53284 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In a separate action, we disapproved the portion 

of the SIP submittal pertaining to the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to address the 

interstate transport of air pollution which will 

interfere with other states’ programs for visibility 

protection (81 FR 296, January 5, 2016). We 

proposed to approve the other portions of the 

infrastructure SIP submittal on February 8, 2016 (81 

FR 6483). 

2 In addition, the EPA cited at proposal certain 

technical information the agency had released in 

order to facilitate efforts to address interstate 

transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

and that this information was used to support the 

proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update) (81 FR 

21299, 21292). We noted that such information 

contradicts Texas’ conclusions that its SIP 

contained adequate provisions to meet the CAA 

interstate transport requirements with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. See Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA), 80 FR 46271, (August 4, 2015) and the 

proposed CSAPR Update, 80 FR 75706 (December 

3, 2015). We also noted at proposal that the EPA 

technical information in the NODA and the 

proposed CSAPR Update accounted for the 

emission reductions resulting from controls listed 

in the SIP, implemented within the state, and 

nonetheless showed that Texas will contribute to 

downwind air quality problems. The CSAPR 

Update, however, is outside the scope of this action, 

and is irrelevant to the question of whether the 

Texas SIP should be disapproved. 

the submittal titled ‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

as Applicable to the 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard,’’ dated October 26, 2006, as 

adopted on October 26, 2006 and 

submitted on July 11, 2007. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2016–18900 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0985; FRL–9950–50– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for 

the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is disapproving the 

portion of a Texas State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submittal pertaining to 

interstate transport of air pollution 

which will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

in other states. Disapproval establishes 

a 2-year deadline for the EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) for Texas to address the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) interstate transport 

requirements pertaining to significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in other states, 

unless the EPA approves a SIP that 

meets these requirements. Disapproval 

does not start a mandatory sanctions 

clock for Texas. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0985. 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: Carl 

Young, 214–665–6645, young.carl@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

This rulemaking addresses an 

infrastructure SIP submittal from the 

state of Texas addressing, among other 

things, the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the 

good neighbor provision (or interstate 

transport prongs 1 and 2), with respect 

to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 

background for this action is discussed 

in detail in our April 11, 2016 proposal 

(81 FR 21290). In that action we 

proposed to disapprove the portion of 

the December 13, 2012 Texas SIP 

submittal pertaining to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which requires that the 

State prohibit any emissions activity 

within the state from emitting air 

pollutants which will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment (prong 1) or 

interfere with maintenance (prong 2) of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.1

In proposing to disapprove the SIP 

submittal as to prongs 1 and 2 of the 

good neighbor provision, we noted 

several deficiencies in Texas’ submittal: 

(1) Texas limited its discussion of data 

only to areas designated nonattainment 

in states that are geographically closest 

to Texas (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 

Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin); 

and (2) Texas did not give the ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ clause of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent 

significance because its analysis did not 

attempt to evaluate the potential impact 

of Texas emissions on areas that are 

currently measuring clean data, but that 

may have issues maintaining that air 

quality.2 Finally, the EPA explained that 

Texas and other states could no longer 

rely on the implementation of the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy 

emission reduction obligations with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (81 

FR 21290, 21294–5). The EPA is 

finalizing its proposed disapproval in 

this action. 

We received three comments during 

the comment period on our proposed 

SIP disapproval. The comments were 

submitted by the State of Texas (Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

‘‘TCEQ’’), Luminant (a Texas electricity 

producer) and a member of the public. 

A synopsis of the comments and our 

responses are provided below. 

II. Response to Comments 

Comment: Comments were received 

from a member of the public that was 

supportive of the EPA’s basis for its 

proposed action, but added that (1) the 

public can better understand how we 

are using the most current information 

if we clarify and explain how the 

projections and modeling discussed in 

the evaluation for our proposal are 

informed by recent ozone monitoring 

data, and (2) the commenter stated that 

the EPA took too long to propose action 

on the Texas SIP revision, noting that 

Texas would benefit from earlier review 

of its analysis by the EPA. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter’s conclusion that Texas’s 

SIP submittal was inadequate to address 

the statutory interstate transport 

requirements with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. With respect to the 

commenter’s first concern, the 

projections and modeling released c in 

the August 4, 2015 NODA and the 

proposed CSAPR Update, which we also 

o recited in the EPA’s proposed action 

on the Texas SIP submittal. In our 

CSAPR Update proposal, we explained 

how the CSAPR Update Rule proposed 

to use recent ozone monitoring data to 

inform our evaluation of interstate 

transport (80 FR 75706, 75724). We 

proposed to identify as nonattainment 

receptors those monitoring sites that (1) 

measured ozone concentrations that 

exceed the NAAQS based on monitoring 

data from years 2012–2014, and (2) are 

projected to exceed the NAAQS in 2017 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53285 

3The design value for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is 

the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily 

maximum 8-hour ozone concentration at a 

monitoring site. 

4 ‘‘Nothing in the Act differentiates the Good 

Neighbor Provision from the several other matters 

a State must address in its SIP. Rather, the statute 

speaks without reservation: Once a NAAQS has 

been issued, a State ‘shall’ propose a SIP within 

three years, § 7410(a)(1), and that SIP ‘shall’ 

include, among other components, provisions 

adequate to satisfy the Good Neighbor Provision, 

§ 7410(a)(2).’’ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 134 S. Ct. at 1600. 

based on an average design value.3 We 

proposed to identify maintenance 

receptors as those monitoring sites that 

have measured ozone concentrations 

that meet the NAAQS (clean data) based 

on monitoring data from years 2012– 

2014 and are projected to exceed the 

NAAQS in 2017 based on a maximum 

or average design value. We proposed 

this method of projecting from recent 

monitoring data to 2017 to identify 

maintenance receptors, since the 

monitoring sites of the proposed 

maintenance receptors currently 

meeting the NAAQS could be subject to 

conditions that may allow violations to 

reoccur and therefore may have future 

maintenance concerns. For more 

information about how the EPA 

identified 2017 nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors, please see pages 

75723–75726 in the proposed CSAPR 

Update. (80 FR 75706). Today’s 

rulemaking does not address which 

monitoring sites are identified as 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors with respect to interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Such determination, including more 

recent ozone monitoring data which 

will inform that analysis, will be 

addressed in the EPA’s final CSAPR 

Update and are outside the scope of this 

final action. The EPA’s disapproval is 

based on the inadequacies in the 

analysis provided in Texas’s SIP 

submittal, as described in this document 

and in EPA’s proposed action on that 

SIP. 

With respect to the timeliness of the 

EPA’s action on the Texas SIP submittal, 

CAA section 110(k)(2) requires the EPA 

to act on SIPs within one year after a 

submittal is determined to be complete. 

We determined that the Texas 

infrastructure SIP submittal, which 

includes transport, was complete on 

December 20, 2012. While the EPA 

generally agrees that prompt action on 

state SIP submittals can be beneficial to 

the states’ planning efforts, in this case, 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 908–911 

(D.C. Cir. 2008) provided the holding 

that states must give the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ clause of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent 

significance, which Texas failed to do. 

Comment: The TCEQ stated that it 

does not support the EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of the state’s interstate 

transport portion of its SIP submittal 

because the TCEQ’s interstate transport 

analysis adequately addresses the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Specifically, TCEQ 

stated that the EPA failed to issue 

guidance in a timely manner for states 

to use in developing infrastructure and 

transport SIP revisions for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. TCEQ therefore 

contends that it is inappropriate for the 

EPA to conclude that the state’s analysis 

of ozone contributions to other areas is 

incomplete when the EPA did not 

provide timely guidance stating what 

would constitute a complete analysis. 

TCEQ explained that its SIP revision 

was submitted on December 13, 2012 in 

order to meet the January 4, 2013 

deadline by which the EPA was courtordered to issue findings of failure to 

submit infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. TCEQ notes that the 

EPA did not issue infrastructure SIP 

guidance until September 13, 2013, 

eight months following the January 2013 

deadline, which did not contain any 

information on what would constitute 

an adequate interstate transport 

analysis. TCEQ further notes that the 

EPA did not provide information to 

states regarding interstate transport for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS until 2015, 

through information provided in a 

January 22, 2015 memo, an August 4, 

2015 NODA, and the December 3, 2015 

CSAPR Update proposal, which was 

well after the state’s SIP submittal. 

Therefore, as a result of the EPA’s lack 

of timely transport guidance for the 

2008 ozone standard and subsequent 

NODA regarding 2017 nonattainment 

and maintenance receptor linkages and 

contributions, TCEQ contends that it 

was forced to expend effort and 

resources to develop its SIP revision 

without knowing how the EPA would 

evaluate Texas’ interstate transport 

obligation. Further, the EPA has 

routinely failed to issue timely guidance 

for SIP revisions and to even meet 

statutory SIP review deadlines in the 

CAA. As a result, the EPA has disrupted 

the SIP development process 

nationwide, undermining the states’ 

ability to submit sufficient SIP 

revisions. 

Response: We disagree that Texas’ 

December 13, 2012 SIP submittal 

containing the state’s transport analysis 

adequately addressed the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Rather, 

the state’s analysis was deficient to 

address the statutory requirements, as 

detailed in the proposal and in more 

detail in this document. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that for a new 

or revised standard, each SIP must 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

any emissions activity within the state 

from emitting air pollutants that will 

‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the applicable air 

quality standard in any other state— 

here being the 2008 ozone standard. (81 

FR 21290–1, April 11, 2016). Texas 

submitted an analysis of monitoring 

data, wind patterns, emissions data and 

emissions controls and concluded that 

based on monitoring data, due to 

decreases in ozone design values and 

existing control measures, emissions 

from sources from within the state do 

not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. We find that Texas’ 

analysis was not adequate because 

Texas limited its discussion of data only 

to areas designated nonattainment in 

states that are geographically closest to 

the state and we find this approach 

incomplete, (as detailed in our 

proposal), since the state did not 

consider other areas that were not 

formally designated as nonattainment. 

(81 FR 21292). Moreover, the state did 

not give the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ clause of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent 

significance, consistent with the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 908–911 (D.C. Cir. 

2008), because its analysis did not 

attempt to evaluate the potential impact 

of Texas emissions on areas that are 

currently measuring clean data, but that 

may have issues maintaining that air 

quality. (81 FR 21292). As we noted at 

proposal the EPA’s most recent 

technical information demonstrates that 

emissions from Texas do impact air 

quality in other states relative to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. (81 FR 21292–3). 

With regard to the timelines of EPA 

guidance, in EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., the Supreme Court 

clearly held that ‘‘nothing in the statute 

places the EPA under an obligation to 

provide specific metrics to States before 

they undertake to fulfill their good 

neighbor obligations.’’ 134 S. Ct. 1584, 

1601 (2014).4 While we have taken a 

different approach in some prior 

rulemakings by providing states with an 

opportunity to submit a SIP after we 

quantified the states’ budgets (e.g., the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53286 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

5For information on the NOX SIP call see 63 FR 

57356 (October 27, 1998). For information on CAIR 

(the Clean Air Interstate Rule) see 70 FR 25162 

(May 12, 2005). 

NOXSIP Call and CAIR5), the CAA does 

not require such an approach. Regarding 

the commenter’s contention that the 

EPA’s alleged inability to review SIP 

submittals within the CAA timelines 

undermines the ability of states to 

submit sufficient SIPs, the State’s ability 

to submit a sufficient SIP that meets the 

applicable requirements is unrelated to 

the EPA’s timeline for review. 

Comment: TCEQ and Luminant both 

state that the EPA’s public notice on the 

proposed disapproval is not meaningful 

because they contend that the outcome 

was predetermined when the EPA 

proposed a FIP for Texas in the 

proposed CSAPR Update. They stated 

that at the time of the proposed FIP to 

update CSAPR, the EPA had taken no 

action on the previously submitted SIP 

submittal from Texas addressing 

interstate transport with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The commenters 

contend that the EPA should have 

evaluated the SIP submittal prior to 

proposing a CSAPR Update that 

included Texas. The commenters also 

stated that we had not satisfied the 

prerequisites of CAA section 110(c)(1) 

when we issued the proposed FIP for 

Texas in the proposed CSAPR Update. 

The commenters therefore contend that 

the proposed SIP disapproval is only a 

post hoc rationalization for the 

proposed CSAPR Update, and our 

approach is unlawful and impermissibly 

treads on cooperative federalism 

required under the CAA. Lastly, the 

commenters claim that had we reviewed 

the SIP revision before proposing the 

CSAPR Update for Texas, the state 

would have had the opportunity 

contemplated by the CAA to correct any 

problems with its SIP in a timely 

fashion and avoid the imposition of the 

FIP. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters that the proposed 

disapproval was predetermined when 

the EPA issued the proposed CSAPR 

Update that included a FIP for Texas. 

Our proposal to disapprove the Texas 

SIP provided proper notice and an 

opportunity for public comment, as 

legally required, and provided distinct 

bases for the proposed disapproval. 

Importantly, the proposed disapproval 

of the Texas SIP allowed an opportunity 

for submittal of any information that 

could have changed our proposed views 

concerning (1) the adequacy of the SIP 

submittal, and (2) the effect of Texas 

emissions on ozone levels in downwind 

states as demonstrated in the modeling 

and contribution information the EPA 

relied upon for its proposed 

disapproval. The EPA has not received 

any information demonstrating the 

identified inadequacies of the SIP 

submittal and the data showing the 

effect of Texas emissions in downwind 

states are inaccurate. 

Whether the EPA appropriately 

proposed the CSAPR Update is outside 

the scope of this action, and is irrelevant 

to the question of whether the Texas SIP 

should be disapproved. The bases for 

the disapproval are further explained in 

both the proposal and this final action, 

and do not rely upon the proposed 

CSAPR Update. As described in the 

proposal and earlier in this document, 

whether or not the EPA had proposed 

the CSAPR Update, Texas’ SIP submittal 

failed to include an analysis that 

appropriately evaluated the impact of 

state emissions on areas in other states, 

regardless of current nonattainment 

designations and considering the ability 

of areas currently measuring clean data 

to maintain that standard. These 

deficiencies are completely independent 

of any analysis conducted to support the 

CSAPR Update proposal. 

Moreover, while the CSAPR Update 

proposal also relied upon the same 

modeling and contribution information 

to identify which states might be subject 

to a FIP in the final rulemaking, in the 

absence of an approvable SIP, the 

proposed disapproval of the Texas SIP 

did not rely upon the proposed findings 

in the CSAPR Update but rather cited, 

in addition to other deficiencies 

identified with the Texas SIP, technical 

data that was relevant to and 

informative for both proposals. 

Our actions are consistent with CAA 

section 110(c) prerequisites in 

promulgating a FIP. In our December 3, 

2015 Federal Register notice, we 

proposed to include Texas in the 

CSAPR Update (80 FR 75706). In that 

proposal we recognized that we could 

not promulgate a FIP for any state, 

including Texas, in the final CSAPR 

Update unless we found that the state 

had failed to make an approvable SIP 

submittal (80 FR 75719–20). A proposed 

rulemaking does not constitute a 

promulgation of a rule by the EPA, and 

therefore the proposed CSAPR Update 

does not constitute a ‘‘predetermined 

outcome’’ of EPA’s review of Texas’ SIP 

submittal, as the commenters describe, 

nor a promulgated FIP under CAA 

section 110(c). Were the EPA to finalize 

an approval of Texas’ SIP, the EPA 

would not finalize the proposed 

inclusion of Texas in any final CSAPR 

Update. However, for the reasons 

described earlier, the EPA is finalizing 

its disapproval of Texas’ SIP. However, 

this final action does not promulgate a 

FIP nor make any final determination 

regarding whether and when the EPA 

will promulgate a FIP. The EPA will 

determine whether to issue a FIP in the 

context of the CSAPR Update in the 

rulemaking for that action, and thus any 

concerns regarding the EPA’s authority 

to issue a FIP are appropriately raised 

only in the context of that rulemaking. 

Finally, the EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ claim that had we 

reviewed the SIP revision before 

proposing the CSAPR Update for Texas, 

the state would have had the 

opportunity contemplated by the CAA 

to correct any problems with its SIP in 

a timely fashion in order to avoid the 

imposition of the FIP. Contrary to 

commenters’ assertions, CAA does not 

contemplate that a state have an 

opportunity to correct deficiencies with 

its SIP either before the EPA takes 

action to act on the SIP or before the 

EPA imposes a FIP after disapproval of 

a SIP. CAA section 110(c) provides that 

the EPA ‘‘shall promulgate a [FIP] at any 

time within two years after’’ the EPA 

either finds that a state has failed to 

make a required submittal or 

disapproves a SIP, in whole or in part. 

As the Supreme Court confirmed in EPA 

v. EME Homer City Generation. L.P., 

‘‘EPA is not obliged to wait two years 

or postpone its action even a single day: 

The Act empowers the Agency to 

promulgate a FIP ‘at any time’ within 

the two-year limit.’’ EPA v. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 

1600–01 (2014). The EPA notes, 

however, that states have the ability at 

any time, including before or after the 

imposition of a FIP, to submit an 

approvable SIP, which corrects any 

deficiency. 

Comment: TCEQ commented that we 

inappropriately stated that it should 

have considered possible contributions 

to downwind areas that are not 

designated nonattainment but may 

nonetheless measure exceedances of the 

NAAQS. TCEQ further stated that we 

fail to mention how Texas might have 

accomplished this theoretical exercise 

particularly without EPA guidance on 

how to develop its transport SIP and 

considering the EPA relies on 

nationwide modeling to determine 

potential exceedances in areas that are 

attaining the NAAQS that is not made 

available to states prior to the statutory 

due dates for state transport SIPs. The 

TCEQ concedes that the EPA may now 

consider the CSAPR schema to be 

appropriate guidance for transport 

regulation, but contends that it is still 

not possible for states to effectively 

respond with timely transport SIPs. The 

commenter again notes that the EPA did 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53287 

6See, e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 

25265 (May 12, 2005) (‘‘As to impacts, CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D) refers only to prevention of 

‘nonattainment’ in other States, not to prevention of 

nonattainment in designated nonattainment areas or 

any similar formulation requiring that designations 

for downwind nonattainment areas must first have 

occurred.’’); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 

48208, 48211 (Aug. 8, 2011) (evaluating 

nonattainment and maintenance concerns based on 

modeled projections); Brief for Respondents U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency at 23–24, EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 11– 

1302 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2015), ECF No. 1532516 

(defending the EPA’s identification of air quality 

problems in CSAPR independent of area 

designations). Cf. Final Response to Petition from 

New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the 

Portland Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 

2011) (finding facility in violation of the 

prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance 

of designations for that standard). 

7See, e.g., Air Quality State Implementation 

Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Utah; 

Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS May 20, 2013 (78 FR 29314); Final Rule, 

78 FR 48615 (August 9, 2013); Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 

California; Interstate Transport of Pollution; 

Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and 

Interference With Maintenance Requirements, 

Proposed Rule, 76 FR 146516, 14616–14626 (March 

17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Interstate 

Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121, 27124–27125 

(May 12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR 47862 (August 

10, 2015). 

8See pages 6–7 of the attachment to the October 

1, 2015 EPA memorandum ‘‘Implementing the 2015 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ 

from Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Air and Radiation to Regional 

Administrators, Regions 1–10, https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/

documents/implementation_memo.pdf. 

not explain what type of transport 

analysis would be considered 

satisfactory when the EPA issued SIP 

guidance in 2013. 

Response: Regardless of an air quality 

designation, any area may violate the 

NAAQS if upwind emissions affecting 

air quality are not adequately 

controlled. The EPA has routinely 

interpreted the obligation to prohibit 

emissions that ‘‘significantly contribute 

to nonattainment’’ of the NAAQS in 

downwind states to be independent of 

formal designations because 

exceedances can happen in any area.6

Nothing in the CAA limits States’ 

obligations under the good neighbor 

provision to downwind areas that have 

been formally designated 

nonattainment. To the contrary, CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires States 

to prohibit emissions that ‘‘will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in . . . any other State.’’ 

(emphasis added). The future tense 

demonstrates that Congress intended 

this requirement to be forward-looking 

and apply to areas that will be in 

nonattainment regardless of formal 

designation. An area with air quality 

that is projected to exceed the NAAQS 

would be in nonattainment, and thus 

not meeting public health-based 

standards, regardless of whether it has 

been formally designated as a 

nonattainment area. An upwind state 

cannot be relieved of its obligation to 

address interstate transport of air 

pollution merely because of a lack of 

formal designation. Thus, Texas should 

have considered possible contributions 

to downwind areas that are not 

designated nonattainment but may 

nonetheless measure exceedances of the 

NAAQS in considering whether Texas 

emissions significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in another state. 

With respect to the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirement, the court in 

North Carolina v. EPA, (531 F.3d 896, 

D.C. Cir. 2008), was specifically 

concerned with areas not designated 

nonattainment when it rejected the view 

that ‘‘a state can never ‘interfere with 

maintenance’ unless the EPA 

determines that at one point it 

‘contribute[d] significantly to 

nonattainment.’ ’’ 531 F.3d at 910. The 

court pointed out that areas barely 

attaining the standard due in part to 

emissions from upwind sources would 

have ‘‘no recourse’’ pursuant to such an 

interpretation. Id. Accordingly, and as 

described in the proposal, the court 

explained that the regulatory authority 

must give ‘‘independent significance’’ to 

the maintenance prong of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by separately 

identifying such downwind areas for 

purposes of defining states’ obligations 

pursuant to the good neighbor 

provision. Thus, Texas should have 

considered the potential impact of its 

emissions on areas that are currently 

measuring clean data, but may have 

issues maintaining that air quality. 

Although the TCEQ questions how it 

could have completed such an analysis 

without explicit guidance from the EPA 

and before the EPA had conducted air 

quality modeling evaluating downwind 

air quality and contributions, as 

explained earlier, states bear the 

primary responsibility for 

demonstrating that their plans contain 

adequate provisions to address the 

statutory interstate transport provisions 

and the EPA is not required to issue 

guidance. In separate interstate 

transport actions, the EPA has reviewed 

and finalized action on interstate 

transport SIPs in states where air quality 

modeling was not available or where the 

total weight of evidence for finalizing 

action on the state’s SIP was not solely 

based on air quality modeling, 

according to these standards.7 As 

evidenced by these actions, 

consideration of monitoring data is one 

valid way to evaluate potential 

interstate transport impacts, but it does 

not absolve a state from evaluating its 

downwind impact regardless of formal 

area designations and considering the 

requirements of both prongs of the good 

neighbor provision. As we noted above 

and as found by the Supreme Court in 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P., the 

lack of guidance does not relieve either 

the states of the obligation to submit 

SIPs that address CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) nor the EPA of the 

obligation to review such SIPs 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements of the good neighbor 

provision. For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 

we plan to provide information 

pertaining to interstate transport of air 

pollution later this year.8 Interstate 

transport SIPs for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS are due October 26, 2018. We 

plan to continue our ongoing dialogue 

with states to assist in developing an 

appropriate transport SIP. 

Comment: TCEQ and Luminant both 

state that in our CSAPR Update 

proposal the EPA did not give 

independent effect to both the 

‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ and the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirements as 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors are treated exactly the same 

way as far as linkages to states are 

defined and emission budgets are set. 

Luminant also claims that the EPA 

would be in violation of the Supreme 

Court in EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. if we impose the same ‘‘costeffective controls’’ to address both 

interference with maintenance and 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment. 

Further, the comments state that 

because some states are linked to 

receptors in marginal nonattainment 

areas, the EPA is requiring emissions 

reductions from upwind states, 

including Texas, to assist states that do 

not have make emission reductions or 

institute control strategies of their own. 

Further, the comments claim that we 

have failed to identify any balance 

between local controls in areas with 

potential maintenance problems and 

reductions that it is requiring of states 

upwind that it models as contributing at 

least 1% of the relevant NAAQS to these 

areas with modeled, not monitored, 

issues. 

The commenters also disagree with 

the EPA’s finding that the Texas SIP 

submittal did not give independent 

significance to the CAA ‘‘interfere with 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53288 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

maintenance’’ requirement and contend 

that we have misconstrued that 

requirement by stating that TCEQ did 

not evaluate areas currently measuring 

clean data. Luminant contends that 

Texas’ SIP does give independent 

significance to the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ clause. TCEQ claims that 

the EPA has not promulgated a rule that 

identifies a required or recommended 

methodology for the EPA or states to 

give independent consideration to 

possible contributions that may interfere 

with maintenance in downwind areas, 

and contend that it is arbitrary and 

capricious for the EPA to propose 

disapproval for failure to meet a 

standard or requirement that did not 

exist at the time the statutory obligation 

matured. 

Response: As described in the 

proposal, the EPA proposed disapproval 

in part because the Texas SIP submittal 

did not address the potential impact of 

Texas emissions on maintenance areas. 

Reiterating our position explained in the 

proposal, the D.C. Circuit in North 

Carolina explained that the regulatory 

authority must give ‘‘independent 

significance’’ to the maintenance prong 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by 

evaluating the impact of upwind state 

emissions on downwind areas that, 

while currently in attainment, are at risk 

of future nonattainment, considering 

historic variability. North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 908–911 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). While one commenter contends 

that Texas evaluated the interference 

with maintenance prong and concluded 

monitoring data do not suggest that 

emissions from Texas contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS for areas in any other 

state, nothing in Texas’ SIP submittal 

indicates that it performed any analysis 

to support its conclusion as the State 

limited its discussion of data only to 

certain areas designated nonattainment 

and did not consider whether those or 

any other areas might have trouble 

maintaining the standard even if they 

measured clean data. Thus, contrary to 

the commenter’s assertion, Texas did 

not give independent meaning to the 

interference with maintenance prong by 

evaluating the impact of upwind state 

emissions on downwind areas that, 

while currently in attainment, are at risk 

of future nonattainment, as required by 

the statute and as clarified by the D.C. 

Circuit in North Carolina. 

The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that this standard 

or requirement did not exist at the time 

the statutory obligation to submit a 

transport SIP matured. At the time 

Texas was obligated to submit a SIP 

addressing interstate transport 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

clearly required states to submit a plan 

containing adequate provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will interfere with maintenance 

by any other state with respect to a 

particular NAAQS. This requirement 

has not changed since Texas’ obligation 

to submit a transport SIP matured, and 

contrary to commenter’s assertion, the 

EPA is not obligated to identify a 

required or recommended methodology 

for giving independent consideration to 

possible contributions that may interfere 

with maintenance in downwind areas 

prior to proposing action on a SIP 

addressing such statutory requirement. 

Nonetheless, the State’s SIP made no 

attempt to evaluate the maintenance 

prong with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS aside from its conclusory 

assertion that the requirements were 

satisfied. 

To the extent the commenter has 

raised concerns with respect to the 

EPA’s interpretation and application of 

the CAA, including the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ clause, in the context of 

the CSAPR Update rulemaking, such 

comments are appropriately raised and 

addressed in that rulemaking. The EPA 

is not finalizing in this rule any 

determinations regarding the 

identification of specific downwind 

maintenance receptors, the magnitude 

of Texas’ contribution to those 

receptors, and the quantity of any 

emission reductions that might be 

necessary. Such determinations will be 

made in the context of the CSAPR 

Update rulemaking. To the extent that 

Luminant refers to the EPA’s approach 

as not compliant with the Supreme 

Court’s EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. decision, this comment relates to 

the CSPAR Update rulemaking and not 

our action today. Thus, it is outside the 

scope of this action and would be more 

appropriately addressed in that separate 

rulemaking. 

Comment: TCEQ claims that the EPA 

has not demonstrated that a 

contribution by upwind states of 1% of 

the NAAQS will interfere with 

maintenance in identified maintenance 

areas. Further the TCEQ contends that 

the EPA has not demonstrated that a 1% 

of the NAAQS contribution to modeled 

emissions in maintenance areas is 

appropriate for linking an upwind state 

to a maintenance monitor. Further, they 

contend that EPA has not demonstrated 

that the amount of reductions necessary 

to cure a contribution to nonattainment 

is also appropriate to ensure that an 

upwind state is not interfering with 

maintenance. Lastly, TCEQ states that 

the 1% contribution threshold is 

arbitrary. 

Response: The EPA explained in the 

CSPAR Update proposal its reasoning 

for why we believe it appropriate to use 

the same approach used in CSAPR to 

establish a 1% air screening threshold 

for the evaluation of interstate transport 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, including the interference with 

maintenance requirement. 81 FR 21292– 

94. The commenter does not explain its 

allegations that the 1% threshold is 

arbitrary nor does the commenter 

explain how the EPA has not 

demonstrated this threshold is 

appropriate to show interference by 

upwind states with maintenance in 

identified maintenance areas. 

Nonetheless, while the EPA cited the 

modeling conducted for the CSAPR 

Update as showing Texas may 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in downwind states, we did not propose 

to make a specific finding of 

contribution or to quantify any specific 

emissions reduction obligation. We did 

not rely upon a 1% contribution 

threshold for this action. Rather, the 

evaluation of whether emissions from 

Texas significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

downwind, relying upon the use of a 

1% contribution threshold, and if so 

what reductions are necessary to 

address that contribution, is being 

conducted in the context of the CSAPR 

Update rulemaking. Accordingly, this 

comment relates to the CSPAR Update 

rulemaking and not our action today. 

Thus, it is outside the scope of this 

action and would be more appropriately 

addressed in that separate rulemaking. 

The EPA will consider timely-submitted 

comments regarding the EPA’s air 

quality modeling and various associated 

legal and policy decisions in finalizing 

that rulemaking. 

Comment: TCEQ stated that it 

supports the use of ambient air quality 

monitoring data as the only valid basis 

for making nonattainment designations 

and identifying nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors and that it does 

not support the use of modeling as the 

basis for designations or identifying 

either nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors for transport. TCEQ contends 

that using modeling for these actions 

could result in major capital 

expenditures for industry to fix 

something that may not be a real 

problem, and claims that to base these 

actions on modeling is inconsistent with 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53289 

9See CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), CAIR 

(70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and the NOX SIP call 

(63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998). 10https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/

collection/cp2/20090925_harnett_section_110(a)_

sip_2006_24-hr_pm2.5_naaqs.pdf. 

historical and present EPA policies. 

TCEQ also notes that the EPA does not 

redesignate an area to attainment when 

an area models attainment as part of an 

attainment demonstration, but rather 

uses monitoring data to verify 

attainment before redesignation. 

Response: While the EPA does rely on 

ambient air quality monitoring data to 

make decisions on ozone nonattainment 

designations and redesignations, the 

EPA has routinely based its 

determination of receptors for purposes 

of evaluating interstate ozone transport 

on air quality modeling projections.9

This is because, regardless of 

designation, any area may violate the 

NAAQS if upwind emissions affecting 

air quality are not adequately 

controlled, and areas currently 

measuring clean data may still violate 

the NAAQS if conditions change such 

that attainment with the NAAQS can no 

longer be maintained. Thus, the means 

by which the EPA makes decisions with 

respect to area designations is not 

relevant to our identification of 

receptors that should be evaluated for 

interstate transport of air pollution. In 

North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

concluded that the EPA’s reliance on 

future projections to identify such 

receptors was a reasonable application 

of the statute. North Carolina, 531 F.3d 

at 914. Nonetheless, while the EPA has 

relied upon modeling to identify 

downwind air quality problems, the 

EPA has also stated that states may 

consider other types of data when 

evaluating interstate transport in 

developing their SIPs. See 

Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

to Regional Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under [CAA] 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 

24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’, September 25, 2009.10

Indeed, as described earlier, the EPA 

has regularly evaluated interstate 

transport SIPs in western states, where 

modeling has not typically been 

available, considering monitored data in 

a manner that is consistent with the 

standards described in this document. 

Comment: TCEQ stated that we failed 

to give comments on the adequacy of 

the State’s interstate transport analysis 

during the State public comment period 

and that the lack of comments led the 

State to believe that the submitted 

analysis was adequate to show how 

Texas contributes to other states’ ozone 

concentrations. 

Response: The EPA’s authority and 

obligation under the Act is to review a 

SIP submittal and determine whether it 

meets the applicable requirements of the 

Act and regulations, regardless of 

whether we commented on a State’s 

proposed SIP during its State 

rulemaking process. There is no 

requirement in the Act that the EPA 

must review, evaluate, and comment on 

a State’s proposed SIP revision during 

the state rulemaking process, and no 

reasonable or legal basis for states to 

assume that the EPA’s choosing to not 

provide comment on their analysis 

during the state public comment period 

constitutes the Agency’s endorsement of 

such analysis. 

Comment: Luminant stated that the 

EPA needs to revise the CSAPR ozone 

season NOX budgets in accordance with 

the D.C. Circuit’s remand in EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P. before the EPA can 

evaluate Texas’ SIP submittal. See EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v EPA, 795 

F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Luminant 

stated that, by failing to issue new 

budgets for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, we 

are in violation of the D.C. Circuit’s 

specific remand instructions. The 

commenter contends that the EPA 

cannot rationally evaluate Texas’ SIP 

submittal until we comply with the 

court’s remand. The commenter 

specifically contends that the EPA must 

replace the CSAPR budgets with lawful 

budgets that do not require more control 

than necessary to comply with the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, and that otherwise, the 

EPA has no basis to disapprove the 

Texas SIP submittal. By failing to 

establish lawful budgets, the commenter 

claims that the EPA does not have the 

information necessary to evaluate 

additional reductions associated with 

Texas’ plan to comply with the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

Response: The EPA has an 

independent statutory obligation to 

evaluate Texas’ SIP submittal 

addressing the good neighbor provision 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The fact that the EPA has not yet 

completed its response to the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand to address interstate 

transport with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS does not preclude either the 

state from addressing its own statutory 

obligation with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS pursuant to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or the EPA from 

fulfilling its statutory obligation to 

review the SIP submittal pursuant to 

CAA section 110(k). As noted earlier, 

the EPA has identified several 

deficiencies with the interstate transport 

analysis in the Texas SIP submittal that 

are unrelated to the CSAPR rulemakings 

either with respect to the 1997 or 2008 

ozone standards. 

The EPA has proposed its intended 

response to address the D.C. Circuit’s 

remand of the CSAPR ozone season 

NOX budgets in the context of the 

CSAPR Update, which is expected to be 

finalized later this year. The commenter 

does not explain how the EPA’s 

finalization of this action with respect to 

the 1997 ozone standard would aid in 

the state’s evaluation of transport with 

respect to the 2008 ozone standard. 

Nonetheless, should the commenter 

have any concerns about the EPA’s 

approach to addressing the court’s 

remand, the appropriate venue for the 

EPA’s evaluation of those concerns is in 

the context of the CSAPR Update 

rulemaking. Any concerns are outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment: Luminant stated that we 

must reopen the comment period for the 

CSAPR Update rulemaking. Luminant 

contends that comments previously 

submitted on the CSAPR Update 

proposal have limited utility because 

the EPA’s rationale for disapproving 

Texas’ SIP submittal was not known at 

the time those comments were 

submitted for that proposal. 

Response: As noted earlier, the EPA 

has identified several deficiencies with 

the interstate transport analysis in the 

Texas SIP submittal that are unrelated to 

the CSAPR Update rulemaking. 

Moreover, any request to reopen the 

public comment period on the CSAPR 

Update is not appropriately raised in 

this rulemaking. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons described in the 

proposal and in this final action, the 

EPA is disapproving a portion of the 

December 13, 2012 SIP submittal from 

Texas seeking to address the required 

infrastructure element under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

the State’s significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states, known as prongs 1 and 

2 of the good neighbor provision. 

In a separate action, we disapproved 

the portion of the SIP submittal 

pertaining to the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to address 

the interstate transport of air pollution 

which will interfere with other states’ 

programs for visibility protection (81 FR 

296, January 5, 2016). We proposed to 

approve the other portions of the 

infrastructure SIP submittal on February 

8, 2016 (81 FR 6483). We expect to take 

final action on the other portions of the 

Texas infrastructure SIP at a later date. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53290 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), 

this disapproval establishes a 2-year 

deadline for the EPA to promulgate a 

FIP for Texas to address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS unless Texas submits 

and we approve a SIP that meets these 

requirements. Disapproval does not start 

a mandatory sanctions clock for Texas 

pursuant to CAA section 179 because 

this action does not pertain to a part D 

plan for nonattainment areas required 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP 

call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This final action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This final action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because it does not contain any 

information collection activities. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action merely 

disapproves a SIP submittal as not 

meeting certain CAA requirements. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action does not apply 

on any Indian reservation land, any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of 

Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it merely disapproves a SIP 

submittal as not meeting certain CAA 

requirements. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action merely 

disapproves a SIP submittal as not 

meeting certain CAA requirements. 

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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 11, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone. 

Dated: August 1, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

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 SS—Texas 

■ 2. Section 52.2275 is amended by 

adding paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2275 Control strategy and 

regulations: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(l) The portion of the SIP submitted 

on December 13, 2012 addressing Clean 

Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS is disapproved. 

[FR Doc. 2016–19151 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0397; FRL–9950–58– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Stationary Source Permitting 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving, and 

incorporating by reference, revisions to 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES