53098 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Appendix N to Part 50—Interpretation 

of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for PM2.5

* * * * * 

4.4 Equations for the Annual PM2.5

NAAQS 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Where: 

X ̄ y = the annual mean concentration for year 

y (y = 1, 2, or 3); 

nQ,y = the number of complete quarters Q in 

year y; and 

X ̄ q,y = the mean for quarter q of year y (result 

of equation 1). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–19033 Filed 8–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0263; FRL–9950–35– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; 

Disapproval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers— 

Significant Impact Levels and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove severable portions of the 

February 6, 2012, Oklahoma State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

that establish certain de minimis 

thresholds for particulate matter less 

than 2.5 micrometers in diameter 

(PM2.5) in the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting 

requirements. Specifically, we are 

proposing to disapprove provisions that 

adopt and implement the PM2.5

significant impact levels (SILs) and 

significant monitoring concentration 

(SMC); both of which were vacated by 

a federal court and subsequently 

removed from federal PSD regulations. 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

submitted provisions as inconsistent 

with federal laws and regulations for the 

permitting of PM2.5. The EPA is 

proposing this disapproval under 

section 110 and part C of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 12, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0263, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The 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. The 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 Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665– 

2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adina Wiley, (214) 665–2115, 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or 

Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

I. Background 

A. CAA and SIPs 

Section 110 of the CAA requires states 

to develop and submit to the EPA a SIP 

to ensure that state air quality meets 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). These ambient standards 

currently address six criteria pollutants: 

Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, 

ozone, lead, particulate matter, and 

sulfur dioxide. Each federally-approved 

SIP protects air quality primarily by 

addressing air pollution at its point of 

origin through air pollution regulations 

and control strategies. The EPA 

approved SIP regulations and control 

strategies are federally enforceable. 

B. Prior Federal Action 

Under Section 165(a) of the CAA, a 

major source may not commence 

construction unless the source has been 

issued a permit and has satisfied certain 

requirements. Among those 

requirements, the permit applicant must 

demonstrate that emissions from 

construction or operation of the facility 

will not cause, or contribute to, air 

pollution in excess of any increment, 

NAAQS, or any other applicable 

emission standard of performance. This 

statutory requirement has been 

incorporated into federal regulations at 

40 CFR 51.166(k)(1). Moreover, to 

support this analysis, PSD permit 

applications must contain air quality 

monitoring data representing air quality 

in the area affected by the proposed 

source for the 1-year period preceding 

receipt of the application. This statutory 

requirement has been incorporated into 

federal regulations at 40 CFR 

51.166(m)(ii)–(iv). 

In 2010, the EPA promulgated 

regulations for SIPs concerning PSD 

permitting for PM2.5 which included 

two voluntary screening tools: SILs and 

SMCs. 75 FR 64864 (Oct. 20, 2010). The 

SILs are screening tools that states with 

PSD SIPs apply in the issuance of a PSD 

permit to demonstrate that the proposed 

source’s allowable emissions will not 

cause or contribute to a violation of the 

NAAQS or increment. The SMC has 

been used to exempt sources from the 

requirement in the CAA to collect 

preconstruction monitoring data for up 

to 1 year before submitting a permit 

application in order to help determine 

existing ambient air quality. 78 FR 

73699 (Dec. 9, 2013). 

Sierra Club filed a petition for review 

of the PSD regulations containing the 

PM2.5 SILs and SMC with the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (the Court). On 

January 22, 2013, the Court issued an 

opinion granting a request from the EPA 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP11AU16.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 53099 

1The EPA proposed approval of OAC 252:100–8– 

35(a)(1) on June 30, 2016, as consistent with federal 

PSD requirements. See 81 FR 42587. 

2The EPA proposed approval of OAC 252:100–8– 

35.1(b)(3) on June 30, 2016, as consistent with 

federal PSD requirements. See 81 FR 42587. 

to vacate and remand to the EPA 

portions of the October 20, 2010, PSD 

regulations establishing the PM2.5 SIL 

and further vacating the portions of the 

PSD regulations establishing a PM2.5

SMC. See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 706 F.3d 

428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

In response to the Court’s decision, 

the EPA amended its regulations to 

remove the affected PM2.5 SIL 

regulations from the federal regulations 

and to replace the existing PM2.5 SMC 

value with a ‘‘zero’’ threshold. 78 FR 

73698 (Dec. 9, 2013). In that rulemaking, 

the EPA removed the regulatory text 

related to the affected PM2.5 SILs at 

sections 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2). 

Although the Court vacated the PM2.5

SMC provisions in 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), the 

EPA did not remove the affected 

regulatory text, but instead revised the 

concentration for the PM2.5 SMC listed 

in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero micrograms per 

cubic meter (0 mg/m3). Because 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(5)(iii) and 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(5)(iii) establish an exemption 

from air monitoring requirements for 

any pollutant ‘‘not listed in paragraph 

(i)(5)(i),’’ the EPA explained that it 

would not be appropriate to remove the 

reference to PM2.5 in paragraph (i)(5)(i). 

Were the EPA to completely remove 

PM2.5 from the list of pollutants in 

sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) of the PSD regulations, 

PM2.5 would no longer be a listed 

pollutant and the paragraph (iii) 

provision could be interpreted as giving 

reviewing authorities the discretion to 

exempt permit applicants from the 

requirement to conduct monitoring for 

PM2.5, in contravention of the Court’s 

decision and the CAA. Instead, the EPA 

revised the concentration listed in 

sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to ‘‘0’’ micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3). This means that 

there is no air quality impact level 

below which a reviewing authority has 

the discretion to exempt a source from 

the PM2.5 monitoring requirements at 40 

CFR 52.21(m). 

C. Oklahoma’s Submittal 

On February 6, 2012, Oklahoma 

submitted revisions to its PSD SIP at 

OAC 252:100–8–33(c)(1)(C) that adopted 

provisions substantively identical to the 

EPA PSD SIP’s requirement for PM2.5

PSD SMC. 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i). The 

February 6, 2012, submittal also 

included revisions to OAC 252:100–8– 

35(a)(2) that adopted provisions 

substantively identical to the EPA PSD 

SIP’s requirements for PM2.5 PSD SILs. 

40 CFR 51.166(k)(2). The February 6, 

2012, submittal included other revisions 

to the Oklahoma SIP that are severable 

from the voluntary PSD exemptions. 

Our Technical Support Document 

(TSD), available in the rulemaking 

docket, identifies the separate EPA 

actions addressing the remainder of the 

February 6, 2012 submittal. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

Our analysis, available in our TSD, 

finds that the State of Oklahoma 

adopted and submitted on February 6, 

2012, revisions to the Oklahoma SIP 

that were substantively consistent with 

the voluntary exemptions from PSD 

monitoring at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i) and 

the requirements for a source impact 

analysis at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) 

promulgated on October 20, 2010. 

Subsequent to the submittal of these 

provisions, the Court vacated and 

remanded these provisions to the EPA. 

On December 9, 2013, we promulgated 

revisions to the PSD SIP rules that 

removed the vacated PM2.5 SILs 

provision and replaced the existing 

PM2.5 SMC value with a ‘‘zero’’ 

threshold level at 40 CFR 51.166. 

Because the PM2.5 SILs and SMC are no 

longer valid exemptions from the 

requirements of a PSD SIP, we propose 

to disapprove these revisions submitted 

to be included in the Oklahoma PSD SIP 

as they are inconsistent with the federal 

statutory and regulatory permitting 

requirements for PM2.5. 

Disapproval of the submitted PM2.5

SILs at OAC 252:100–8–35(a)(2) ensures 

that the provisions at OAC 252:100–8– 

35(a)(1) 1 in the existing SIP continue to 

apply to PM2.5. Namely, that the owner 

or operator of the proposed source or 

modification shall demonstrate that, as 

of the source’s start-up date, allowable 

emissions increases from that source or 

modification, in conjunction with all 

other applicable emissions increases or 

reductions (including secondary 

emissions) would not cause or 

contribute to any increase in ambient 

concentrations that would exceed any 

NAAQS in any air quality control 

region; or the remaining available PSD 

increment for the specified air 

contaminants in any area, as determined 

by the Director of the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

Disapproval of the submitted PM2.5

SMC at OAC 252:100–8–33(c)(1) means 

that PM2.5 will not be a listed pollutant 

in the state’s requirement for ambient 

monitoring data, and would appear to 

allow PSD permit applicants to avoid 

submitting PM2.5 monitoring data as part 

of their permit application. To address 

this concern, the Oklahoma Department 

of Environmental Quality submitted a 

letter on February 25, 2016, that 

demonstrated the State retains authority 

to require pre- and post-construction 

PSD monitoring for PM2.5 under the 

Oklahoma PSD SIP in the event that the 

EPA disapproves OAC 252:100–8– 

33(c)(1). Specifically, the SIP, under 

OAC 252:100–8–35.1(b)(3),2 grants the 

ODEQ Director the authority to request 

information regarding the air quality 

impact of the source or modification. 

The ODEQ interprets this SIP provision 

to grant the Director the authority to 

request monitoring data for PM2.5 as 

required under 40 CFR 51.166(m). 

Further, as noted in our December 9, 

2013, final rule, any State regulations or 

approved SIP provisions adopting the 

PM2.5 SIL and SMC are unlawful and 

may not be applied even prior to their 

removal from the applicable State 

regulations or SIP. See 78 FR 73698, 

73700. Because reliance on the PM2.5

SIL and SMC has been deemed 

unlawful, and because the State has 

provided a letter demonstrating 

underlying authority in the Oklahoma 

SIP at OAC 252:100–8–35.1(b)(3) to 

require pre- and post-construction 

monitoring for PM2.5, we have 

determined it is appropriate to 

disapprove the submitted PM2.5 SMC 

provisions at OAC 252:100–8–33(c)(1). 

The EPA has an obligation under 

section 110 of the CAA to act on 

submitted SIP revisions unless these 

revisions are withdrawn by the State. 

Therefore, the EPA has a duty to act on 

the submitted Oklahoma provisions 

pertaining to the PM2.5 SILs and SMC, 

because these provisions were 

submitted for EPA’s review on February 

6, 2012, and the state has not withdrawn 

the portion of the SIP submission 

containing these provisions. Our 

proposed action today will disapprove 

this portion of the February 6, 2012 SIP 

submission because these provisions are 

inconsistent with the federal statutory 

and regulatory SIP permitting 

requirements for PM2.5. 

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to disapprove 

severable portions of the February 6, 

2012, Oklahoma SIP submittal 

establishing the voluntary PM2.5 SILs 

provision and SMC. The EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that these 

submitted revisions to the Oklahoma 

SIP are disapprovable because they 

establish permitting SIP requirements 

that are inconsistent with the federal 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
53100 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

statutory and regulatory permitting 

requirements for PM2.5. Therefore, 

under section 110 and part C of the 

CAA, and for the reasons presented 

above, the EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the following revisions: 

• Substantive revisions to the 

Oklahoma SIP at OAC 252:100–8– 

33(c)(1)(C) establishing the PM2.5 SMC 

as submitted on February 6, 2012; and 

• Substantive revisions to the 

Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 

252:100–8–35(a)(2) establishing the 

PM2.5 PSD SILs provision as submitted 

on February 6, 2012. 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the revisions listed because the 

submitted provisions are inconsistent 

with the federal statutory and regulatory 

permitting requirements for PM2.5. Upon 

finalization of this disapproval owners 

or operators of a proposed source or 

modification will continue to satisfy the 

source impact analysis provisions for 

PM2.5 as required under the Oklahoma 

SIP at OAC 252:100–8–35(a)(1). 

Additionally, the State of Oklahoma 

would continue to have the necessary 

authority to require monitoring of PM2.5

under the Oklahoma SIP at OAC 

252:100–8–35.1(b)(3) consistent with 

the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(m). 

Finalization of this proposed 

disapproval will not require the EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan, because the Oklahoma PSD 

program will continue to satisfy the 

Federal PSD SIP requirements for PM2.5

monitoring and source impact analysis. 

We are proposing this disapproval 

under section 110 and part C of the Act; 

as such, the EPA will not impose 

sanctions as a result of a final 

disapproval. 

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 and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. There is no burden imposed under 

the PRA because this action proposes to 

disapprove submitted revisions that are 

no longer consistent with federal laws 

and regulations for the regulation and 

permitting of PM2.5. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This action proposes to 

disapprove submitted revisions that are 

no longer consistent with federal laws 

and regulations for the regulation and 

permitting of PM2.5, and therefore will 

have no impact on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

This action proposes to disapprove 

submitted revisions that are no longer 

consistent with federal laws and 

regulations for the regulation and 

permitting of PM2.5, and therefore will 

have no impact on small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action proposes to 

disapprove provisions of state law that 

are no longer consistent with federal 

law for the regulation and permitting of 

PM2.5; there are no requirements or 

responsibilities added or removed from 

Indian Tribal Governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it disapproves state permitting 

provisions that are inconsistent with 

federal laws and regulations for the 

regulation and permitting of PM2.5. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action is not subject 

to Executive Order 12898 because it 

disapproves state permitting provisions 

that are inconsistent with federal laws 

and regulations for the regulation and 

permitting of PM2.5. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 29, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18895 Filed 8–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2016–0176; FRL–9950– 

12–Region 6] 

Arkansas: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The State of Arkansas has 

applied to EPA for Final authorization 

of the changes to its hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA proposes to grant Final 

authorization to the State of Arkansas. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS