Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 39961 

safety zone will be enforced from 10 

p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2015. 

(15) Tawas City 4th of July Fireworks, 

Tawas City, MI. The safety zone listed 

in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(47), all U.S. waters 

of Lake Huron, within a 300 yard radius 

of position 44°16′ N, 083°30′ W, 2000 

feet west of the State Dock in East 

Tawas, will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 

11 p.m. on July 4, 2015. In the case of 

inclement weather on July 4 2015, this 

safety zone will be enforced from 10 

p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2015. 

(16) Marine City Maritime Festival 

Fireworks, Marine City, MI. The safety 

zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(13), all 

waters of the St. Clair River within a 500 

foot radius of the fireworks launch site 

located at position 42°43.15 N, 082°29.2 

W, approximately 500 feet offshore from 

the intersection of Pearl St. and N. 

Water St, will be enforced from 10 p.m. 

to 10:30 p.m. on July 31, 2015. In the 

case of inclement weather on July 31, 

2015, this safety zone will be enforced 

from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on August 

1, 2015. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.23, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within these safety zones 

during the enforcement period is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Detroit or his 

designated representative. Vessels that 

wish to transit through the safety zones 

may request permission from the 

Captain of the Port Detroit or his 

designated representative. Requests 

must be made in advance and approved 

by the Captain of Port before transits 

will be authorized. Approvals will be 

granted on a case by case basis. The 

Captain of the Port may be contacted via 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on 

channel 16, VHF–FM. The Coast Guard 

will give notice to the public via Local 

Notice to Mariners and VHF radio 

broadcasts that the regulation is being 

enforced. 

This document is issued under 

authority of 33 CFR 165.941 and 5 

U.S.C. 552 (a). If the Captain of the Port 

determines that any of these safety 

zones need not be enforced for the full 

duration stated in this document, he 

may suspend such enforcement and 

notify the public of the suspension via 

a Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 

Dated: June 29, 2015. 

Scott B. Lemasters, 

Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Detroit. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17126 Filed 7–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–0530] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring 

Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan Zone-Sturgeon Bay 

Yacht Club Evening on the Bay 

Fireworks 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the safety zone on the waters of 

Sturgeon Bay in Sturgeon Bay, WI for 

the Evening on the Bay Fireworks. This 

zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. 

until 10:30 p.m. on August 8, 2015. This 

action is necessary and intended to 

ensure safety of life on navigable waters 

immediately prior to, during, and 

immediately after the fireworks display. 

During the aforementioned period, the 

Coast Guard will enforce restrictions 

upon, and control movement of, vessels 

in the safety zone. No person or vessel 

may enter the safety zone while it is 

being enforced without permission of 

the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan 

or a designated representative. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

165.929 will be enforced for safety zone 

(f)(5), Table 165.929, from 8:30 p.m. 

until 10:30 p.m. on August 8, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this document, 

call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, 

Prevention Department, Coast Guard 

Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at 

(414) 747–7148, email 

joseph.p.mccollum@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Coast Guard will enforce the 

Sturgeon Bay Yacht Club Evening on the 

Bay Fireworks safety zone listed as item 

(f)(5) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 

165.929. Section 165.929 lists many 

annual events requiring safety zones in 

the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan 

zone. This safety zone will encompass 

all waters of Sturgeon Bay within the 

arc of a circle with a 280-foot radius 

from the fireworks launch site located 

on a barge in approximate position 

44°49.310′ N., 087°21.370′ W. (NAD 83). 

This zone will be enforced from 8:30 

p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August 8, 2015. 

All vessels must obtain permission 

from the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan or the on-scene representative 

to enter, move within, or exit the safety 

zone. Requests must be made in 

advance and approved by the Captain of 

the Port before transits will be 

authorized. Approvals will be granted 

on a case by case basis. Vessels and 

persons granted permission to enter the 

safety zone must obey all lawful orders 

or directions of the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan or a designated 

representative. 

This document is issued under 

authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety 

Zones; Annual events requiring safety 

zones in the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In 

addition to this publication in the 

Federal Register, the Coast Guard will 

provide the maritime community with 

advance notification for the enforcement 

of this zone via Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. 

The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan 

or an on-scene representative may be 

contacted via Channel 16, VHF–FM. 

Dated: June 16, 2015. 

A.B. Cocanour, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17125 Filed 7–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0943, FRL–9930–25– 

OAR] 

Findings of Failure To Submit a 

Section 110 State Implementation Plan 

for Interstate Transport for the 2008 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action 

finding that 24 states have failed to 

submit infrastructure State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) to satisfy 

certain interstate transport requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect 

to the 2008 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

Specifically, these requirements pertain 

to significant contribution to 

nonattainment, or interference with 

maintenance, of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in other states. These findings 

of failure to submit establish a 2-year 

deadline for the EPA to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address the interstate transport SIP 

requirements pertaining to significant 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39962 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance unless, 

prior to the EPA promulgating a FIP, the 

state submits, and the EPA approves, a 

SIP that meets these requirements. 

DATES: Effective date of this action is 

August 12, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General questions concerning this 

document should be addressed to Mrs. 

Gobeail McKinley, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Policy Division, Mail Code C539–04, 

109 TW Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone 

(919) 541–5246; email: 

mckinley.gobeail@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Notice and Comment Under the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 

Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an 

agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. The 

EPA has determined that there is good 

cause for making this rule final without 

prior proposal and opportunity for 

comment because no significant EPA 

judgment is involved in making a 

finding of failure to submit SIPs, or 

elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, 

where states have made no submissions 

or incomplete submissions, to meet the 

requirement. Thus, notice and public 

procedure are unnecessary. The EPA 

finds that this constitutes good cause 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The EPA has established a docket for 

this action under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2012–0943. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through https://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, 

William Jefferson Clinton West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

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

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744 and 

the telephone number for the Office of 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center is (202) 566–1742. 

C. How is the preamble organized? 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Notice and Comment Under the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

C. How is the preamble organized? 

D. Where do I go if I have specific state 

questions? 

II. Background and Overview 

A. Interstate Transport SIPs 

B. Background on 2008 Ozone NAAQS and 

Related Rulemakings 

C. Mandatory Duty Suit for the EPA’s 

Failure to Make Findings of Failure to 

Submit for States that Did Not Submit 

SIPs 

D. Further Background Specific to North 

Carolina SIP Status 

III. Findings of Failure to Submit for States 

That Failed to Make a Good Neighbor 

SIP Submission for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS 

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low Income Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 

D. Where do I go if I have specific state 

questions? 

The table below lists the states that 

failed to make an interstate transport 

SIP submittal addressing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. For questions 

related to specific states mentioned in 

this document, please contact the 

appropriate EPA Regional Office: 

Regional offices States 

EPA Region 1: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit 

(OEP05–02), EPA Region I, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109–3912. (617) 918–1047.

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont 

EPA Region 3: Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air 

Program Planning (3AP30), Air Protection Division, EPA Region III, 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2187. (215) 814–2178.

Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia 

EPA Region 4: R. Scott Davis, Chief, Air Planning & Implementation 

Branch, EPA Region IV, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 

Forsyth Street SW, 12th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303. (404) 562–9127.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee 

EPA Region 5: John Mooney, Air Program Branch Manager, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 

60604–3590. (312) 886–6043.

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota 

EPA Region 6: Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202–2733. (214) 665– 

7242.

Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma 

EPA Region 7: Joshua A. Tapp, Branch Chief, Air Planning and Development Branch, EPA Region VII, 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 

66219. (913) 551–7606.

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri 

EPA Region 9: Matt Lakin, Air Program Manager, Air Planning Office, 

EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

(415) 972–3851.

California 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 39963 

1See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008) (National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final 

Rule). 

2The EPA’s Fact Sheet, EPA to reconsider Ozone 

Pollution Standards, is available at http://

www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/O3l

ReconsiderationlFACT%20SHEETl091609.pdf. 

3See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (Rule To 

Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to the Acid Rain Program; Revisions to 

the NOX SIP Call, Final Rule). 

4See Policy Assessment for the Review of the 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

August 2014, pages 1–9. The Policy assessment is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/

standards/ozone/data/20140829pa.pdf. 

5 Id. 

6EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

7See, e.g., Memorandum from the Office of Air 

and Radiation former Assistant Administrator Gina 

McCarthy to the EPA Regions, ‘‘Next Steps for 

Pending Redesignation Requests and State 

Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the 

Recent Court Decision Vacating the 2011 CrossState Air Pollution Rule,’’ November 19, 2012; 78 

FR 65559 (November 1, 2013) (final action on 

Florida infrastructure SIP submission for 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS); and 78 FR 14450 (March 6, 

2013) (final action on Tennessee infrastructure SIP 

submissions for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS). 

II. Background and Overview 

A. Interstate Transport SIPs 

The CAA section 110(a) imposes an 

obligation upon states to submit SIPs 

that provide for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of a new 

or revised NAAQS within 3 years 

following the promulgation of that 

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific 

requirements that states must meet in 

these SIP submissions, as applicable. 

The EPA refers to this type of SIP 

submission as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

because it ensures that states can 

implement, maintain and enforce the air 

standards. Within these requirements, 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains 

requirements to address interstate 

transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP 

revision submitted for this sub-section 

is referred to as an ‘‘interstate transport 

SIP.’’ In turn, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requires that such a plan contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions from the state that will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other state (‘‘prong 1’’) or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state (‘‘prong 2’’). Interstate transport 

prongs 1 and 2, also called the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions, are the 

requirements relevant to this findings 

document. 

Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), 

the EPA must determine no later than 6 

months after the date by which a state 

is required to submit a SIP whether a 

state has made a submission that meets 

the minimum completeness criteria 

established per section 110(k)(1)(A). The 

EPA refers to the determination that a 

state has not submitted a SIP 

submission that meets the minimum 

completeness criteria as a ‘‘finding of 

failure to submit.’’ If the EPA finds a 

state has failed to submit a SIP to meet 

its statutory obligation to address 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), pursuant to section 

110(c)(1) the EPA has not only the 

authority, but the obligation, to 

promulgate a FIP within 2 years to 

address the CAA requirement. This 

finding therefore starts a 2-year clock for 

promulgation by the EPA of a FIP, in 

accordance with CAA section 110(c)(1), 

unless prior to such promulgation the 

state submits, and the EPA approves, a 

submittal from the state to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The EPA will work with 

states subject to these findings of failure 

to submit and provide assistance as 

necessary to help them develop 

approvable submittals in a timely 

manner. The EPA notes this action does 

not start a mandatory sanctions clock 

pursuant to CAA section 179 because 

this finding of failure to submit 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). 

B. Background on 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

and Related Rulemakings 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA 

strengthened the NAAQS for ozone.1

The EPA revised the previous 8-hour 

primary ozone standard of 0.08 parts per 

millions (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. The EPA 

also revised the secondary 8-hour 

standard to the level of 0.075 ppm 

making it identical to the revised 

primary standard. Infrastructure SIPs 

addressing the revised standard were 

due March 12, 2011. In September 2009, 

the EPA announced it would reconsider 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.2 To 

reduce the workload for states during 

the interim period of reconsideration, 

the EPA also announced its intention to 

propose staying implementation of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS for a number of the 

requirements. Then, on January 6, 2010, 

as part of its voluntary rulemaking on 

reconsideration, the EPA proposed to 

revise the 2008 NAAQS for ozone from 

75 ppb to a level within the range of 60 

to 70 ppb. See 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 

2010). The EPA indicated its intent to 

issue final standards, based upon the 

reconsideration, by summer 2011. 

On July 6, 2011, the EPA finalized the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

76 FR 48208, in response to the remand 

by the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC 

Circuit) of the EPA’s earlier rule, the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).3 See 

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

(D.C. Cir. 2008), modified by 550 F.3d 

1176 (remanding CAIR). CSAPR 

addresses ozone transport with respect 

to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but does not 

address the 2008 ozone standard, 

because the 2008 ozone NAAQS was 

under reconsideration by the EPA 

during the analytical work for CSAPR. 

On September 2, 2011, consistent 

with the direction of the President, the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

the Office of Management and Budget 

returned the draft final 2008 ozone 

NAAQS rule to the EPA for further 

consideration.4 In view of this direction 

and the timing of the EPA’s ongoing 

periodic review of the ozone NAAQS 

required under CAA section 109 (as 

announced on September 29, 2008), the 

EPA decided to coordinate further 

proceedings on its voluntary rulemaking 

on reconsideration of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS with that ongoing periodic 

review, by deferring the completion of 

its voluntary rulemaking on 

reconsideration until it completed its 

statutorily-required periodic review.5

During this time period for renewed 

implementation of the 2008 ozone 

standard, however, a number of legal 

developments pertaining to the EPA’s 

promulgation of CSAPR created 

uncertainty over the EPA’s statutory 

interpretation and implementation of 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ requirement as to 

that standard. 

On August 21, 2012, the DC Circuit 

issued a decision in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA addressing 

several legal challenges to CSAPR and 

holding, among other things, that states 

had no obligation to submit good 

neighbor SIPs until the EPA had first 

quantified each state’s good neighbor 

obligation.6 Accordingly, under that 

decision the submission deadline for 

good neighbor SIPs under the CAA 

would not necessarily be tied to the 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. While the EPA disagreed with 

this interpretation of the statute and 

sought review first with the DC Circuit 

en banc and then with the United States 

Supreme Court, the EPA complied with 

the DC Circuit’s ruling during the 

pendency of its appeal. In particular, the 

EPA indicated that consistent with the 

DC Circuit’s opinion, it would not at 

that time issue findings that states had 

failed to submit SIPs addressing the 

good neighbor requirements in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).7 Moreover, 

when the EPA made findings that states 

had failed to submit infrastructure SIPs 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39964 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

8EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 

11–1302 (D.C. Cir. January 24, 2013), ECF No. 

1417012 (denying the EPA’s motion for rehearing 

en banc). 

9EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. 

Ct. 2857 (2013) (granting the EPA’s and other 

parties’ petitions for certiorari). 

10 Maryland v. EPA, Case No. 13–1070 (D.C. Cir., 

filed March 15, 2013). 

11Complaint, Sierra Club vs. McCarthy, Case 

4:14–cv–3198–JSW (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2014). The 

complaint also included a separate claim regarding 

the EPA’s alleged failure to take final action to 

approve or disapprove infrastructure SIPs as to a 

number of states. 

12Complaint, Sierra Club vs. McCarthy, Case 

4:14–cv–05091–YGR (N.D. Cal. November. 18, 

2014). 

13See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 

4:14–cv–05091–YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015). 

14Complaint, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 4:14– 

cv–03198–JSW, (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2014). 

addressing the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 

EPA explained that it was not issuing 

findings as to the good neighbor 

requirements in accordance with the 

court’s holding in EME Homer City 

Generation. 78 FR 2882, 2884 (January 

15, 2013) (Findings of Failure To 

Submit a Complete State 

Implementation Plan for Section 110(a) 

Pertaining to the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard). 

While the DC Circuit declined to 

consider the EPA’s appeal en banc,8 on 

January 23, 2013, the Supreme Court 

granted the EPA’s petition for 

certiorari.9 During 2013 and early 2014, 

as the EPA awaited a decision from the 

Supreme Court, the EPA initiated efforts 

and technical analyses aimed at 

identifying and quantifying state good 

neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. As part of this effort, the EPA 

solicited stakeholder input and also 

provided states with, and requested 

input on, emissions inventories for 2011 

and emissions inventory projections for 

2018. 

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court 

issued a decision reversing the DC 

Circuit’s EME Homer City opinion on 

CSAPR and held, among other things, 

that under the plain language of the 

CAA, states must submit SIPs 

addressing the good neighbor 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) within 3 years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA 

first provides guidance, technical data 

or rulemaking to quantify the state’s 

obligation. Thus, the Supreme Court 

affirmed that states have an obligation 

in the first instance to address the good 

neighbor provision after promulgation 

of a new or revised NAAQS, a holding 

that also applies to states’ obligation to 

address interstate transport for CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

C. Mandatory Duty Suit for the EPA’s 

Failure to Make Findings of Failure To 

Submit for States That Did Not Submit 

SIPs 

On March 15, 2013, several states and 

the District of Columbia filed a 

complaint challenging the EPA’s 

assertion in the January 15, 2013 

findings of failure to submit for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIPs that it 

did not have the authority to issue 

findings as to the good neighbor 

provision.10 After the Supreme Court 

issued its decision reversing the DC 

Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR, the EPA 

requested partial vacatur and remand of 

the January 15, 2013 portion of the 

findings that pertained to the good 

neighbor provision. On August 1, 2014, 

the court granted the EPA’s request, 

vacating the EPA’s decision not to make 

findings of failure to submit with 

respect to the good neighbor provision 

and remanding the findings to the EPA 

for further consideration. 

Shortly thereafter, Sierra Club and 

WildEarth Guardians filed two separate 

cases alleging that the EPA had not 

fulfilled its mandatory duty to make 

findings of failure to submit good 

neighbor SIPs addressing interstate 

transport in CAA section 

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

2008 ozone NAAQS. In the first case, 

Sierra Club filed a complaint in the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District 

of California (Northern District of 

California) on July 15, 2014, seeking an 

order to compel the EPA to make 

findings of failure to submit with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS good 

neighbor SIP for the state of 

Tennessee.11 On November 18, 2014, 

Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians 

filed another complaint in the same 

court seeking an order to compel the 

EPA to make findings of failure to 

submit with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS good neighbor SIPs for the 

following states: Arkansas, California, 

Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, 

Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New 

Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, Virginia, Washington and 

West Virginia.12 On January 15, 2015, 

the plaintiffs amended their complaint 

in the second case to add Alabama, 

Florida, North Carolina and Mississippi. 

On May 15, 2015, the court entered 

judgment ordering the EPA to, by June 

30, 2015, sign a notice issuing its 

findings of failure to submit with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

interstate transport SIPs for the 26 states 

addressed in both cases.13

The EPA recognizes the practical and 

legal uncertainty that has surrounded 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the proper 

interpretation of the good neighbor 

provision. States were given the 

impression that if the NAAQS were 

revised as a result of the 

reconsideration, the 3-year SIP deadline 

would reset. The EPA also recognizes 

that this uncertainty may have 

influenced states’ efforts to develop SIPs 

to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Given that the NAAQS have 

not been revised and the United States 

Supreme Court overturned the DC 

Circuit opinion on CSAPR, March 12, 

2011, remains the legally applicable 

deadline for good neighbor SIPs for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

In response to the orders from the DC 

Circuit and the Northern District of 

California, the EPA is taking this action 

for all states that have failed to submit 

complete SIPs addressing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. To date, 26 states, the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico have 

submitted complete SIPs addressing 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Three states 

specifically identified in the Northern 

District of California’s order have made 

complete submissions as of the date of 

this document. Therefore, the EPA is 

issuing national findings of failure to 

submit good neighbor SIPs addressing 

the requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, addressing all states that have 

not made complete submissions as to 

the date of this document. 

D. Further Background Specific to North 

Carolina SIP Status 

On November 12, 2012, the state of 

North Carolina submitted a SIP revision 

to the EPA addressing, among other 

things, the good neighbor provision of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The submission 

was determined to be complete by a 

letter dated November 15, 2012. On July 

15, 2014, Sierra Club filed a complaint 

in the Northern District of California 

alleging that the EPA had failed to take 

final action on the North Carolina SIP 

submission, including the interstate 

transport provisions, by the statutory 

deadline and asked the court to order 

the EPA to take such final action by a 

date certain.14 Subsequently, on 

September 3, 2014, the state of North 

Carolina submitted a letter withdrawing 

the good neighbor provision of the 

November 12, 2012, infrastructure SIP 

submission addressing CAA section 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 39965 

15See, Letter from Sheila Holman, Director, 

Division of Air Quality, NCDENR, to Heather 

McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, USEPA 

Region 4, ‘‘Withdrawal of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

from North Carolina’s 2008 Ozone Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan Submittal’’ (September 

3, 2014). 

16First Amended Complaint, Sierra Club v. 

McCarthy, Case 4:14–cv–03198–JSW, (N.D. Cal. 

December 12, 2014). 

17See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 

4:14–cv–03198–JSW, (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015). 

18See Amended Complaint, Sierra Club v. 

McCarthy, Case No. 4:14–cv–05091 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 

15, 2015). 

19See Letter from Sheila C. Holman, NCDENR, to 

Heather McTeer Toney, USEPA Region 4, 

‘‘Recession [sic] of North Carolina’s September 3, 

2014, Withdrawal of 2008 Ozone Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan Certification Pertaining 

to Interstate Transport (Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I))’’ 

(June 26, 2015). 

20See Letter from Beverly H. Banister, USEPA 

Region 4, to Sheila Holman, NCDENR, ‘‘Response 

to North Carolina’s June 26, 2015 Letter Seeking to 

Rescind the September 3, 2014 Withdrawal of the 

2008 Ozone Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan Certification Regarding Interstate Transport’’ 

(June 30, 2015). 

21We are making a finding for the state of 

Vermont even though the state was not addressed 

by the Northern District of California’s order. In 

fairness and to fulfill its statutory obligations, the 

EPA is addressing all states that have not made a 

submittal in this findings document. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).15 In reliance on the 

withdrawal, Sierra Club filed an 

amended complaint on December 12, 

2014, that revised its claim to remove 

the allegation that the EPA had failed to 

act the good neighbor provision of North 

Carolina’s SIP.16 The parties to the 

litigation subsequently entered into a 

consent decree that settled the 

remaining claim as to North Carolina.17

In further reliance on the withdrawal, 

Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians 

also filed an amended complaint in case 

number 4:14–cv–05091, discussed 

above, alleging that the EPA had failed 

to make a finding of failure to submit as 

to North Carolina’s good neighbor SIP 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.18

On June 26, 2015, North Carolina 

submitted a letter indicating that it 

wished to ‘‘rescind’’ its September 3, 

2014 withdrawal of its good neighbor 

SIP to address the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.19 The letter explained that the 

November 12, 2012 submittal did not 

include modeling and that preliminary 

air quality modeling released by the 

EPA on January 22, 2015, supported its 

interstate transport SIP. The letter also 

explained that, based on this modeling, 

the state concluded ‘‘it has met its 

obligations under CAA section 110(a)(1) 

and (2)(D) related to interstate transport 

. . . and therefore, does not expect’’ to 

be subject to this document finding 

certain states’ failure to submit 

interstate transport SIPs for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

On June 30, 2015, the EPA responded 

to North Carolina’s June 26, 2015 

letter.20 Because the EPA determined 

that it was not appropriate to rescind 

North Carolina’s prior withdrawal of its 

November 12, 2012 SIP submission, and 

because the June 25, 2015, letter relies 

on new information and analysis to 

support the state’s conclusion regarding 

its statutory interstate transport 

obligations that was not contained in its 

November 12, 2012, SIP submission 

(i.e., the preliminary air quality 

modeling released by the EPA on 

January 22, 2015), the EPA views the 

June 26, 2015 letter as a new SIP 

submission. Accordingly, the EPA has 

evaluated the June 26, 2015 letter for 

completeness as a SIP revision pursuant 

to the criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, and concluded that the 

June 26, 2015, letter is an incomplete 

SIP submission. The incompleteness 

letter notes that North Carolina’s June 

26, 2015, letter contains new 

information and analysis upon which 

North Carolina now relies to support its 

conclusions regarding the state’s 

statutory obligations to address 

interstate transport, in particular the 

EPA’s air quality modeling, and that 

neither the new information nor North 

Carolina’s conclusions relying upon that 

information were subject to public 

notice and comment per criteria 2.1(f)– 

(h) of appendix V. Accordingly, the EPA 

is finding in this document that North 

Carolina has failed to submit a complete 

SIP revision addressing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

III. Findings of Failure To Submit for 

States That Failed To Make a Good 

Neighbor SIP Submission for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS 

Three states (i.e., Connecticut, Rhode 

Island and Washington) addressed by 

the Northern District of California’s 

order have made complete SIP 

submittals addressing the good neighbor 

provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Hawaii was not addressed by the 

Northern District of California’s order 

and the state has submitted a complete 

SIP submittal addressing the good 

neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The EPA is making findings of 

failure to submit for 24 states. The EPA 

is finding that the following states have 

not made a complete good neighbor SIP 

submittal to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): Alabama, 

Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, 

Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, 

Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, 

New Mexico, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont,21

Virginia and West Virginia. 

IV. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

This document is making a 

procedural finding that certain states 

have failed to submit a SIP to address 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA did not 

conduct an environmental analysis for 

this rule because this rule would not 

directly affect the air emissions of 

particular sources. Because this rule 

will not directly affect the air emissions 

of particular sources, it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. 

Therefore, this action will not have 

potential disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority, low-income or 

indigenous populations. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This final 

rule does not establish any new 

information collection requirement 

apart from what is already required by 

law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

This action is not subject to the RFA. 

The RFA applies only to rules subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or 

any other statute. This rule is not 

subject to notice and comment 

requirements because the agency has 

invoked the APA ‘‘good cause’’ 

exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (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 implements 

mandates specifically and explicitly set 

forth in the CAA under section 110(a) 

without the exercise of any policy 

discretion by the EPA. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39966 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 rule responds to the 

requirement in the CAA for states to 

submit SIPs under section 110(a) to 

address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. No tribe is 

subject to the requirement to submit an 

implementation plan under section 

110(a) within 3 years of promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

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 does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

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 because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. The 

EPA’s evaluation of environmental 

justice considerations is contained in 

section IV of this document. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Judicial Review 

Section 307(b)(l) of the CAA indicates 

which federal Courts of Appeal have 

venue for petitions of review of final 

agency actions by the EPA under the 

CAA. This section provides, in part, that 

petitions for review must be filed in the 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency 

action consists of ‘‘nationally applicable 

regulations promulgated, or final actions 

taken, by the Administrator,’’ or (ii) 

when such action is locally or regionally 

applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on 

a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule consisting of findings of 

failure to submit certain of the required 

good neighbor SIP provisions is 

‘‘nationally applicable’’ within the 

meaning of section 307(b)(1). This rule 

affects 24 states across the country that 

are located in seven of the ten EPA 

Regions, 10 different federal circuits, 

and multiple time zones. 

This determination is appropriate 

because, in the 1977 CAA Amendments 

that revised CAA section 307(b)(l), 

Congress noted that the Administrator’s 

determination that an action is of 

‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ would be 

appropriate for any action that has 

‘‘scope or effect beyond a single judicial 

circuit.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323– 

324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 

1402–03. Here, the scope and effect of 

this action extends to the 10 judicial 

circuits that include the states across the 

country affected by this action. In these 

circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its 

legislative history authorize the 

Administrator to find the rule to be of 

‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ and thus to 

indicate that venue for challenges lies in 

the DC Circuit. Accordingly, the EPA is 

determining that this is a rule of 

nationwide scope or effect. 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 District of Columbia 

within 60 days from the date this final 

action is published in the Federal 

Register. Filing a petition for review by 

the Administrator of this final action 

does not affect the finality of the action 

for the purposes of judicial review nor 

does it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review must be 

filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such rule or action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: June 30, 2015. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–16922 Filed 7–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0841; FRL–9929–60– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking action to 

approve a revision to the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from Large 

Confined Animal Facilities. We are 

approving a local rule to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

August 12, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 

0841 for this action. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES