Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 32235 

Affairs, Enforcement Programs and 

Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 478 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Arms and munitions, 

Customs duties and inspection, Exports, 

Imports, Intergovernmental relations, 

Law enforcement officers, Military 

personnel, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Research, 

Seizures and forfeitures, and 

Transportation. 

Authority and Issuance 

Accordingly, for the reasons 

discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR part 

478 is amended as follows: 

PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS 

AND AMMUNITION 

■ 1. The authority citation for 27 CFR 

part 478 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 

921–930; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h). 

■ 2. In § 478.72, add a new fifth 

sentence to read as follows: 

§ 478.72 Hearing after application denial. 

* * * During the hearing the 

applicant will have the opportunity to 

submit facts and arguments for review 

and consideration; offers of settlement 

will not be entertained at the hearing 

but may be made before or after the 

hearing. * * * 

■ 3. In § 478.73, revise the last sentence 

of paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 478.73 Notice of revocation, suspension, 

or imposition of civil fine. 

(a) * * * In addition, pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. 922(t)(5) and 18 U.S.C. 924(p), a 

notice of revocation, suspension, or 

imposition of a civil fine may be issued 

on ATF Form 4500 whenever the 

Director has reason to believe that a 

licensee has knowingly transferred a 

firearm to an unlicensed person and 

knowingly failed to comply with the 

requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1) with 

respect to the transfer and, at the time 

that the transferee most recently 

proposed the transfer, the national 

instant criminal background check 

system was operating and information 

was available to the system 

demonstrating that the transferee’s 

receipt of a firearm would violate 18 

U.S.C. 922(g) or 922(n) or State law; or 

that a licensee has violated 18 U.S.C. 

922(z)(1) by selling, delivering, or 

transferring any handgun to any person 

other than a licensee, unless the 

transferee was provided with a secure 

gun storage or safety device for that 

handgun. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 478.74, revise the fifth and 

sixth sentences and add a seventh 

sentence to read as follows: 

§ 478.74 Request for hearing after notice 

of suspension, revocation, or imposition of 

civil fine. 

* * * If the decision is that the 

license should be revoked, or, in actions 

under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(5) or 924(p), that 

the license should be revoked or 

suspended, or that a civil fine should be 

imposed, a certified copy of the 

summary shall be furnished to the 

licensee with the final notice of 

revocation, suspension, or imposition of 

a civil fine on ATF Form 5300.13. If the 

decision is that the license should not 

be revoked, or in actions under 18 

U.S.C. 922(t)(5) or 924(p), that the 

license should not be revoked or 

suspended, and a civil fine should not 

be imposed, the licensee shall be 

notified in writing. During the hearing 

the licensee will have the opportunity to 

submit facts and arguments for review 

and consideration; offers of settlement 

will not be entertained at the hearing 

but may be made before or after the 

hearing. 

Dated: May 17, 2016. 

Loretta E. Lynch, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2016–12100 Filed 5–20–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0289; FRL–9946–69– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; 

Ozone Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of New 

Hampshire that contains an ozone 

maintenance plan for New Hampshire’s 

former 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas. The Clean Air Act requires that 

areas that are designated attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and 

also had been previously designated 

either nonattainment or maintenance for 

the 1-hour ozone standard, develop a 

plan showing how the state will 

maintain the ozone standard for the 

area. The intended effect of this action 

is to approve New Hampshire’s 

maintenance plan. This action is being 

taken in accordance with the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective July 22, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 22, 

2016. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2012–0289 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, 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 the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne Arnold, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05– 

02, Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone 

number (617) 918–1047, fax number 

(617) 918–0047, email arnold.anne@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What action is EPA taking? 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
32236 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for 

Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) 

of Clean Air Act,’’ EPA memorandum dated May 

20, 2005, from Lydia Wegman to Air Division 

Directors. 

III. What is a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance 

plan? 

IV. How has New Hampshire addressed the 

components of a Section 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plan? 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

This action addresses requirements 

associated with the transition from the 

1-hour National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level 

ozone to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA has established, and periodically 

reviews and revises, the NAAQS for 

ground-level ozone. On July 18, 1997 

(62 FR 38855), EPA published a final 

rule for a new 8-hour ozone standard of 

0.08 parts per million (ppm). On April 

30, 1994 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated 

and classified areas for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Also, on April 30, 2004 

(69 FR 23951), EPA published the Phase 

1 rule for implementation of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Among other 

requirements, this rule set forth 

requirements for anti-back sliding 

purposes for areas designated 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

Subsequently, in 2008, and in 2015, 

EPA again revised the ozone NAAQS to 

0.075 ppm and 0.070 ppm, respectively. 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of New 

Hampshire on March 2, 2012. The SIP 

revision consists of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) section 110(a)(1) ozone 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard for New Hampshire. The 

maintenance plan demonstrates how the 

state intends to maintain the 1997 8- 

hour National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for ozone. 

The CAA section 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plan requirement applies 

to areas that are designated as 

attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard and also had a 

designation of either nonattainment or 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone 

standard as of June 15, 2004, the 

effective date of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard designation for these areas (See 

69 FR 23857). In New Hampshire, this 

area consists of the cities and towns 

listed in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—1-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT/MAINTENANCE AREAS DESIGNATED UNCLASSIFIABLE/ATTAINMENT FOR THE 8- 

HOUR STANDARD AS OF JUNE 15, 2004 

[= New Hampshire maintenance planning area] 

Area County Cities and towns included 

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester 

Area.

Hillsborough (part) ................... Mont Vernon, Wilton. 

Manchester Area ....................... Hillsborough (part) ................... Antrim, Bennington, Deering, Francestown, Greenfield, Greenville, Hancock, 

Hillsborough, Lyndeborough, Mason, New Boston, New Ipswich, Peterborough, Sharon, Temple, Weare, Windsor. 

Merrimack (part) ...................... Allenstown, Andover, Boscawen, Bow, Bradford, Canterbury, Chichester, 

Concord, Danbury, Dunbarton, Epsom, Franklin, Henniker, Hill, Hopkinton, 

Loudon, New London, Newbury, Northfield, Pembroke, Pittsfield, Salisbury, 

Sutton, Warner, Webster, Wilmot. 

Rockingham County .................. Rockingham (part) ................... Deerfield, Northwood, Nottingham. 

Strafford County ........................ Strafford (part) ......................... Barrington, Farmington, Lee, Madbury, Middleton, Milton, New Durham, 

Strafford. 

Cheshire County ....................... Cheshire (all) ........................... Alstead, Chesterfield, Dublin, Fitzwilliam, Gilsum, Harrisville, Hinsdale, 

Jaffrey, Keene, Marlborough, Marlow, Nelson, Richmond, Rindge, 

Roxbury, Stoddard, Sullivan, Surry, Swanzey, Troy, Walpole, Westmoreland, Winchester. 

III. What is a Section 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plan? 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act, the implementation rule 

for the 1997 ozone standard requires 

that areas that were either 

nonattainment or maintenance areas for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, submit a plan to demonstrate 

the continued maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA established 

June 15, 2007, three years after the 

effective date of the initial 1997 8-hour 

ozone designations, as the deadline for 

submission of plans for these areas. See 

40 CFR 51.905. 

On May 20, 2005, EPA issued 

guidance 1 that applies, in part, to areas 

that are designated attainment/

unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and either have an approved 1- 

hour ozone maintenance plan or were 

designated nonattainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard. The purpose of the 

guidance is to assist the states in the 

development of a section 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plan SIP. There are five 

components of a section 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plan which are: (1) An 

attainment inventory, which is based on 

actual typical summer day emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for a ten-year 

period from a base year as chosen by the 

state; (2) a maintenance demonstration 

which shows how the area will remain 

in compliance with the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard for 10 years after the 

effective date of designations (June 15, 

2004); (3) a commitment to continue to 

operate air quality monitors; (4) a 

contingency plan that will ensure that a 

violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is promptly addressed; and (5) 

an explanation of how the state will 

track the progress of the maintenance 

plan. 

Subsequently, in the implementation 

rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 

12264; March 6, 2015), EPA revoked the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Nevertheless, New Hampshire’s March 

2, 2012 SIP revision of a Section 

110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 

pending before us, so we are taking 

action on it at this time. 

IV. How has New Hampshire addressed 

the components of a Section 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plan? 

EPA has determined that the New 

Hampshire Department of 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 32237 

2 It should be noted that the emissions shown in 

this table are for the entire five counties named, 

rather than the somewhat smaller maintenance area, 

due to the difficulty of parsing out inventory data 

to a sub-county basis. This difference is not 

considered significant, and does not affect the 

downward trend shown in the emissions. 

3The design value at an ozone monitor is the 3- 

year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 

8-hour average ozone concentration measured at 

that monitor. The design value for an area is the 

highest design value recorded at any monitor in the 

area. 

4AQS is EPA’s Air Quality System. States submit 

ozone monitoring data to AQS. 

5Ozone design values for 2015 are based on 

preliminary data. 

Environmental Services (NHDES) 1997 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan 

addresses all of the necessary 

components of a Section 110(a)(1) 1997 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan as 

discussed below. 

A. Emissions Inventory 

An emissions inventory is an itemized 

list of emission estimates for sources of 

air pollution in a given area for a 

specified time period. NHDES has 

provided a comprehensive emissions 

inventory for ozone precursors (NOX

and VOCs) in the area. NHDES uses 

2002 as the base year from which it 

projects emissions. The submittal also 

includes an explanation of the 

methodology used for determining the 

anthropogenic emissions (point, area, 

and mobile sources) in the maintenance 

area. The inventory is based on 

emissions for a ‘‘typical summer day.’’ 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

With regard to demonstrating 

continued maintenance of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, NHDES projects 

that the total emissions from the 

maintenance area will decrease during 

the ten-year maintenance period. 

NHDES has projected emissions from 

2002 until 2014. The projected trend in 

emissions is downward. This clearly 

demonstrates that the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard will be maintained for 

the ten year period between 2004 and 

2014, which is the required test. 

Table 2 shows the total VOC and NOx 

emissions for the maintenance area in 

New Hampshire for the base year (2002), 

an interim year (2012), and a final year 

(2014).2 More detailed emissions tables 

can be found in the NHDES submittal. 

The trend in emissions is downward, for 

each pollutant in the area. As such, the 

plan demonstrates that, from an 

emissions projections standpoint, 

emissions are projected to decrease. 

TABLE 2—2002, 2012, AND 2014 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR CHESHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH, MERRIMACK, ROCKINGHAM, 

AND STRAFFORD COUNTIES

[Pounds per day] 

Source category 

VOC NOX

2002 2012 2014 2002 2012 2014 

Point ......................................................... 15,898 6,696 7,005 67,347 48,358 50,739 

Area .......................................................... 93,778 85,443 91,068 10,516 9,091 9,134 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 68,223 40,210 35,121 49,787 36,131 31,215 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 87,161 36,904 34,245 261,303 75,202 62,347 

Total .................................................. 265,060 169,253 167,439 388,953 168,782 153,435 

C. Ambient Monitoring 

With regard to the ambient air 

monitoring component of a maintenance 

plan, New Hampshire’s submittal 

describes the ozone monitoring network 

in the maintenance area and New 

Hampshire commits to the continuing 

operation of an effective air quality 

monitoring network to verify the area’s 

attainment status in accordance with the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

specifically, 40 CFR part 58. New 

Hampshire’s SIP revision was submitted 

on March 2, 2012 and includes ozone 

design values 3 for 2010 and 2011 which 

demonstrate that the maintenance area 

is meeting the 0.08 ppm 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. In addition, based on 

more recent ozone data from 2014, all of 

New Hampshire meets the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. Furthermore, 

preliminary ozone data for 2015 shows 

that all of New Hampshire continues to 

meet the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Table 3 shows the ozone design values 

for each monitor in the five county area 

listed in Table 2. As noted in Table 1, 

portions of these counties make up New 

Hampshire’s maintenance area. 

TABLE 3—OZONE DESIGN VALUES (PPM) FOR MONITORS IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE MAINTENANCE AREA

Monitor location AQS4 No. 

Design Value 

2014 2015 5

Keene ........................................................................................................................................... 330050007 0.062 0.060 

Peterborough ............................................................................................................................... 330115001 0.070 0.067 

Nashua ......................................................................................................................................... 330111011 0.066 0.064 

Concord ....................................................................................................................................... 330131007 0.063 0.062 

Portsmouth ................................................................................................................................... 330150014 0.068 0.066 

Rye ............................................................................................................................................... 330150016 0.068 0.068 

Londonderry ................................................................................................................................. 330150018 0.067 0.065 

D. Contingency Measures 

EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA to require that the state develop a 

contingency plan that will ensure that 

any violation of a NAAQS is promptly 

corrected. Therefore, as required by 

section 110(a)(1) of the Act, New 

Hampshire has listed in its submittal 

possible contingency measures, as well 

as a protocol the state will follow, in the 

event of a future ozone air quality 

problem. As noted in New Hampshire’s 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
32238 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

SIP revision, at the conclusion of each 

ozone season, NHDES will evaluate 

whether the design value for any ozone 

monitor in the maintenance area meets 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. If the 

design value is above the standard, 

NHDES will evaluate the potential 

causes of this design value increase, 

specifically, whether this increase is 

due to an increase in local in-state 

emissions, an increase in upwind outof-state emissions, or an exceptional 

event as defined in 40 CFR 50.1. If an 

increase in in-state emissions is 

determined to be a contributing factor to 

the design value increase, NHDES will 

evaluate the projected in-state emissions 

for the maintenance area for the ozone 

season in the following year. If in-state 

emissions are not expected to 

satisfactorily decrease in the following 

ozone season in order to mitigate the 

violation, New Hampshire will 

implement one or more of the 

contingency measures listed in the 

submittal, or substitute other VOC or 

NOx control measures to achieve 

additional in-state emission reductions. 

The contingency measure(s) will be 

selected by the Governor, or the 

Governor’s designee, within six months 

of the end of the ozone season for which 

contingency measures have been 

determined necessary. Further details 

on the types of possible control 

measures to be used as contingencies 

can be found in the New Hampshire 

submittal. New Hampshire’s submittal 

satisfies EPA’s contingency measure 

requirements. 

E. Tracking Progress 

New Hampshire’s SIP revision notes 

that the State will track the maintenance 

of attainment by analyzing air quality 

trends at local monitors and annually 

updating the state’s emissions 

inventories. NHDES produces 

comprehensive emission inventories on 

a three-year cycle and revises the 

inventories annually using updated 

emissions data for the largest sources. 

Finally, as a practical matter, at this 

point in time, the 10 year maintenance 

period (2004–2014) has ended and, as 

noted by the ozone design values in 

Table 3 above, the area has maintained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving into the New 

Hampshire SIP the Clean Air Act 

Section 110(a)(1) 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the New 

Hampshire area that is required to have 

such a plan. This area includes the 

cities and towns listed in Table 1 above. 

The EPA is publishing this action 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should relevant adverse comments be 

filed. This rule will be effective July 22, 

2016 without further notice unless the 

Agency receives relevant adverse 

comments by June 22, 2016. 

If the EPA receives such comments, 

then EPA will publish a notice 

withdrawing the final rule and 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. All public comments 

received will then be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

the proposed rule. All parties interested 

in commenting on the proposed rule 

should do so at this time. If no such 

comments are received, the public is 

advised that this rule will be effective 

on July 22, 2016 and no further action 

will be taken on the proposed rule. 

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. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 

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 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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by July 22, 2016. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 32239 

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, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 4, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 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 EE—New Hampshire 

■ 2. Section 52.1534 is amended by 

adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1534 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(j) Approval—EPA is approving the 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1) 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard in the area of the New 

Hampshire required to have such a plan. 

This area includes portions of 

Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, 

and Strafford Counties, and all of 

Cheshire County. This maintenance 

plan was submitted to EPA on March 2, 

2012. 

[FR Doc. 2016–11963 Filed 5–20–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0783; FRL–9946–66– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New 

Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of 

Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, 

Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is disapproving severable 

portions of the February 6, 2012 

Oklahoma State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submittal that are inconsistent 

with federal laws based on recent 

decisions by the United States Courts 

and subsequent EPA rulemaking. This 

submittal established Minor New 

Source Review permitting requirements 

for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 

includes Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting 

provisions for sources that are classified 

as major, and, thus, required to obtain 

a PSD permit, based solely on their 

potential GHG emissions. The PSD 

permitting provisions also require a PSD 

permit for modifications of otherwise 

major sources because they increased 

only GHG emissions above applicable 

levels. Additionally, we are 

disapproving severable portions of SIP 

submittals for the States of Arkansas, 

New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing 

the EPA’s July 20, 2011 rule deferring 

PSD requirements for carbon dioxide 

(CO2) emissions from bioenergy and 

other biogenic sources (‘‘Biomass 

Deferral’’). We are disapproving the 

provisions adopting the Biomass 

Deferral because they are no longer 

consistent with federal laws and 

regulations. The EPA is finalizing this 

disapproval under section 110 and part 

C of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 22, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0783. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., 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. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Adina Wiley, (214) 665–2115, 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

The background for this action is 

discussed in detail in our January 11, 

2016 proposal. See 81 FR 1141. In that 

document we proposed to disapprove 

severable portions of the February 6, 

2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal 

establishing GHG permitting 

requirements for minor sources and for 

sources that are classified as major, and 

thus, required to obtain a PSD permit 

based solely on their potential GHG 

emissions (referred to as ‘‘Step 2’’ PSD 

sources in our proposed action) because 

we determined that these revisions to 

the Oklahoma SIP establish permitting 

requirements that are inconsistent with 

federal laws resulting from recent 

decisions by United States Courts. We 

also proposed to disapprove severable 

portions of the November 6, 2012 

Arkansas SIP submittal, the January 8, 

2013 New Mexico SIP, and the January 

18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP submittal that 

include the Biomass Deferral in the 

Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma 

PSD programs. Our analysis found that 

these revisions to the Arkansas, New 

Mexico, and Oklahoma SIPs should be 

disapproved because adoption or 

implementation of these provisions is 

no longer consistent with federal laws 

and regulations for PSD permitting. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received one comment on our 

proposed action. Our response to the 

submitted comment is provided below. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

‘‘not requiring states to continue step 

two of the permitting for GHG as a major 

source thus requiring a PSD or Title V 

permit is the right decisions based on 

law.’’ Additionally, the commenter 

stated that ‘‘GHG emission issues would 

be better addressed in it’s [sic] own 

statute rather than having the supreme 

court [sic] dictate the regulatory 

framework of GHG emissions.’’ 

Response: We acknowledge the 

support of the commenter in finding 

that our proposed disapproval action is 

consistent with current law. GHG 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES