Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 10591 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will have no effect on small 

entities since this drawbridge has been 

converted to a fixed bridge and the 

regulation governing draw operations 

for this bridge is no longer applicable. 

There is no new restriction or regulation 

being imposed by this rule; therefore, 

the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

3. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

4. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect 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. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

5. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the ‘‘For Further 

Information Contact’’ section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

7. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

8. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

9. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

10. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

11. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

12. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

13. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves the 

removal of a drawbridge operation 

regulation that is no longer necessary. 

This rule is categorically excluded, 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 117.739 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 117.739, remove paragraph (n) 

and redesignate paragraphs (o) through 

(t) as paragraphs (n) through (s). 

Dated: January 29, 2015. 

L.L. Fagan, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04152 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0888; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0969; EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0991; EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0435; FRL– 

9923–48–Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

PSD Infrastructure SIP Requirements 

for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

submissions from Ohio regarding the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) infrastructure requirements of 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective April 28, 2015, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10592 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), 

and (J) through (M) for the 2008 lead and 2010 NO2

NAAQS except the prevention of significant 

deterioration requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J), the visibility portion of (J). 

2Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), 

and (J) through (M) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

except the prevention of significant deterioration 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 

(J), the visibility portion of (J) and the interstate 

transport portion of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

30, 2015. 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–2011–0888 (2008 Pb infrastructure 

elements), EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0969 

(2008 ozone infrastructure elements), 

EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0991 (2010 NO2

infrastructure elements), or EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0435 (2010 SO2

infrastructure elements) by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0888 

(2008 Pb infrastructure elements), EPA– 

R05–OAR–2011–0969 (2008 ozone 

infrastructure elements), EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0991 (2010 NO2

infrastructure elements), or EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0435 (2010 SO2

infrastructure elements). EPA’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: 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 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 Sarah 

Arra, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 

886–9401 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, 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) 886–9401, 

arra.sarah@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. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

II. What is EPA’s review of these SIP 

submissions? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

This rulemaking addresses 

submissions from the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA). The state submitted its 

infrastructure SIP for each NAAQS on 

the following dates: 2008 Pb—October 

12, 2011, and supplemented on June 7, 

2013; 2008 ozone—December 27, 2012, 

and supplemented on June 7, 2013; 

2010 NO2—February 8, 2013, and 

supplemented on February 25, 2013, 

and June 7, 2013; and, 2010 SO2—June 

7, 2013. 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

This specific rule making is only 

taking action on the PSD elements of 

these submittals. The majority of the 

other infrastructure elements were 

addressed in proposed rulemaking 

published July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43338). 

Final action was taken on those 

elements on October 6, 2014, for 2008 

Pb and 2010 NO2 (79 FR 60075),1 and 

on October 16, 2014, for 2008 ozone (79 

FR 62019).2 The infrastructure elements 

for PSD are found in CAA 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D), and 110(a)(2)(J) and will be 

discussed in detail below. For further 

discussion on the background of 

infrastructure submittals, see 79 FR 

43338. 

II. What is EPA’s review of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures; PSD 

States are required to include a 

program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures and the regulation of 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources to meet new source 

review (NSR) requirements under PSD 

and nonattainment new source review 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 10593 

3PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 

2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as 

‘‘coarse’’ particles. 

4 In EPA’s April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking 

for infrastructure SIPS for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, we stated that each state’s PSD program 

must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of 

all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (see 76 

FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in 

EPA’s August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 

77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state 

lacks provisions needed to adequately address NOX

as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, PM2.5 and 

PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or the 

Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the provisions 

of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD 

permitting program must be considered not to be 

met irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the 

requirement to submit an infrastructure SIP, 

including the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 5Similar changes were codified in 40 CFR 52.21. 

6EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 

2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s 

requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, 

Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements 

for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 (Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250). 

As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to 

nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements 

for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR rule in 

order to comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, EPA’s approval of Ohio’s 

infrastructure SIP as to elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) 

with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated 

by the 2008 implementation rule does not conflict 

with the court’s opinion. 

The Court’s decision with respect to the 

nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by 

the 2008 implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present infrastructure action. 

EPA interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment 

area requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR program, 

from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years 

after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, 

these elements are typically referred to as 

nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, 

which would be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D, 

extending as far as 10 years following designations 

for some elements. 

(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA 

(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD, 

while part D of the CAA (sections 171– 

193) addresses NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i) 

Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD 

provisions that explicitly identify 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor 

to ozone in the PSD program; (iii) 

identification of precursors to fine 

particulates (PM2.5) and the 

identification of PM2.5 and PM10 3

condensables in the PSD program; (iv) 

PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; 

and, (v) GHG permitting and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 4

Sub-element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

This element was proposed for the 

2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS in the July 25, 2014, 

rulemaking (79 FR 43338) and was 

finalized for the 2008 lead and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS in the October 6, 2014, 

rulemaking (79 FR 60075) and for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in the October 16, 

2014, rulemaking (79 FR 62019). This 

element will be finalized for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS in a separate rulemaking. 

Sub-element 2: PSD Provisions That 

Explicitly Identify NOX as a Precursor to 

Ozone in the PSD Program 

EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 29, 2005 

(see 70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 

71679, 71699–71700). This requirement 

was codified in 40 CFR 51.166.5

The Phase 2 Rule required that states 

submit SIP revisions incorporating the 

requirements of the rule, including the 

specification of NOX as a precursor to 

ozone provisions, by June 15, 2007 (70 

FR 71612 at 71683). 

EPA approved revisions to Ohio’s 

PSD SIP reflecting these requirements 

on October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64119), and 

therefore, Ohio has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 

2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-element 3: Identification of 

Precursors to PM2.5 and the 

Identification of PM2.5 and PM10

Condensables in the PSD Program 

On May 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 28321), 

EPA issued the Final Rule on the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 

NSR Rule finalized several new 

requirements for SIPs to address sources 

that emit direct PM2.5 and other 

pollutants that contribute to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for NSR permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 rule, 

EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for 

the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and NOX (unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

NOX emissions in an area are not a 

significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 

2008 NSR Rule also specifies that VOCs 

are not considered to be precursors to 

PM2.5 in the PSD program unless the 

state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in 

an area are significant contributors to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying 

pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5,

the 2008 NSR Rule also required states 

to revise the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

as it relates to a net emissions increase 

or the potential of a source to emit 

pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tpy of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of 

SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX (unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

NOX emissions in an area are not a 

significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 

deadline for states to submit SIP 

revisions to their PSD programs 

incorporating these changes was May 

16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).6

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5

and PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. This requirement 

is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions 

to states’ PSD programs incorporating 

the inclusion of condensables were 

required be submitted to EPA by May 

16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341). 

EPA approved revisions to Ohio’s 

PSD SIP reflecting these requirements 

on October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64119), and 

therefore Ohio has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

210 SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-element 4: PM2.5 Increments in the 

PSD Program 

On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the 

final rule on the ‘‘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)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule 

established several components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for PM2.5, including a system of 

‘‘increments’’ which is the mechanism 

used to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant. These increments are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c), and are included in the 

table below. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 INCREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE 2010 NSR RULE IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER

Annual 

arithmetic 

mean 

24-hour 

max 

Class I ............... 1 2 

Class II .............. 4 9 

Class III ............. 8 18 

The 2010 NSR Rule also established a 

new ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for 

PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new 

trigger date for PM2.5 as October 20, 

2011. These revisions are codified in 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and 

(b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule 

revised the definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ 

to include a level of significance of 0.3 

micrograms per cubic meter, annual 

average, for PM2.5. This change is 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). 

On October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64119), 

EPA finalized approval of the applicable 

infrastructure SIP PSD revisions for 

Ohio, therefore Ohio has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 

2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-element 5: GHG Permitting and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 

With respect to Elements C, and J, 

EPA interprets the CAA to require each 

state to make an infrastructure SIP 

submission for a new or revised NAAQS 

that demonstrates that the air agency 

has a complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of Element D(i)(II) may 

also be satisfied by demonstrating the 

air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program correctly addressing 

all regulated NSR pollutants. Ohio has 

shown that it currently has a PSD 

program in place that covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Court also found that EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). 

In order to act consistently with its 

understanding of the Court’s decision 

pending further judicial action to 

effectuate the decision, EPA is no longer 

applying EPA regulations that would 

require that SIPs include permitting 

requirements that the Supreme Court 

found impermissible. Specifically, EPA 

is not applying the requirement that a 

state’s SIP-approved PSD program 

require that sources obtain PSD permits 

when GHGs are the only pollutant: (i) 

That the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the major source 

thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a 

significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification (see 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). 

EPA anticipates a need to revise 

Federal PSD rules in light of the 

Supreme Court opinion. In addition, 

EPA anticipates that many states will 

revise their existing SIP-approved PSD 

programs in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. The timing and 

content of subsequent EPA actions with 

respect to EPA regulations and state 

PSD program approvals are expected to 

be informed by additional legal process 

before the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not 

expecting states to have revised their 

PSD programs for purposes of 

infrastructure SIP submissions and is 

only evaluating such submissions to 

assure that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s decision. 

At present, Ohio’s SIP is sufficient to 

satisfy Elements C, D(i)(II), and J with 

respect to GHGs because the PSD 

permitting program previously 

approved by EPA into the SIP continues 

to require that PSD permits (otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs) contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. Although the 

approved Ohio PSD permitting program 

may currently contain provisions that 

are no longer necessary in light of the 

Supreme Court decision, this does not 

render the infrastructure SIP submission 

inadequate to satisfy Elements C, 

(D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the 

necessary PSD requirements at this 

time, and the application of those 

requirements is not impeded by the 

presence of other previously-approved 

provisions regarding the permitting of 

sources of GHGs that EPA does not 

consider necessary at this time in light 

of the Supreme Court decision. 

For the purposes of the 2008 lead, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA 

reiterates that NSR reform regulations 

are not within the scope of these 

actions. Therefore, we are not taking 

action on existing NSR reform 

regulations for Ohio. EPA approved 

Ohio’s minor NSR program on January 

22, 2003 (68 FR 2909), and since that 

date, OEPA and EPA have relied on the 

existing minor NSR program to ensure 

that new and modified sources not 

captured by the major NSR permitting 

programs do not interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 2008 

lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

Certain sub-elements in this section 

overlap with elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and section 110(a)(2)(J). 

These links will be discussed in the 

appropriate areas below. 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires 

SIPs to include provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to protect visibility in another state. 

EPA notes that Ohio’s satisfaction of 

the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD 

requirements for the 2008 lead, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

has been detailed in the section 

addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA 

notes that the actions in that section 

related to PSD are consistent with the 

actions related to PSD for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated 

below. 

EPA has previously approved 

revisions to Ohio’s SIP that meet certain 

requirements obligated by the Phase 2 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 10595 

Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. These 

revisions included provisions that: (1) 

Explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to 

ozone, (2) explicitly identify SO2 and 

NOX as precursors to PM2.5, and (3) 

regulate condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in 

applicability determinations and 

establishing emissions limits. EPA has 

also previously approved revisions to 

Ohio’s SIP that incorporate the PM2.5

increments and the associated 

implementation regulations including 

the major source baseline date, trigger 

date, and level of significance for PM2.5

per the 2010 NSR Rule. Ohio’s SIP 

contains provisions that adequately 

address the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection 

Sub-element 3: PSD 

States must meet applicable 

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

related to PSD. Ohio’s PSD program in 

the context of infrastructure SIPs has 

already been discussed in the 

paragraphs addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

EPA notes that the actions for those 

sections are consistent with the actions 

for this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Therefore, Ohio has met all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD 

associated with section 110(a)(2)(D)(J) 

for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the PSD related 

infrastructure requirements for Ohio’s 

2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS submittals under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. 

EPA’s actions for the state’s satisfaction 

of infrastructure SIP requirements, by 

element of section 110(a)(2) are 

contained in the table below. 

Element 2008 

Lead 

2008 

Ozone 

2010 

NO2

2010 

SO2

(A): Emission limits and other control measures ............................................. a a a p 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system ...................................... a a a p 

(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures ............................................................... a a a p 

(C)2: PSD ........................................................................................................ A A A A 

(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS ...... a NA a NA 

(D)2: PSD ........................................................................................................ A A A A 

(D)3: Visibility Protection ................................................................................. a NA NA NA 

(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement ............................................................... a a a p 

(D)5: International Pollution Abatement .......................................................... a a a p 

(E): Adequate resources .................................................................................. a a a p 

(E): State boards ............................................................................................. a a a p 

(F): Stationary source monitoring system ........................................................ a a a p 

(G): Emergency power .................................................................................... a a a p 

(H): Future SIP revisions ................................................................................. a a a p 

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D .......................... + + + + 

(J)1: Consultation with government officials .................................................... a a a p 

(J)2: Public notification .................................................................................... a a a p 

(J)3: PSD ......................................................................................................... A A A A 

(J)4: Visibility protection ................................................................................... + + + + 

(K): Air quality modeling and data ................................................................... a a a p 

(L): Permitting fees .......................................................................................... a a a p 

(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities .......................... a a a p 

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A ....... Approved in today’s action. 

a ....... Approved in a previous rulemaking. 

p ....... Proposed in a previous rulemaking. 

NA .... No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

+ ....... Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective April 28, 2015 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by March 30, 

2015. If we receive such comments, we 

will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

April 28, 2015. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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.); 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10596 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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 April 28, 2015. 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, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: February 17, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

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. 

■ 2. Section 52.1891 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (e) through (g) and 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1891 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) Approval—In a October 12, 2011, 

submittal, supplemented on June 7, 

2013, Ohio certified that the State has 

satisfied the infrastructure SIP 

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

through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS. 

(f) Approval—In a February 8, 2013, 

submittal, supplemented on February 

25, 2013, and June 7, 2013, Ohio 

certified that the State has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) 

through (M) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

We are not finalizing action on the 

visibility protection requirements of 

(D)(i)(II). 

(g) Approval—In a December 27, 

2012, submittal, supplemented on June 

7, 2013, Ohio certified that the State has 

satisfied the infrastructure SIP 

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

through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS. We are not 

finalizing action on section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate transport 

prongs 1 and 2 or visibility portions of 

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

110(a)(2)(J). 

(h) Approval—In a June 7, 2013, 

submittal, Ohio certified that the State 

has satisfied the infrastructure SIP 

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

through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. We are only taking 

action on the PSD portions 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i), and (J). 

[FR Doc. 2015–04011 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0016; FRL–9923–69– 

Region–7] 

Delegation of Authority to the States of 

Iowa; Kansas; Missouri; Nebraska; 

Lincoln-Lancaster County, NE; and 

City of Omaha, NE., for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS), 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Including Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Delegation of authority. 

SUMMARY: The States of Iowa, Kansas, 

Missouri, and Nebraska and the local 

agencies of Lincoln-Lancaster County, 

Nebraska, and the city of Omaha, 

Nebraska, have submitted updated 

regulations for delegation of EPA 

authority for implementation and 

enforcement of NSPS, NESHAP, and 

MACT standards. The submissions 

cover new EPA standards and, in some 

instances, revisions to standards 

previously delegated. EPA’s review of 

the pertinent regulations shows that 

they contain adequate and effective 

procedures for the implementation and 

enforcement of these Federal standards. 

This action informs the public of 

delegations to the above-mentioned 

agencies. 

DATES: This document is effective on 

February 27, 2015. The dates of 

delegation can be found in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents 

relative to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Environmental 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES