to enhanced
surveillance or additional margin charges, as permitted under the
Rules. See Rule 2B, Section 4 and Procedure XV, Section I.(B)(1) of
the Rules, supra note 4. See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 80734 (May 19, 2017), 82 FR 24174 (May 25, 2017), (SR-DTC-2017-
002, SR-FICC-2017-006, SR-NSCC-2017-002) (approving proposed changes
to the CRRM methodology).
    \10\ Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and Other Matters),
Section I.(B)(1), supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FIS Charge is currently applied only to Members on the Watch
List because these Members present a heightened credit risk to NSCC or
have demonstrated higher risk related to their ability to meet
settlement, and, as such, at the time the FIS Phase 1 Rule Change was
proposed, NSCC believed there was a clear and more urgent need to
address NSCC's exposure to specific wrong-way risk presented by these
Members' positions in Family-Issued Securities.
    Second, NSCC proposed to further evaluate its exposure to wrong-way
risk presented by positions in Family-Issued Securities by reviewing
the impact of expanding the application of the FIS Charge to positions
in Family-Issued Securities of all Members.\11\ Following its
evaluation, NSCC has determined that the risk characteristics to be
considered when margining Family-Issued Securities extend beyond
Members' creditworthiness. More specifically, exposure to specific
wrong-way risk is based on the correlation to the default of the issuer
Member, and NSCC may face this risk with respect to positions in
Family-Issued Securities of all of its Members, not only those Members
on the Watch List. As such, in order to more effectively mitigate its
exposure to specific wrong-way risk, NSCC is proposing to apply the FIS
Charge to positions in Family-Issued Securities of all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FIS Phase 1 Rule Change, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to implement this proposal, NSCC would amend Procedure XV
to move the FIS Charge from Section I.(B)(1), where it is currently
described as an additional deposit for Members on surveillance, to
Sections I.(A)(1) and (2), to include the FIS Charge as a component of
the Clearing Fund formula that is calculated for each Member.\12\ Under
the proposed change, the calculation of the FIS Charge would not change
as applied to Members that are rated 5, 6, or 7 on the CRRM. NSCC is
proposing to revise the description of the FIS Charge to include
Members that are rated 1 through 4 on the CRRM.\13\ Specifically, NSCC
is proposing to amend the description of the FIS Charge in Procedure XV
such that (1) fixed-income securities that are Family-Issued Securities
would be charged a haircut rate of no less than 80 percent for Members
that are rated 6 or 7 on the CRRM, and no less than 40 percent for
Members that are rated 1 through 5 on the CRRM; and (2) equities that
are Family-Issued Securities would be charged a haircut rate of 100
percent for Members rated 6 or 7 on the CRRM, and no less than 50
percent for Members that are rated 1 through 5 on the CRRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Procedure XV, Sections I.(A)(1) and (2) and I.(B), supra
note 4.
    \13\ Members that are not rated on the CRRM are not subject to
the FIS Charge and would not be subject to the FIS Charge under the
proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change would also amend NSCC Rule 1 (Definitions and
Descriptions) to include a definition of Family-Issued Securities in
order to provide more clarity to the Rules. Under the proposed change,
``Family-Issued Security'' would be defined as a security that was
issued by a Member or an affiliate of that Member.
Expected Effect on and Management of Risk
    By expanding the application of the FIS Charge to all Members, the
proposed change would more allow NSCC to more effectively mitigate its
exposure to specific wrong-way risk as posed by Family-Issued
Securities. As described above, Family-Issued Securities present NSCC
with specific wrong-way risk such that, in the event that a Member with
unsettled long positions in Family-Issued Securities defaults, NSCC
would close out those positions following a likely drop in the credit-
worthiness of the issuer, possibly resulting in a loss to NSCC. The FIS
Charge addresses this risk by using haircut rates that are calibrated
based on historical corporate issue recovery rate data, and address the
risk that the Family-Issued Securities of a Member would be devalued in
the event of that Member's default. Because NSCC may face specific
wrong-way risk with respect to positions in Family-Issued Securities of
all of its Members, the proposed change to expand the FIS Charge to all
Members would reduce NSCC's exposure to specific wrong-way risk.
    By mitigating specific wrong-way risk for NSCC as described above,
the proposed change would also mitigate risk for Members because
lowering the risk profile for NSCC would in turn lower the risk
exposure that Members may have with respect to NSCC in its role as a
central counterparty.
Consistency With the Clearing Supervision Act
    The stated purpose of Title VIII of the Clearing Supervision Act is
to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial
stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management
standards for systemically important financial market utilities and
strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market
utilities.\14\ Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \15\
also authorizes the Commission to prescribe risk management standards
for the payment, clearing and settlement activities of designated
clearing entities, like NSCC, for which the Commission is the
supervisory agency. Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act \16\
states that the objectives and principles for risk management standards
prescribed under Section 805(a) shall be to, among

other things, promote robust risk management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \15\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \16\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act because it is designed to
promote robust risk management. By enhancing the margin methodology
applied to Family-Issued Securities of all Members, the proposal would
assist NSCC in collecting margin that more accurately reflects NSCC's
exposure to a Member that clears Family-Issued Securities and would
assist NSCC in its continuous efforts to improve the reliability and
effectiveness of its risk-based margining methodology by taking into
account specific wrong-way risk. By assisting NSCC in more effectively
mitigating its exposure to specific wrong-way risk, the proposal is
designed to promote robust risk management, consistent with Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \18\ and Section 17A of the
Act.\19\ Rule 17Ad-22 requires registered clearing agencies to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to meet certain minimum
requirements for their operations and risk management practices on an
ongoing basis.\20\ For the reasons set forth below, NSCC believes the
proposed change is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i), and
(e)(6)(i) and (v), each promulgated under the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22 (``Rule 17Ad-22'').
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4) and (e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that each
covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively
identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to
participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and
settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial
resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a
high degree of confidence.\22\ The specific wrong-way risk presented by
Family-Issued Securities is the risk that, in the event that a Member
with unsettled long positions in Family-Issued Securities defaults,
NSCC would close out those positions following a likely drop in the
credit-worthiness of the issuer, possibly resulting in a loss to NSCC.
The haircut rates of the FIS Charge more accurately reflect this risk
because they were calibrated based on historical corporate issue
recovery rate data, and, therefore, address the risk that the Family-
Issued Securities of a Member would be devalued in the event of that
Member's default. In this way, NSCC has determined that the margining
methodology used in calculating the FIS Charge more accurately reflects
the risk characteristics of Family-Issued Securities than applying its
VaR Charge, and would permit NSCC to more accurately identify, measure,
monitor and manage its credit exposures to those Members with positions
in Family-Issued Securities. Further, by expanding the application of
the FIS Charge to all Members, the proposed change would assist NSCC in
collecting and maintaining financial resources that reflect its credit
exposures to those Members. Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that each
covered clearing agency that provides central counterparty services
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the
risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio,
and market.\23\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) under the Act requires, in part,
that each covered clearing agency that provides central counterparty
services establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum, uses an appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that
accounts for relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across
products.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, Family-Issued Securities present NSCC with
specific wrong-way risk that, in the event that a Member with unsettled
long positions in Family-Issued Securities defaults, NSCC would close
out those positions following a likely drop in the credit-worthiness of
the issuer, possibly resulting in a loss to NSCC. Therefore, the
haircut rates were calibrated based on historical corporate issue
recovery rate data, and address the risk that the Family-Issued
Securities of a Member would be devalued in the event of that Member's
default, and would more accurately reflect the risk characteristics of
Family-Issued Securities than applying its VaR Charge. In this way, the
proposal would assist NSCC in maintaining a risk-based margin system
that considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks
and particular attributes of Family-Issued Securities. Additionally,
NSCC believes application of the FIS Charge to positions in Family-
Issued Securities of all Members is an appropriate method for measuring
its credit exposures, because the FIS Charge accounts for the risk
factors presented by these securities, i.e. the risk that these
securities would be devalued in the event of a Member default.
Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed change is consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice, and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not
object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the
date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the
date that any additional information requested by the Commission is
received. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change
if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice
of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60
days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further
information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission
notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the
proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the
proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed
by the Commission.
    The clearing agency shall post notice on its Web site of proposed
changes that are implemented.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Advance
Notice

is consistent with the Clearing Supervision Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2017-804 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2017-804. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the Advance Notice that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
Advance Notice between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's Web site
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2017-804 and should be submitted on
or before August 23, 2017.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16631 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69998-70001]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27997]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0417; FRL 9902-13-R08]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Rescission of Federal Implementation Plan; Wyoming; Prevention of
Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions and additions to the Wyoming State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality (WDEQ) to EPA on March 8, 2013. The SIP revision
to the Wyoming Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program
updates the program to regulate permitting of sources of greenhouse
gases (GHGs). Specifically, we are approving revisions to Wyoming's Air
Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 1, Common Provisions,
Section 3, Definitions, and Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section
4, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and the addition of Chapter
1, Section 7, Greenhouse Gases. EPA is also rescinding the GHG PSD
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Wyoming that was put in place to
ensure the availability of a permitting authority for GHG PSD
permitting in Wyoming. EPA is taking this final action under section
110 and part C of the Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).

DATES: This action is effective on December 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0417. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background for Our Final Action
II. Response to Comments
III. What final action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for Our Final Action

    The background for today's final rule and EPA's national actions
pertaining to PSD permitting of sources of GHGs are discussed in detail
in our June 24, 2013 proposal (see 78 FR 37752). The comment period was
open for thirty days, and one comment, from WDEQ, was received.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: The WDEQ supported our proposed approval of Wyoming's
March 8, 2013 GHG PSD submittal and concurrent rescission of our FIP.
However, WDEQ requested that we propose action on the State's May 11,
2011 SIP submittal (which generally concerned New Source Review
regulations for non-attainment areas) in parallel or as close as
possible to final approval of the March 8, 2013 GHG PSD submittal. WDEQ
stated it was concerned about future inconsistency in the GHG PSD
permitting regulations.
    Response: EPA acknowledges WDEQ's support for our final approval.
It does not appear that our final approval could result in some
inconsistency in light of the fact that we are not, at the same time,
proposing action on the May 11, 2011 submittal. EPA has already
approved the portion of the May 11, 2011 submittal that revised the
State's PSD program. See 76 FR 44265 (July 25, 2011). The remaining
portion of the May 11, 2011 submittal adds two new sections to
Wyoming's permitting rules. Section 13, entitled ``Nonattainment permit
requirements,'' incorporates by reference federal rules at 40 CFR
51.165. Section 14, entitled ``Incorporation by reference,''
establishes the date of incorporation by reference of federal rules and
provides information on how the public can inspect or obtain copies of
the Code of Federal Regulations. We proposed to approve the May 11,
2011 addition of Section 14 in a separate action that will be completed
concurrently with this one. In addition, the GHG revision to Section 4
independently provides a date of incorporation by reference and
identical information to Section 14 about the Code of Federal
Regulations. With respect to Section 13, WDEQ did not identify any
specific dependency between it and the March 8, 2013 GHG PSD submittal
that would cause any future inconsistency in GHG permitting. In
addition, the March 8, 2013 GHG PSD submittal did not include Section
13, so it appears to EPA that the two are independent.

III. What final action is EPA taking?

    We are approving portions of Wyoming's March 8, 2013 SIP submittal
that update the PSD program to regulate permitting of sources of GHGs.
Specifically, EPA is approving revisions to WAQSR Chapter 1, Common
Provisions, Section 3, and Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section
4, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and the addition of Chapter
1, Common Provisions, Section 7, Greenhouse Gases. EPA has determined
that these March 8, 2013 revisions are approvable because they were
adopted and submitted in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations
regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. As explained in the June, 24, 2013
proposal, we are not taking action at this time on the revision to
Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 14, Incorporation by
Reference.
    In our June 24, 2013 action, we proposed to approve a portion of
the SIP revision that deferred until July 21, 2014 application of the
PSD permitting requirements to biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources. This
portion of the SIP revision was included to align Wyoming's state
regulations with EPA's July 20, 2011 Biomass Deferral Rule. However, on
July 12, 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated
EPA's deferral rule for biogenic CO2, stating that EPA is
not authorized under the CAA to temporarily exempt such emissions from
the PSD program. In light of the court's action, on July 31, 2013
Wyoming sent EPA a letter requesting that we not act on the deferral
rule portion of their submittal.
    As explained in our June, 24, 2013 proposal (see 78 FR 37752), as a
result

of today's action we are also rescinding the GHG PSD FIP for Wyoming at
40 CFR 52.37(b)(6). Therefore, as of the effective date of this final
rule, the EPA will no longer be the PSD permitting authority for GHG-
emitting sources in Wyoming.
    In a July 31, 2013 letter to EPA, the State requested approval to
exercise its authority to administer the PSD program with respect to
those sources that have existing PSD permits issued by EPA, including
authority to conduct general administration of these existing permits,
authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD permit
actions relating to such permits (e.g., modifications, amendments, or
revisions of any nature), and authority to enforce such permits.
Pursuant to the criteria in section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA, we have
determined that the State has the authority, personnel, and funding to
implement the PSD program for existing EPA-issued permits and we are
therefore transferring authority for such permits to the State
concurrent with the effective date of EPA's approval of the State's PSD
program into the SIP.\1\ The two companies with EPA-issued permits that
will be transferred to the State are Cheyenne Prairie and Sinclair. EPA
has already provided a copy of each such permit to the State and
notified the permit holders of the transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The details of our determination are provided in a
memorandum in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA will retain PSD permit implementation authority for those
specific sources within the State that have submitted PSD permit
applications to EPA and for which EPA has issued a proposed PSD permit
decision, but for which final agency action and/or the exhaustion of
all administrative and judicial appeals processes (including any
associated remand actions) have not yet been concluded or completed
upon the effective date of EPA's final SIP approval action. The State
intends to assume full PSD responsibility for the administration and
implementation of such PSD permits upon notification from EPA that all
administrative and judicial appeals processes and any associated remand
actions have been completed or concluded for any such permit
application. We will act on their delegation request at that point.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); and is
therefore, not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
because this SIP approval and FIP rescission under section 110 and part
C of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply transfers the permitting
authority from EPA to the State. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Because this final action does not impose an information collection
burden, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    This rule will transfer the permitting responsibility of GHG
emissions from EPA to the State of Wyoming. This final rule will lead
to permitting requirements for certain sources of GHG emissions;
however, these sources are large emitters of GHGs and tend to be large
sources. Further, this rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and part C of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that are already being
imposed under federal and state regulations. After considering the
economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any
requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action
transfers the permitting responsibility of GHG emissions from EPA to
the State of Wyoming. Small governments are not impacted.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on Wyoming, on the relationship between the
national government and the State of Wyoming, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA specifies conditions under
which states may request, and EPA may approve state implementation of
CAA requirements. This rulemaking approves PSD permitting provisions in
the State of Wyoming for GHG emissions, and as a consequence of the SIP
approval, simultaneously rescinds federal PSD permitting responsibility
for GHG emissions in Wyoming. This rulemaking is pursuant to the SIP
approval and requirements of the CAA. As such, this final rule does not
change the balance of power between Wyoming and EPA as provided for in
the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed action
from state and local officials. EPA received no comments

from state or local governments on this rulemaking other than from the
WDEQ.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In this action,
EPA is not addressing any Tribal Implementation Plans. This action is
limited to Wyoming's SIP, which does not apply in Indian country. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because EPA is approving revisions to the Wyoming SIP for
permitting of GHG emissions, as authorized by the CAA.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This final rule approves the Wyoming SIP as meeting
Federal requirements for GHG PSD permitting and transfers authority to
the State for permitting GHG emissions subject to PSD requirements; it
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by Wyoming
law.K. Congressional Review Act
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 21, 2014. 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Incorporation
by reference.

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

    Dated: November 14, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator, U.S. EPA.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec.  52.37  [Amended]

0
2. Section 52.37 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b)(6).

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

0
3. Section 52.2620, the table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Under Chapter 1, revise the entry for Section 3;
0
b. Under Chapter 1, add the entry for Section 7; and
0
c. Under Chapter 6, revise the entry for Section 4.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    State adopted and      EPA Approval date
        State citation           Title/Subject       effective date          and citation         Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Chapter 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 * * * * * * *
Section 3....................  Definitions.....  10/5/12, 2/14/13......  11/22/13, [insert
                                                                          Federal Register
                                                                          page number where
                                                                          document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 7....................  Greenhouse gases  10/5/12, 2/14/13......  11/22/13, [insert
                                                                          Federal Register
                                                                          page number where
                                                                          document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Chapter 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 4....................  Prevention of     10/5/12, 2/14/13......  11/22/13, [insert
                                significant                               Federal Register
                                deterioration.                            page number where
                                                                          document begins].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-27997 Filed 11-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28789-28795]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13356]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0501; FRL-9979-79--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina: New Source Review for Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve changes to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP),
submitted by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC
DEQ) through the Division of Air Quality (DAQ), to EPA on October 17,
2017. This SIP submittal modifies North Carolina's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations and includes the adoption
of specific federal provisions needed to meet the New Source Review
(NSR) permitting program requirements for the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). In
addition, North Carolina's October 17, 2017, SIP submittal addresses
portions of the PSD requirements for the infrastructure SIPs for the
following NAAQS: 1997 Annual and 24-hour PM2.5, 2006 24-hour
PM2.5, 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2), 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 2012
Annual PM2.5. As a result of this proposed approval of North
Carolina's modified PSD regulations, EPA is also proposing to approve
North Carolina's submittal with respect to the related PSD
infrastructure SIP requirements for these NAAQS. As discussed in this
notice, EPA previously disapproved portions of earlier submittals from
North Carolina that were intended to meet

these requirements. These proposed approvals, if finalized, will remove
EPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plans (FIP) to
meet the relevant Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0501 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey of the Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562-9104 or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?
II. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS
III. What is the background for these proposed actions?
    A. Requirements of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule for PSD
SIP Programs
    B. Requirements for Infrastructure SIPs
    C. EPA's Previous Action on North Carolina's SIP Submittal
Related to the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule
    D. EPA's Previous Action on North Carolina's SIP Submittals
Related to Infrastructure SIP PSD Elements
IV. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's October 17, 2017, SIP
submittal for PSD?
V. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's October 17, 2017, SIP
submittal for the infrastructure SIP PSD elements?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Proposed Actions
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?

    EPA is proposing two actions with regard to North Carolina's SIP
submittal updating the State's PSD regulations found at 15A North
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D .0530.\1\ First, EPA is
proposing to approve North Carolina's October 17, 2017, SIP submittal
with regard to changes to the State's regulation at 15A NCAC 02D .0530
because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State's changes fully
meet the requirements of EPA's rulemaking, ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC),'' Final Rule, 75 FR 64864
(October 20, 2010) (hereafter referred to as the ``2010 PSD
PM2.5 Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North Carolina's preconstruction permitting program for new
and modified stationary sources is codified at 15A NCAC Subchapter
02D. Specifically, North Carolina's PSD preconstruction regulations
are found at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 and apply to major stationary
sources or modifications constructed in areas designated attainment
or unclassifiable for the NAAQS, as required under part C of title I
of the CAA. North Carolina's nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
regulations are found at 15A NCAC 02D .0531 and apply to the
construction and modification of any major stationary source of air
pollution located in or impacting a NAAQS nonattainment area, as
required by part D of title I of the CAA. This proposed action does
not relate to North Carolina's NNSR regulations, which are already
fully approved into North Carolina's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as a result of the proposed approval of North Carolina's
October 17, 2017, SIP submittal for these PSD requirements, EPA is
proposing to approve this submittal for portions of the infrastructure
SIP PSD elements for the following NAAQS: 1997 Annual and 24-hour
PM2.5, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour
ozone, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 Annual
PM2.5.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ North Carolina's October 17, 2017, SIP submittal requested
approval of the PSD infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 lead, 2008 8-
hour ozone, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. On April 16, 2018, the State submitted a
letter to EPA clarifying that the same submittal is intended to
satisfy the PSD elements of the State's infrastructure SIP
submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as well.
    \3\ The background for various NAAQS is provided in EPA's
proposed and final rulemaking entitled ``Air Plan Approval and
Disapproval; North Carolina: New Source Review for Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5).'' See 81 FR 28797 (May 10, 2016) and 81
FR 63107 (September 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS

    As described in EPA's May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28801), proposal action
to partially approve and partially disapprove revisions to North
Carolina's SIP with regard to the State's NSR permitting regulations
for PM2.5, ``particulate matter,'' also known as particle
pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and
liquid droplets that can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious
health effects. EPA currently regulates PM according to two size
categories: PM10, which comprises all particles smaller than
or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter and includes ``inhalable coarse
particles,'' and PM2.5, also known as ``fine particles,''
which comprises all particles smaller than or equal to 2.5 micrometers
in diameter.
    The CAA requires EPA to set air quality standards to protect both
public health and the public welfare (e.g., visibility, crops and
vegetation). Particle pollution, especially fine particles, affects
both. The human health effects associated with long- or short-term
exposure to PM2.5 are significant and include premature
mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as
indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits)
and development of chronic respiratory disease. In addition, welfare
effects associated with elevated PM2.5 levels include
visibility impairment as well as effects on sensitive ecosystems,
materials damage and soiling and climatic and radiative processes.
    Since July 1, 1987, EPA had used PM10 as an indicator
for the PM NAAQS. See 52 FR 24634. On July 18, 1997, EPA amended the PM
NAAQS by adding new standards that focus on fine particles, using
PM2.5 as the indicator. See 62 FR 38652. EPA established
health-based (primary) annual and 24-hour standards for
PM2.5, setting the annual standard at a level of 15
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) and the 24-hour standard at a
level of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (the ``1997 Annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS''). EPA established welfare-based (secondary) standards identical
to the primary standards. Id. On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the
primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5. See 71 FR 61236. In
that rulemaking, EPA reduced the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to
35 [mu]g/m\3\ (the ``2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS'') and
retained the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\.
Id. On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the primary NAAQS but not the
secondary NAAQS for PM2.5. See 78 FR 3086. In that
rulemaking, EPA reduced the annual NAAQS for PM2.5 to 12
[mu]g/m\3\ (the ``2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS'' \4\) and retained the existing 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Signed by the EPA Administrator on December 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the background for these proposed actions?

A. Requirements of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule for PSD SIP Programs

    As established in part C of title I of the CAA, EPA's PSD program
protects public health and welfare from adverse effects of air
pollution by ensuring that construction of new major sources or
modifications in attainment or unclassifiable areas does not lead to
significant deterioration of air quality while simultaneously ensuring
that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with
preservation of clean air resources. Under section 165(a)(3) of the
CAA, a PSD permit applicant must demonstrate that emissions from the
proposed construction and operation of a facility ``will not cause, or
contribute to, air pollution in excess of any maximum allowable
increase or allowable concentration for any pollutant.'' In other
words, when a source applies for a permit to emit a regulated air
pollutant in an area that is designated as attainment or unclassifiable
for a NAAQS, the state and EPA must determine if the source's emissions
of that pollutant will cause significant deterioration in air quality.
Significant deterioration occurs when the amount of the new pollution
exceeds the applicable PSD increment, which is the ``maximum allowable
increase'' of an air pollutant allowed to occur above the applicable
baseline concentration \5\ for that pollutant. Therefore, an increment
is the mechanism used to estimate ``significant deterioration'' of air
quality for a pollutant in an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the baseline
concentration of a pollutant for a particular baseline area is
generally the ambient concentration levels which exist at the time
of the first application for a PSD permit in the area after the
applicable baseline date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finalized the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule to provide
additional regulatory requirements under the PSD SIP program regarding
the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR 64864. The
2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule required states to submit SIP revisions
to EPA by July 20, 2012, adopting provisions equivalent to or at least
as stringent as the PSD increments and associated implementing
regulations. Specifically, the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule requires
states to adopt and submit for EPA approval into their SIP the
numerical PM2.5 increments promulgated pursuant to section
166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
in areas meeting the NAAQS. States are also required to adopt and
submit for EPA approval revisions to the definitions for ``major source
baseline date,'' ``minor source baseline date,'' and ``baseline area''
as part of the implementing regulations for the PM2.5
increment.
    For purposes of calculating increment consumption, a baseline area
for a particular pollutant includes the attainment or unclassifiable
area in which the source is located and any other attainment or
unclassifiable area in which the source's emissions of that pollutant
are projected (by air quality modeling) to result in a significant
ambient pollutant increase. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i). Once the
baseline area is established, subsequent PSD sources locating in that
area need to consider that a portion of the available increment may
have already been consumed by previous emission increases.
    In general, the submittal date of the first complete PSD permit
application in a particular area is the operative ``baseline date,''
after which new sources must evaluate increment consumption.\6\ On or
before the date of the first complete PSD application, existing ambient
concentration levels of a pollutant generally are considered to
represent the baseline concentration from which increment consumption
is calculated, except for certain changes in ambient concentration
levels caused by emission changes from construction at major stationary
sources. Increases in ambient concentration levels caused by emission
increases that occur after the baseline date will be counted toward the
amount of increment consumed. Similarly, decreases in ambient
concentration levels caused by emission decreases that occur after the
applicable baseline date either restore or expand the amount of
increment available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Baseline dates are pollutant-specific. That is, a complete
PSD application establishes the baseline dates only for those
regulated NSR pollutants that are projected to be emitted in
significant amounts (as defined in the regulations) by the
applicant's new source or modification. Thus, an area may have
different baseline dates for different pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In practice, three dates related to the PSD baseline concept are
important in understanding how to calculate the amount of increment
consumed--(1) trigger date; (2) major source baseline date; and (3)
minor source baseline date. The trigger date, as the name implies, is a
fixed date that initiates the overall increment consumption process
nationwide. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii). The ``major source baseline
date'' and the ``minor source baseline date'' are necessary to properly
account for the increment-affecting emissions occurring after the
trigger date, in accordance with the statutory definition of ``baseline
concentration'' in section 169(4) of the Act. The ``major source
baseline date,'' which precedes the trigger date, is the date after
which actual changes in emissions associated with construction at any
major stationary source affect the PSD increment. Ambient concentration
levels associated with such changes in emissions are not included in
the baseline concentration, even if the changes in emissions occur
before the minor source baseline date. In accordance with the statutory
definition of ``baseline concentration'' at section 169(4), the PSD
regulations define a fixed date, related to the increments that EPA
established for a particular pollutant, to represent the major source
baseline date for that pollutant. The ``minor source baseline date,''
which is also pollutant-specific, is the earliest date after the
trigger date on which a source or modification submits the first
complete application for a PSD permit in a particular area. This is the
date on which the baseline concentration associated with a particular
increment generally is established. After the minor source baseline
date, any ambient concentration level changes caused by a change in
actual emissions (from both major and minor sources) affects the PSD
increment for that area.
    Once the minor source baseline date is established, the ambient
pollutant concentration level increase caused by a proposed emission
increase from the major source submitting the first PSD application
consumes a portion of the increment in that area, as do any subsequent
ambient concentration level increases caused by actual emission
increases that occur from any new or existing source in the area. When
the maximum pollutant concentration increase defined by the increment
has been reached, additional PSD permits cannot be issued until
sufficient amounts of the affected increment are ``freed up'' via
emission reductions of the pollutant that may occur voluntarily (e.g.,
via source shutdowns) or by mandatory control requirements imposed by
the reviewing authority. Moreover, the overall air quality for a
pollutant in a region cannot be allowed to deteriorate to a level in
excess of the applicable NAAQS, even if all the increment in the area
has not been consumed. Therefore, new or modified sources located in
areas where the ambient pollutant concentration levels are near the
level allowed by the NAAQS may not have full use of the

amount of ambient concentration increase allowed by the increment.
    In the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, pursuant to the authority
under section 166(a) of the CAA, EPA promulgated numerical increments
for PM2.5 as a new pollutant \7\ for which NAAQS were
established after August 7, 1977,\8\ and derived 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 increments for the three area classifications (Class
I, II and III). See 75 FR 64869 and the ambient air increment table at
40 CFR 51.166(c)(1). EPA also established the PM2.5
``trigger date'' as October 20, 2011 (40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c)), and
the PM2.5 ``major source baseline date'' as October 20, 2010
(40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)). See 75 FR 64903. Finally, EPA amended the
term ``baseline area'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) to include a level of
significance of 0.3 [mu]g/m\3\, annual average, for establishing a new
baseline area for purposes of PM2.5 increments. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS as a
NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did not replace the
PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for PM2.5 when the
PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997. EPA rather retained
the Annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM10 (retaining
PM10 as an indicator of coarse particulate matter) and
treated PM2.5 as a new pollutant for purposes of
developing increments. See 75 FR at 64864.
    \8\ EPA interprets section 166(a) to authorize EPA to promulgate
pollutant-specific PSD regulations meeting the requirements of
section 166(c) and 166(d) for any pollutant for which EPA
promulgates a NAAQS after 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA finalized the ``Implementation
of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than
2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (hereafter referred to as the
``2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule'') to implement the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for the NSR permitting program. The 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Implementation Rule revised the federal NSR program
requirements to establish the framework for implementing
preconstruction permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both
attainment and nonattainment areas. Among other things, the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule directed states to incorporate into their SIPs
the requirement for applicability determinations and emission limits in
PSD and NNSR permits to account for gases that condense to form
particles (condensable PM).

B. Requirements for Infrastructure SIPs

    By statute, states are required to have SIPs that provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. States are
further required to provide a SIP submittal meeting the applicable
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after EPA
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS.\9\ EPA has historically referred to
this type of submission as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) require states to submit infrastructure SIPs that
address basic program elements, such as air quality planning,
permitting, and enforcement requirements and legal authority, that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established
or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIP submittals.
Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet to
satisfy the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP
submittal may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools
available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in
the state's existing EPA approved SIP at the time when the state
develops and submits the infrastructure SIP submittal for a new or
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See EPA's proposed approval of North Carolina's December 4,
2015, infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS for a discussion on EPA's general approach to reviewing
infrastructure SIPs. 81 FR 47314, 47316-18, July 21, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action pertains to certain PSD-related infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(J), which are relevant in the context of a state's
development of, and EPA's evaluation of, infrastructure SIP submittals.
With the exception of these PSD-related requirements of section
110(a)(2) of the CAA, EPA has already approved or will consider in
separate actions all other elements of North Carolina's infrastructure
SIP submittals related to the 1997 Annual and 24-hour PM2.5,
2006 24-hour PM2.5, 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010
SO2, 2010 NO2, and 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS.

C. EPA's Previous Action on North Carolina's SIP Submittal Related to
the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule

    On September 5, 2013, DAQ submitted a SIP revision in response to
EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. On September 14, 2016 (81 FR
63107), EPA disapproved the portions of that submittal that pertain to
the adoption and implementation of the PM2.5 increments
because the revision did not fully meet the requirements of the 2010
PSD PM2.5 Rule. This action addresses only those portions of
North Carolina's NSR SIP submittals and various infrastructure SIP
submittals that EPA disapproved in the September 14, 2016, final
action.\10\ Specifically, although paragraphs (e), (q) and (v) of North
Carolina's revised PSD regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 incorporated
the federally-required numerical PM2.5 increments, North
Carolina's regulations failed to include other federally-required
provisions needed to implement the PM2.5 increments,
including (1) the definition of ``[m]ajor source baseline date'' for
PM2.5 codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) (defined as
October 20, 2010); (2) the definition of ``[m]inor source baseline
date'' for PM2.5 codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c)
(which establishes the PM2.5 trigger date as October 20,
2011); and (3) the definition of ``[b]aseline area'' codified at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(15)(i). Without these definitions, North Carolina's PSD
regulations did not require PSD sources to conduct the appropriate
analyses demonstrating that emissions from proposed construction of new
major stationary sources or major modifications will not cause or
contribute to air quality deterioration beyond the amount allowed by
the PM2.5 increments. Therefore, EPA disapproved all of the
PM2.5 increment provisions set forth in North Carolina's
September 5, 2013, SIP submittal, including all of the
PM2.5-related changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0530 at paragraphs
(e), (q), and (v). Id. Under section 110(c)(1)(B), these disapprovals
started a two-year clock for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the PSD
PM2.5 program deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA's September 14, 2016, action approved the following
portions of the SIP submittals from North Carolina:
    (1) A May 16, 2011, submittal (as revised and updated by the
State's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal) as meeting the
requirements of EPA's rule, ``Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5),'' Final Rule, 73 FR 28321 (May 16,
2008);
    (2) Administrative changes to North Carolina's PSD and NNSR
regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 provided by
the State in a SIP submittal also dated May 16, 2011, including
clarification of the applicability of best available control
technology (BACT) and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) for
electrical generating units (EGUs) in the State, and the inclusion
of an additional Federal Land Manager (FLM) notification provision;
and
    (3) Portions of the PSD elements of North Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submittals for various NAAQS as indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA's Previous Action on North Carolina's SIP Submittals Related to
Infrastructure SIP PSD Elements

    In addition to disapproving the portions of North Carolina's
September 5, 2013, SIP submittal pertaining to PM2.5
increments, EPA's September 14, 2016, action partially approved and

partially disapproved the following North Carolina infrastructure
submittals for PSD elements: 1997 Annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (dated April 1, 2008); 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (dated
September 21, 2009); 2008 lead NAAQS (received on July 20, 2012); 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS (received on November 2, 2017); 2010 SO2
NAAQS (received March 18, 2014); 2010 NO2 NAAQS (received on
August 23, 2013); and 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS (received on
December 4, 2015). The partial disapproval was limited to the
PM2.5 increment requirements of the 2010 PM2.5
Rule for these infrastructure SIP submittals. Under section
110(c)(1)(B), these disapprovals started a two-year clock for EPA to
promulgate a FIP to address these infrastructure SIP deficiencies.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's October 17, 2017, SIP
submittal for PSD?

    On October 17, 2017, North Carolina provided a SIP revision to
correct the deficiencies EPA had identified in the State's September 5,
2013, SIP submittal related to the adoption of the PM2.5
increments. The relevant federal PM2.5 permitting
requirements for SIPs, set forth in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, were
promulgated by EPA in the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. States were
required to make their SIP submittals to address the requirements of
the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule no later than July 20, 2012. North
Carolina's October 17, 2017, SIP submittal adopts changes in the
State's PSD permitting program at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 by incorporating
by reference EPA's PSD regulations as of July 1, 2014. This
incorporation by reference includes the federally-required provisions
of EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule needed to implement the PSD
PM2.5 program in North Carolina. Adopting the federal rule
as of July 1, 2014, has the effect of adding to the North Carolina SIP
the required definitions of ``major source baseline date,'' ``minor
source baseline date,'' and ``baseline area'' that were lacking in the
State's previous PM2.5 submittals.
    This incorporation by reference as of July 1, 2014, also captures
EPA's October 25, 2012 (77 FR 65107), amendment to the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' concerning condensable particulate matter.
In that action, EPA amended the definition of ``regulated NSR
pollutant'' to remove an inadvertent general requirement of the 2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule to include the condensable portion of PM when
measuring emissions-related indicators of ``PM emissions'' in the
context of the NSR regulations. Under the revised definition,
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions must include the
condensable portion of particulate matter, but not PM emissions.\11\
Because North Carolina's current federally-approved NSR rule (a portion
of which was approved by EPA's September 14, 2016, action) adopts the
PSD definitions in the CFR as of May 16, 2008, it currently requires
sources to account for the condensable fraction in the measurement and
regulation of ``PM emissions'' (as well as ``PM2.5
emissions'' and ``PM10 emissions''). By adopting the PSD
definitions in the CFR as of July 1, 2014, the revised rule would
continue to require sources to account for the condensable fraction in
the measurement of ``PM2.5 emissions'' and ``PM10
emissions'' but not ``PM emissions.'' As discussed in EPA's May 10,
2016 (81 FR 28801), proposed action, requiring the inclusion of
condensable PM in measurements of ``PM emissions'' has little if any
effect on preventing significant air quality deterioration or on
efforts to attain the primary and secondary PM NAAQS. Therefore, North
Carolina's incorporation by reference of EPA's PSD regulations as of
July 1, 2014, is not only consistent with the current federal rule, but
it also will not interfere with North Carolina's efforts to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality and to attain and maintain
compliance with the PM NAAQS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The October 25, 2012, final rule retained the general
requirement to include the condensable fraction of PM10
and PM2.5 emissions in each case for purposes of NSR
permitting under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i), 40
CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i), 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii), and 40 CFR part 51
Appendix S.
    \12\ EPA also notes that the version of EPA's PSD regulations
incorporated by reference excludes the PSD PM2.5 SILs
provisions and SMC provisions, which EPA had promulgated in the 2010
PSD PM2.5 Rule and later removed on December 9, 2013. The
2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule gave states discretion to adopt
PM2.5 SILs and a SMC. See 75FR at 64900. On January 22,
2013, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded to EPA the portions of
50 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 addressing the PM2.5 SILs and
also vacated the parts of the rule that established the
PM2.5 SMC. On December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73698), EPA took
final action amending its regulations to remove the PM2.5
SILs and SMC provisions from the PSD regulations. However, since
North Carolina's October 17, 2017, submittal does not include SILs
or SMC, these regulatory provisions are not relevant to this
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's October 17, 2017, SIP
submittal for the infrastructure SIP PSD elements?

    North Carolina's October 17, 2017, SIP submittal addresses certain
NSR/PSD requirements, as described above, and thereby meets the related
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J). For the remainder of this
proposed rulemaking, EPA's intent in referring to ``PSD elements'' is
to address the PSD requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J). More detail regarding the
aforementioned 110(a)(2) requirements related to PSD is provided in the
discussion that follows.
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) has three components that must be addressed in
infrastructure SIP submittals: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of
new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major
sources, and PSD permitting of new major sources and major
modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable as
required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program).
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(C), this proposed action only addresses
North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals with respect to the
major source PSD program.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components has two subparts
resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as
``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submittals.
The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emission
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1'') and from interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and
fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required in another state to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality (``prong 3'') or to protect
visibility (``prong 4''). With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), this
proposed action only addresses North Carolina's infrastructure SIP
submittals for prong 3.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) has four components that must be addressed in
infrastructure SIP submittals: (1) Consultation with government
officials; (2) public notification; (3) PSD; and (4) visibility
protection. With regard to section 110(a)(2)(J), this proposed action
only addresses North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for PSD.
    Regarding the PSD elements of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA
interprets the CAA to require each state to make, for each new or
revised NAAQS, an infrastructure SIP submittal that demonstrates that
the state has a

complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for
all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) may also be satisfied by demonstrating
that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly
addressing all regulated NSR pollutants.
    As described in EPA's guidance dated September 13, 2013,\13\ an
infrastructure SIP submittal should demonstrate that one or more air
agencies has the authority to implement a comprehensive PSD permit
program under CAA title I part C for all PSD-subject sources located in
areas that are designated attainment or unclassifiable for one or more
NAAQS. EPA interprets the PSD elements to require that a state's
infrastructure SIP submittal for a particular NAAQS demonstrate that
the state has a complete PSD permitting program in place covering all
regulated NSR pollutants. A state's PSD permitting program is complete
for the PSD elements if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously
approving the state's implementation plan with respect to all
structural PSD requirements \14\ that are due under the EPA regulations
or the CAA on or before the date of EPA's proposed action on the
infrastructure SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance, titled ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a),'' provides advice on the
development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the
2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS, and the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as infrastructure SIPs for new
or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.
    \14\ Structural PSD program provisions include provisions
necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and
regulated pollutants but do not include provisions under 40 CFR
51.166 that are considered optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 14, 2016, EPA partially approved and partially
disapproved the PSD elements of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP
submittals for the following NAAQS: 1997 Annual and 24-hour
PM2.5; 2006 24-hour PM2.5; 2008 lead; 2008 8-hour
ozone; 2010 NO2; 2010 SO2; and 2012 Annual
PM2.5. See 81 FR 63107. The partial disapproval was limited
to the PM2.5 increment requirements of the 2010
PM2.5 Rule for these infrastructure SIP submittals. North
Carolina submitted its October 17, 2017, SIP revision to EPA to correct
the deficiencies in the State's PSD permitting program, and, as
previously discussed, EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision. If
EPA's proposed action is finalized, North Carolina's SIP will include a
complete PSD program that addresses all structural PSD requirements due
under the CAA and EPA regulations. Because EPA proposes to approve
North Carolina's SIP revisions for the PSD program, it is also
proposing approval of the October 17, 2017, submittal for the PSD
infrastructure SIP requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 lead NAAQS, 2008
ozone NAAQS, 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and
1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA has already approved or will consider in separate
actions all other elements from North Carolina infrastructure SIP
submissions related to the 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and 1997, 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference North Carolina's regulations 15A NCAC 02D .0530, entitled
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' effective September 1,
2017. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the
EPA Region 4 office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).

VII. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve changes to the North Carolina SIP,
provided by the NC DEQ, to EPA on October 17, 2017. These changes
modify North Carolina's NSR permitting regulations codified at 15A 02D
.0530--Prevention of Significant Deterioration and include the adoption
of some federal requirements respecting implementation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS through the NSR permitting program.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's October 17,
2017, SIP submittal as it relates to the requirements to comply with
EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. EPA also notes that North
Carolina's incorporation by reference of EPA's PSD regulations as of
July 1, 2014, includes EPA's amendment to the definition of ``regulated
NSR pollutant'' concerning condensable PM promulgated on October 25,
2012.
    If EPA finalizes all of the actions proposed in this notice, the
version of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) that became effective in the State
on September 1, 2017, will be incorporated into North Carolina's SIP.
As a result of the proposed approval of North Carolina's October 17,
2017, SIP submittal, EPA is also proposing to approve portions of the
PSD elements of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals (i.e.,
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J)) for
the 1997 Annual and 24-hour PM2.5, 2006 24-hour
PM2.5, 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 SO2,
2010 NO2 and the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA
finalizes this proposed approval action, that final action will remove
EPA's obligation under section 110(c) to promulgate a FIP to address
the PM2.5 increments requirements of EPA's 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Rule PSD and the related PSD elements for the above
listed infrastructure SIPs.

VIII. 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. See 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
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are 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);
     Are not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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).
    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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.

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

    Dated: June 12, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-13356 Filed 6-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2088]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, and 125

[Docket No.: FAA-2013-0579; Amendment Nos. 91-329, 121-364 and 125-62]
RIN 2120-AK27

Flight Data Recorder Airplane Parameter Specification Omissions
and Corrections

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; disposition of comments.

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

SUMMARY: On December 31, 2012, the FAA published a final rule with a
request for comments amending the operating regulations for flight data
recorders by correcting errors in recording rates in three different
appendices. These errors created requirements that could not be met by
certain airplanes without extensive modification, which was not
intended when the requirements were adopted. The corrected recording
rates are as intended when the applicable flight data recorder
parameter requirements were adopted, but which had been omitted from
the then current publication of the regulatory text.

DATES: January 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may review the public docket for this rulemaking (Docket
No. FAA-2012-1333) at the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the public docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action contact Chris Parfitt, Flight Standards Service, Aircraft
Maintenance Division-Avionics Maintenance Branch, AFS-360, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action contact Karen Petronis,
International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division (AGC-200),
Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final rule amended three appendices in 14 CFR related to flight
data recorder (FDR) requirements:
     First, Appendix E to part 91 was amended to correct a
typographical error introduced when the rule was published. For the
altitude parameter, the sampling rate per second was listed as 11. The
correct rate had always been 1 sample per second.
     The second and third corrections concerned identical
standards in Appendix M to part 121 and Appendix E to part 125. When
footnote 5 was added in 1999 to each Appendix, the sampling interval
was left off for certain airplanes. The correction put the sampling
interval of once per second back in the footnote for the affected
airplanes.
    None of these changes required action by airplane owners, operators
or manufacturers as the affected airplanes already complied with the
requirements of the originally adopted rules and the corrections
adopted. Since these requirements were intended in the original rules,
there was no new impact on safety.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the final rule.

Conclusion

    Since no comments were submitted in response to the final rule, the
FAA has determined that no revisions to the rule are warranted.

    Issued under authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a)(5) in
Washington, DC.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2014-00383 Filed 1-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P