58400 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1Located in 40 CFR part 51, subpart P. 

§ 52.2620 Identification of plan 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Rule no. Rule title State effective 

date 

EPA effective 

date Final rule citation/date Comments 

*******

Chapter 08. Non-attainment Area Regulations 

*******

Section 05 ........... Ozone nonattainment emission inventory rule.11/22/2013 10/24/2016. [Insert Federal Register citation]. 8/ 

25/2016.

Section 10 ........... Incorporation by reference ............... 11/22/2013 10/24/2016. [Insert Federal Register citation]. 8/ 

25/2016.

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–20315 Filed 8–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0449; FRL–9951–25– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; 

Regional Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of North Carolina 

through the North Carolina Division of 

Air Quality (NC DAQ) on May 31, 2013. 

North Carolina’s May 31, 2013, SIP 

revision (Progress Report) addresses 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

each state to submit periodic reports 

describing progress towards reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) established for 

regional haze and a determination of the 

adequacy of the state’s existing SIP 

addressing regional haze (regional haze 

plan). EPA is approving North 

Carolina’s Progress Report on the basis 

that it addresses the progress report and 

adequacy determination requirements 

for the first implementation period for 

regional haze. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

September 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2015–0449. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

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. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, 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. 

Lakeman can be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9043 and via electronic mail 

at lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Under the Regional Haze Rule,1 each 

state was required to submit its first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment to 

EPA no later than December 17, 2007. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(b). North Carolina 

submitted its regional haze plan on that 

date, and like many other states subject 

to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

relied on CAIR to satisfy best available 

retrofit technology (BART) requirements 

for emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from electric 

generating units (EGUs) in the State. On 

June 7, 2012, EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of North Carolina’s 

December 17, 2007, regional haze plan 

submission because of deficiencies 

arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR 

to satisfy certain regional haze 

requirements. See 77 FR 33642. In a 

separate action taken on June 27, 2012, 

EPA finalized a limited approval of 

North Carolina’s December 17, 2007, 

regional haze plan submission, as 

meeting some of the applicable regional 

haze requirements as set forth in 

sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 

in 40 CFR 51.300–308. See 77 FR 38185. 

On October 31, 2014, the State 

submitted a regional haze plan revision 

to correct the deficiencies identified in 

the June 27, 2012, limited disapproval 

by replacing reliance on CAIR with 

reliance on the State’s Clean 

Smokestacks Act (CSA) as an alternative 

to NOX and SO2 BART for BARTeligible EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. 

EPA approved that SIP revision on May 

24, 2016, resulting in a full approval of 

North Carolina’s regional haze plan. See 

81 FR 32652. 

Each state is also required to submit 

a progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area within 

the state and for each mandatory Class 

I Federal area outside the state which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

Each state is also required to submit, at 

the same time as the progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of its 

existing regional haze plan. See 40 CFR 

51.308(h). The first progress report was 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 58401 

due five years after submittal of the 

initial regional haze plan. 

On May 31, 2013, as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(g), NC DAQ submitted to 

EPA, in the form of a revision to North 

Carolina’s SIP, a report on progress 

made towards the RPGs for Class I areas 

in the State and for Class I areas outside 

the State that are affected by emissions 

from sources within the State. This 

submission also includes a negative 

declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1) that the State’s regional 

haze plan is sufficient in meeting the 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

and revised RPGs for the five Class I 

areas within the State based on updated 

modeling. In a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) published on June 

15, 2016 (81 FR 38986), EPA proposed 

to approve North Carolina’s Progress 

Report on the basis that it satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h) now that EPA has fully 

approved the State’s regional haze plan. 

No comments were received on the June 

15, 2016, proposed rulemaking. The 

details of North Carolina’s submittal and 

the rationale for EPA’s actions are 

further explained in the NPRM. See 81 

FR 38986 (June 15, 2016). 

II. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing approval of North 

Carolina’s Regional Haze Progress 

Report SIP revision, submitted by the 

State on May 31, 2013, as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). EPA also is finalizing 

approval of the updated RPGs for North 

Carolina’s Class I areas. 

III. 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. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 24, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 15, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 2. Section 52.1770(e), is amended by 

adding an entry for ‘‘May 2013 Regional 

Haze Progress Report’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
58402 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA Approval 

date Federal Register citation Explanation 

*******

May 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report ............... 5/31/2013 8/25/2016 [Insert citation of publication].Includes updated reasonable progress goals for 

North Carolina’s Class I 

areas. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20309 Filed 8–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0169; FRL–9951–29– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; RACM 

Determination for Indiana Portion of 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) and reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) analysis that 

Indiana submitted as part of its 

attainment plan for the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) standard, in 

accordance with Indiana’s request dated 

February 11, 2016. The RACM/RACT 

analysis addresses RACM and RACT for 

the Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton nonattainment area for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. EPA is not acting 

on the portions of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 

that are unrelated to RACM/RACT. 

Other portions of the attainment plan 

have either been addressed or will be 

addressed in future rulemaking actions. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 24, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 26, 2016. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0169 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Ko, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment, Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7947, 

ko.joseph@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. What are EPA’s actions? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

RACM submittal? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

the first national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5. EPA 

promulgated an annual standard of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

(based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations) and a 24- 

hour standard of 65 mg/m3 (based on a 

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations). See 62 FR 

38652. On December 17, 2004, based on 

2001–2003 monitoring data, EPA 

designated the Cincinnati-Hamilton OHKY-IN area (the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area) as nonattainment for the annual 

standard for fine particles, and these 

designations became effective on April 

5, 2005. See 70 FR 944. On July 3, 2008, 

Indiana requested that EPA redesignate 

as attainment its portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area, showing that 

existing permanent and enforceable 

controls would provide for timely 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard 

by the attainment deadline of April 5, 

2010. On September 29, 2011, based on 

2007–2009 monitoring data, EPA made 

a ‘‘clean data determination’’ and 

determination of attainment, indicating 

that the entire area was attaining the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date. See 76 FR 60373. The 

clean data determination suspended all 

further planning SIP revision 

requirements. 

As part of its action approving the 

redesignation of the Indiana and Ohio 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

to attainment, published on December 

23, 2011, EPA found that the states of 

Ohio and Indiana had satisfied the 

remaining applicable requirements, 

including the requirement to submit an 

emission inventory in accordance with 

section 172(c)(3). See 76 FR 80253. The 

redesignation to attainment was based, 

in part, on EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation that Subpart 1 

nonattainment planning requirements, 

including RACM, are not ‘‘applicable’’ 

for purposes of Clean Air Act section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) when an area is 

attaining the NAAQS and, therefore, 

need not be approved into the SIP 

before EPA can redesignate the area. See 

76 FR 80258. 

On July 14, 2015, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

(Sixth Circuit) issued an opinion in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th 

Cir. 2015), vacating EPA’s redesignation 

of the Indiana and Ohio portions of the 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES