Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 68453 

EPA APPROVED LOUISIANA REGULATIONS IN THE LOUISIANA SIP—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State approval 

date EPA Approval date Comments 

*******

Section 509 ............................. Prevention of Significant Deterioration.12/20/2012 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

SIP does not include provisions for permitting of 

GHGs as effective on 04/

20/2011 at LAC 

33:III.509(B) definition of 

‘‘carbon dioxide equivalent 

emissions’’, ‘‘greenhouse 

gases’’, ‘‘major stationary 

source’’, and ‘‘significant’’. 

SIP does not include the 

PM2.5 SMC at LAC 

33:III.509(I)(5)(a) from the 

12/20/2012 adoption. LAC 

33:III.509(I)(5)(a) is SIP-approved as of 10/20/2007 

adoption. 

Chapter 6—Regulations on Control of Emissions Reduction Credits Banking 

*******

Section 603 ............................. Applicability ............................ 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Section 605 ............................. Definitions .............................. 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Section 607 ............................. Determination of Creditable 

Emission Reductions.

10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Section 613 ............................. ERC Balance Sheet ............... 10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Section 615 ............................. Schedule for Submitting Applications.10/20/2007 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–28097 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0795; FRL–9936–60– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve portions of the November 2, 

2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission, provided by the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (NC DENR), 

Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) for 

inclusion into the North Carolina SIP. 

This final action pertains to the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each 

state adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. NCDAQ certified 

that the North Carolina SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in North 

Carolina. With the exception of 

provisions pertaining to prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) 

permitting, interstate transport 

requirements, and state boards 

requirements, EPA is taking final action 

to approve North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission provided 

to EPA on November 2, 2012, as 

satisfying the required infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 7, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2014–0795. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not 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. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
68454 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta C. Ward, 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. Ms. Ward 

can be reached via telephone at (404) 

562–9140 or via electronic mail at 

ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA require states to address 

basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance for that new NAAQS. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA generally 

requires states to make a SIP submission 

to meet applicable requirements in 

order to provide for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of a new 

or revised NAAQS within three years 

following the promulgation of such 

NAAQS, or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. For additional 

information on the infrastructure SIP 

requirements, see the proposed 

rulemaking published on March 13, 

2015. (80 FR 13312) 

On March 13, 2015, EPA proposed to 

approve portions of North Carolina’s 

November 2, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission 

with the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), 

the interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 

1 through 4), and the state board 

requirements of 110(E)(ii). See 80 FR 

13312. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received one set of comments on 

the March 13, 2015, proposed 

rulemaking to approve portions of North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

intended to meet the CAA requirements 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A 

summary of the comments and EPA’s 

responses are provided below. 

As an initial matter, the Commenter 

included interpretations of section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA in a background 

section, but this section did not include 

comments specific to EPA’s March 13, 

2015 proposed action on the North 

Carolina infrastructure SIP submittal. 

EPA provided an analysis of these same 

interpretations of section 110(a)(2)(A) in 

an October 16, 2014, rulemaking 

regarding the infrastructure SIP of 

Maryland for 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. (See 79 FR 62010) and we are 

incorporating those responses by 

reference. Specifically, please see EPA’s 

Response 2, which addresses the 

Commenter’s interpretation regarding 

CAA plain language; Response 3, which 

addresses the Commenter’s 

interpretation of the legislative history 

of the CAA; Response 5, which 

addresses the Commenter’s 

interpretation of EPA regulations (40 

CFR 51.112); Response 6, which 

addresses the Commenter’s 

interpretation of EPA interpretations of 

section 110 in infrastructure SIP 

rulemakings; and Response 4, which 

addresses the Commenter’s 

interpretation of Supreme Court and 

appellate court decisions. 

Comment 1: The Commenter contends 

that North Carolina’s infrastructure 

submission ‘‘fails to include stringent 

enough emission limits and other 

restrictions on sources of ozone 

precursors, like nitrogen oxides 

(‘‘NOX’’), to ensure that areas not 

designated nonattainment will attain 

and maintain the 2008 eight-hour ozone 

NAAQS.’’ Based on this contention, the 

Commenter then asserts that ‘‘North 

Carolina’s I–SIP does not meet the basic 

infrastructure requirements under 

section 110(a)(2) and must be 

disapproved.’’ 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s contention that NC DAQ’s 

2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP 

submission is not approvable with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because it 

fails to include enforceable emission 

limitations sufficient to ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in attainment 

areas. In light of the structure of the 

CAA, EPA’s long-standing position 

regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they 

are general planning SIPs to ensure that 

the state has adequate resources and 

authority to implement a NAAQS in 

general throughout the state and not 

detailed attainment and maintenance 

plans for each individual area of the 

state. 

EPA’s interpretation that 

infrastructure SIPs are more general 

planning SIPs is consistent with the 

statute as understood in light of its 

history and structure. When Congress 

enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not 

include provisions requiring states and 

EPA to label areas as attainment or 

nonattainment. Rather, states were 

required to include all areas of the state 

in ‘‘air quality control regions’’ (AQCRs) 

and section 110 set forth the core 

substantive planning provisions for 

these AQCRs. At that time, Congress 

anticipated that states would be able to 

address air pollution quickly pursuant 

to the very general planning provisions 

in section 110 and could bring all areas 

into compliance with the NAAQS 

within five years. Moreover, at that 

time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified 

that the section 110 plan provide for 

‘‘attainment’’ of the NAAQS and section 

110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must 

include ‘‘emission limitations, 

schedules, and timetables for 

compliance with such limitations, and 

such other measures as may be 

necessary to insure attainment and 

maintenance [of the NAAQS].’’ In 1977, 

Congress recognized that the existing 

structure was not sufficient and many 

areas were still violating the NAAQS. At 

that time, Congress for the first time 

added provisions requiring states and 

EPA to identify whether areas of the 

state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., 

were nonattainment) or were meeting 

the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) and 

established specific planning 

requirements in section 172 for areas 

not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many 

areas still had air quality not meeting 

the NAAQS and Congress again 

amended the CAA and added yet 

another layer of more prescriptive 

planning requirements for each of the 

NAAQS, with the primary provisions 

for ozone in section 182. At that same 

time, Congress modified section 110 to 

remove references to the section 110 SIP 

providing for attainment, including 

removing pre-existing section 

110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and 

renumbering subparagraph (B) as 

section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, 

Congress replaced the clause ‘‘as may be 

necessary to insure attainment and 

maintenance [of the NAAQS]’’ with ‘‘as 

may be necessary or appropriate to meet 

the applicable requirements of this 

chapter.’’ Thus, the CAA has 

significantly evolved in the more than 

40 years since it was originally enacted. 

While at one time section 110 did 

provide the only detailed SIP planning 

provisions for states and specified that 

such plans must provide for attainment 

of the NAAQS, under the structure of 

the current CAA, section 110 is only the 

initial stepping-stone in the planning 

process for a specific NAAQS. And, 

more detailed, later-enacted provisions 

govern the substantive planning 

process, including planning for 

attainment of the NAAQS. EPA believes 

that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably 

interpreted to require states to submit 

SIPs that reflect the first step in their 

planning for attaining and maintaining 

a new or revised NAAQS and that they 

contain enforceable control measures 

and a demonstration that the state has 

the available tools and authority to 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 68455 

develop and implement plans to attain 

and maintain the NAAQS. 

As stated in EPA’s proposed approval 

for this rule, to meet section 

110(a)(2)(A), North Carolina submitted a 

list of existing emission reduction and 

other control measures in the SIP that 

control emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and NOX. The 

submission also identifies North 

Carolina’s statutory authority to adopt 

emission control standards to meet 

established air quality standards such as 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA 

believes North Carolina’s submission 

appropriately reflects the first step in 

the State’s planning process for 

attaining and maintaining the 2008 

ozone NAAQS and meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

because the SIP contains enforceable 

control measures for ozone precursors 

and the submission provides that North 

Carolina has the tools to develop and 

implement measures as may be needed 

to attain and maintain the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

Comment 2: The Commenter contends 

that recent monitoring of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in areas not designated 

nonattainment confirms that North 

Carolina’s existing emission limitations 

are insufficient to attain and maintain 

the NAAQS. The Commenter 

specifically contends that the 

exceedances of the ozone NAAQS with 

2010–2012 data, in areas [Forsyth and 

Guilford counties] not designated 

nonattainment under the standard 

demonstrate that North Carolina’s 

existing emissions limitations cannot 

ensure attainment and maintenance of 

the eight-hour ozone standard. 

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s contention that NCDAQ’s 

2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP 

submission is not approvable with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because 

of the monitor design values noted by 

the Commenter. While EPA shares the 

Commenter’s concern regarding any 

county monitoring violations of the 

NAAQS, such concerns are outside the 

scope of what is germane to an 

evaluation of section 110(a)(2)(A) for an 

infrastructure SIP submission. With 

regard to the 2010–2012 design values 

for Forsyth and Guilford Counties as 

mentioned by the Commenter, Forsyth 

and Guilford Counties attained the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS with 2011–2013 

data and continue to attain with 

preliminary 2013–2015 data. 

Regardless, EPA does not believe that 

this 2010–2012 monitoring data 

referenced by the Commenter provides 

an appropriate basis upon which to 

disapprove North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP as it relates to section 

110(a)(2)(A) requirements. Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(A), an infrastructure 

SIP submission must include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of the Act. The 

Commenter, however, seems to believe 

that in the context of an infrastructure 

SIP submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) 

requires the state to submit control 

measures sufficient to demonstrate 

attainment in an area designated 

attainment but that has a recent 

monitored violation of the NAAQS. EPA 

does not believe that this is a reasonable 

interpretation of the provision with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Rather, EPA believes that 

the proper inquiry at this juncture is 

whether the state has met the basic 

structural SIP requirements appropriate 

at the point in time EPA is acting upon 

it. The CAA provides states with three 

years to develop infrastructure SIPs and 

states cannot reasonably be expected to 

address the annual change in an area’s 

design value for each year over that 

period, nor to predict the air quality 

data in periods after development and 

submission of the SIPs. 

Further, the Act provides states and 

EPA with other tools to address 

concerns that arise with respect to 

violations of the NAAQS in a designated 

attainment area, such as the authority to 

redesignate areas pursuant to section 

107(d)(3), the authority to issue a ‘‘SIP 

Call’’ pursuant to section 110(k)(5), or 

the general authority to approve SIP 

revisions that can address such 

violations of the NAAQS through other 

appropriate measures. As described 

above, EPA believes that North 

Carolina’s infrastructure submission is 

sufficient because it appropriately 

addresses the structural SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) by 

including enforceable emission control 

measures and the authority to adopt and 

implement additional measures, if 

needed. 

Comment 3: The Commenter contends 

that North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

must ensure that proper mass 

limitations and short term averaging 

periods are imposed on certain specific 

large sources of NOX such as power 

plants. Moreover, the Commenter 

contends that emission limits must 

apply at all times, including during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM), to ensure that all 

areas of North Carolina attain and 

maintain the 2008 eight-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Absent such limits, the 

Commenter contends that an I–SIP 

submission may not be approved. 

Specifically the Commenter contends 

that enforceable emission limitations for 

the State’s coal fired EGUs [electric 

generating units] should be set on a 

pounds per hour (‘‘lb/hr’’) basis, based 

on, at most, a corresponding 0.07 lb/

MMBtu limit. The Commenter further 

contends that setting a lb/hr limit will 

ensure consistent protection of the 

ambient air quality regardless of 

whether the nominal maximum heat 

input capacity for the unit is accurate or 

changes in the future and addresses the 

issue of variations in mass emissions 

during startup and shutdown so that 

even if the NOX emission rate in lb/

MMBtu is higher during startup and 

shutdown (for instance when selective 

catalytic reduction technology is not 

being engaged), hourly emissions of 

NOX would not cause or contribute to 

violations of the NAAQS. 

Response 3: EPA appreciates the 

commenter’s support of North 

Carolina’s pursuit of additional NOX

emission limitations at coal-fired power 

plants in North Carolina. However, EPA 

does not believe that approval of the 

infrastructure SIP is contingent on the 

State adopting additional controls for 

the State’s coal fired EGUs. Congress 

established the CAA such that each state 

has primary responsibility for assuring 

air quality within the state and 

determining an emission reduction 

program for its areas subject to EPA 

approval, with such approval dependent 

upon whether the SIP as a whole meets 

the applicable requirements of the CAA. 

See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. 

EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 

1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 

1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). EPA cannot 

condition approval of the North 

Carolina infrastructure SIP upon 

inclusion of a particular emission 

reduction program as long as the SIP 

otherwise meets the requirements of the 

CAA. As explained in the proposal and 

in this final action, North Carolina does 

not need to adopt additional emission 

control requirements in order to meet 

the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Furthermore, we disagree with the 

commenter’s contention that EPA 

cannot approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without ensuring that it 

contains emission limits applicable at 

all times, including during periods of 

SSM. For the reasons stated in the 

proposal, EPA does not believe that an 

action on a state’s infrastructure SIP is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action to address this type of deficiency. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
68456 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The SSM SIP Action of 2015 also embodies 

EPA’s updated SSM Policy as it applies to SIP 

provisions and provides guidance to states for 

compliance with CAA requirements for SIP 

provisions applicable to excess emissions during 

SSM events. EPA has encouraged any state with 

deficient SSM provisions to correct those 

provisions as soon as possible (as some states 

already have), but in no case longer than the 18- 

month timeframe provided in the SSM SIP Action 

of 2015. 

See 80 FR at 13315–17. Rather, as 

described in the proposal, EPA believes 

that the authority Congress provided to 

EPA under section 110(k)(5), for 

example, allows EPA to take 

appropriately tailored action. Indeed, 

EPA recognizes that a number of states 

have existing SSM provisions contrary 

to the CAA and EPA guidance and, in 

the time since the proposal for this 

action, has finalized a separate action 

addressing those state regulations. See 

‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response 

to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement 

and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy 

Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to 

Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ 80 FR 

33840 (June 12, 2015) (SSM SIP Action 

of 2015). In the SSM SIP Action of 2015, 

EPA concluded that certain SIP 

provisions in 36 states (applicable in 45 

statewide and local jurisdictions) are 

substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements and thus issued a ‘‘SIP 

call’’ for each of those 36 states pursuant 

to CAA section 110(k)(5).1 North 

Carolina’s unlawful SSM provisions are 

covered by that action. See, e.g., id. at 

33964. EPA continues to believe that 

existing, unlawful provisions related to 

excess emissions during SSM events 

should be addressed through more 

appropriate authorities provided by 

Congress; not in piecemeal fashion, in 

the context of reviewing a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Comment 4: The Commenter contends 

that, to comply with section 110(a) and 

avoid additional nonattainment 

designations for areas impacted by 

ozone levels above the standard, ‘‘EPA 

must disapprove North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP to ensure that large 

sources of NOX and VOCs cannot cause 

or contribute to exceedances of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and, thereby 

prohibit implementation, attainment, 

and maintenance of the NAAQS 

throughout all areas of the State, in 

violation of CAA section 110(a)(1) and 

(2)(A).’’ The commenter states that the 

inadequacies of the SIP are highlighted 

by recent monitoring data. 

Response 4: EPA disagrees that it 

must disapprove North Carolina’s 

submittal to ensure that large sources of 

NOX and VOC do not contribute to 

exceedances of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS such that additional areas 

would need to be designated 

nonattainment in the future. In essence, 

this comment suggests that as part of the 

110(a)(2)(A) SIP, the state must 

demonstrate that all areas of the state 

will maintain the standard in the future. 

As explained previously, we disagree 

that the language and structure of the 

CAA mandate such a result. The CAA 

recognizes that air quality may change 

over time, such as an area slipping from 

attainment to nonattainment or 

changing from nonattainment to 

attainment and has provisions 

addressing such changes. These include 

provisions providing for redesignation 

in section 107(d) and provisions in 

section 110(k)(5) allowing EPA to call 

on the state to revise its SIP, as 

appropriate. 

Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(H), the 

State must demonstrate in its 

infrastructure SIP submission that it has 

the authority to revise of its SIP, 

including as needed to address any 

finding by EPA that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS. To satisfy CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H), North Carolina’s submittal 

cites to statutory authority that allows 

the state to adopt standards and plans 

to implement the requirements of the 

CAA and Federal implementing 

regulations, and to specifically establish 

lower emissions limits if needed to 

attain or maintain the ozone NAAQS. 

Therefore, the CAA provides 

appropriate tools to address changes in 

air quality over time and North 

Carolina’s submittal also appropriately 

addresses the elements needed to 

address any changes in air quality over 

time. 

Comment 5: The Commenter contends 

that ozone concentrations will be 

exacerbated by ongoing climate change 

and that North Carolina’s existing 

emission limits are not stringent enough 

to adequately protect the public from 

the dangers posed by exposure to 

elevated ozone concentrations. The 

Commenter contends that this 

underscores the need for North Carolina 

to impose tighter emission limits if it 

hopes to attain and maintain the current 

NAAQS for ozone in areas not currently 

designated nonattainment. 

Response 5: EPA agrees that climate 

change is a serious environmental issue; 

however, for the reasons provided in the 

previous responses, we disagree that 

states are required to anticipate and 

plan for possible future nonattainment 

within each area of the state as part of 

the infrastructure SIP. 

We note that given the potential wideranging impacts of climate change on air 

quality planning, EPA is developing 

climate adaptation implementation 

plans to assess the key vulnerabilities to 

our programs (including how climate 

change might affect attainment of 

national ambient air quality standards) 

and to identify priority actions to 

minimize these vulnerabilities. With 

respect to climate impacts on future 

ozone levels, EPA’s Office of Air and 

Radiation has identified as a priority 

action the need to adjust air quality 

modeling tools and guidance as 

necessary to account for climate-driven 

changes in meteorological conditions 

and meteorologically-dependent 

emissions. These efforts are just 

beginning. 

Additionally, as previously stated 

regarding tighter emission limits, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) is 

reasonably interpreted to require states 

to submit SIPs that reflect the first step 

in their planning for attaining and 

maintaining a new or revised NAAQS 

and that they contain enforceable 

control measures and a demonstration 

that the state has the available tools and 

authority to develop and implement 

plans to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. As explained above, to the 

extent that climate change or any other 

factor exacerbates air quality in the 

future, the CAA provides the 

appropriate tools to assess and address 

these conditions. 

III. Today’s Action 

In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final 

action to approve the portions of North 

Carolina’s infrastructure submission as 

demonstrating that the State meets the 

applicable requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the 

exception of the PSD permitting 

provisions in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

prong 3 of D(i) and (J), the interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 

through 4), and the state board 

requirements of section 110(E)(ii). 

IV. Final Action 

With the exceptions described above, 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

North Carolina’s November 2, 2012, 

infrastructure SIP submission because it 

addresses the required infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. NCDAQ has addressed the 

elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) 

SIP requirements pursuant to section 

110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in North 

Carolina. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 68457 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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 January 4, 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. 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 dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 22, 2015. 

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. In § 52.1770, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date EPA Approval date 

Federal 

Register 

citation 

Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.

11/2/2012 11/5/2015 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

................ With the exception of sections: 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) 

concerning PSD permitting requirements; 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4) concerning interstate transport requirements; 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) concerning state board requirements. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
68458 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 70 FR 36901 (June 27, 2005). 2See 79 FR 7412 (Feb. 7, 2014). 

[FR Doc. 2015–28098 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0807; FRL–9936–54– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Test Methods; 

Error Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is determining that a 

portion of an October 26, 2010, action 

was in error and is making a correction 

pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act. The October 26, 2010, 

EPA action approved various revisions 

to Ohio regulations in the EPA approved 

state implementation plan (SIP). The 

revisions were intended to consolidate 

air quality standards into a new chapter 

of rules and to adjust the cross 

references accordingly in various related 

Ohio rules. These changes included a 

specific revision to the cross reference 

in the Ohio rule pertaining to methods 

for measurements for comparison with 

the particulate matter air quality 

standards. This final correction action 

removes any misperception that EPA 

approved any revision to the pertinent 

rule other than the revised cross 

reference. This action will therefore 

assure that the codification of the 

October 26, 2010, action is in accord 

with the actual substance of the action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0807. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

at (312) 886–6067 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067, 

summerhays.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking 

II. Comments and EPA’s Responses 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed 

Rulemaking 

On June 4, 2003, Ohio submitted a 

variety of revisions to the EPA approved 

version of Ohio Administrative Code 

(OAC) 3745–17 in the state’s SIP, which 

regulates particulate matter and opacity 

from affected sources. While EPA 

subsequently approved many of these 

revisions, EPA published action on June 

27, 2005, proposing to disapprove 

specific submitted revisions in OAC 

3745–17–03(B) that in EPA’s view 

relaxed existing SIP opacity limitations 

without an adequate analysis under 

section 110(l) or section 193 of the 

Clean Air Act.1 Consistent with this 

proposed disapproval, the version of 

OAC 3745–17–03(B) submitted by the 

state on June 4, 2003, was not, and is 

not, an approved provision of the Ohio 

SIP. 

On September 10, 2009, for purposes 

of consolidating its existing SIP rules 

identifying applicable air quality 

standards, and to adjust the cross 

references between rules accordingly, 

Ohio submitted additional revisions to 

several of its existing rules to EPA for 

approval into the SIP. Most notably, 

these rule revisions included a 

modification to the existing cross 

reference in OAC 3745–17–03(A), which 

was necessary because the ambient 

particulate matter measurement method 

identified in this paragraph was for 

purposes of assessing attainment with 

the ambient air quality standards now 

located in OAC 3745–25–02, rather than 

in OAC 3745–17–02. 

On October 26, 2010, at 75 FR 65572, 

EPA published a direct final action 

approving the relevant revisions in the 

September 10, 2009, submission. In the 

preamble and in the codification of the 

October 26, 2010, action, EPA 

erroneously listed the approved SIP 

revisions as including the entirety of 

OAC 3745–17–03, rather than specifying 

more precisely that the approval as it 

pertained to OAC 3745–17–03 applied 

only to the revised cross reference in 

OAC 3745–17–03(A). This error left the 

misimpression that EPA had approved 

other significant substantive revisions in 

OAC 3745–17–03, including those in 

OAC 3745–17–03(B) that EPA had 

previously proposed to disapprove. The 

codification in the October 26, 2010, 

action with respect to OAC 3745–17–03 

should have been explicitly limited to 

OAC 3745–17–03(A), to reflect the EPA 

approval of only the revised cross 

reference. 

EPA subsequently recognized that the 

codification erroneously left the 

misimpression that it had approved 

more of OAC 3745–17–03 than the 

revision of the cross reference in OAC 

3745–17–03(A). On April 3, 2013, at 78 

FR 19990, EPA published action to 

correct the error. EPA took this action 

pursuant to its general rulemaking 

authority under Administrative 

Procedures Act section 553. Two parties 

challenged EPA’s April 3, 2013, action, 

and one of these parties also filed a 

petition for reconsideration of that 

action, objecting that EPA failed to 

correct the error in the October 26, 2010, 

action in accordance with the 

procedures of section 110(k)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act. 

EPA responded to the petition for 

reconsideration by agreeing to take this 

action pursuant to section 110(k)(6), as 

requested by the petitioner. 

Accordingly, EPA published proposed 

rulemaking on February 7, 2014, using 

its authority under section 110(k)(6) to 

correct errors in its rulemaking of 

October 26, 2010.2 Given the 

petitioners’ expressed interest in 

commenting on EPA’s action, EPA 

elected to use its authority under 

section 110(k)(6) for this action because, 

under these circumstances, it would 

provide the best mechanism to correct 

the apparent misunderstandings 

concerning the error in the October 26, 

2010, action. 

EPA’s February 7, 2014, proposal 

provides an extensive description of the 

error in its October 26, 2010, 

rulemaking, provided in subsections 

entitled, ‘‘What was the error in 

description and codification?’’, ‘‘What 

precipitated this error?’’, and ‘‘Why was 

it evident that this was an error?’’ It is 

not necessary to repeat that detailed 

explanation here. EPA proposed to 

correct the error to remove any 

misimpression in its October 26, 2010, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES