Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0795-0007
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: North Carolina Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Posted Date: 2015-11-05T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68453-68458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28098]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0795; FRL-9936-60-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina 
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to approve portions of the November 2, 2012, State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the North Carolina 
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of 
Air Quality (NCDAQ) for inclusion into the North Carolina SIP. This 
final action pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) 
infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt 
and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement 
of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an 
``infrastructure'' SIP. NCDAQ certified that the North Carolina SIP 
contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 
implemented, enforced, and maintained in North Carolina. With the 
exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate transport requirements, and 
state boards requirements, EPA is taking final action to approve North 
Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission provided to EPA on November 2, 
2012, as satisfying the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 
8-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This rule is effective December 7, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0795. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
excluding Federal holidays.

[[Page 68454]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Ms. Ward can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9140 or 
via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements, 
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure 
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the 
CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet 
applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three 
years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter 
period as EPA may prescribe. For additional information on the 
infrastructure SIP requirements, see the proposed rulemaking published 
on March 13, 2015. (80 FR 13312)
    On March 13, 2015, EPA proposed to approve portions of North 
Carolina's November 2, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP 
submission with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for 
major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 
4), and the state board requirements of 110(E)(ii). See 80 FR 13312.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one set of comments on the March 13, 2015, proposed 
rulemaking to approve portions of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP 
submission intended to meet the CAA requirements for the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided 
below.
    As an initial matter, the Commenter included interpretations of 
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA in a background section, but this 
section did not include comments specific to EPA's March 13, 2015 
proposed action on the North Carolina infrastructure SIP submittal. EPA 
provided an analysis of these same interpretations of section 
110(a)(2)(A) in an October 16, 2014, rulemaking regarding the 
infrastructure SIP of Maryland for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. (See 79 FR 
62010) and we are incorporating those responses by reference. 
Specifically, please see EPA's Response 2, which addresses the 
Commenter's interpretation regarding CAA plain language; Response 3, 
which addresses the Commenter's interpretation of the legislative 
history of the CAA; Response 5, which addresses the Commenter's 
interpretation of EPA regulations (40 CFR 51.112); Response 6, which 
addresses the Commenter's interpretation of EPA interpretations of 
section 110 in infrastructure SIP rulemakings; and Response 4, which 
addresses the Commenter's interpretation of Supreme Court and appellate 
court decisions.
    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that North Carolina's 
infrastructure submission ``fails to include stringent enough emission 
limits and other restrictions on sources of ozone precursors, like 
nitrogen oxides (``NOX''), to ensure that areas not 
designated nonattainment will attain and maintain the 2008 eight-hour 
ozone NAAQS.'' Based on this contention, the Commenter then asserts 
that ``North Carolina's I-SIP does not meet the basic infrastructure 
requirements under section 110(a)(2) and must be disapproved.''
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that NC 
DAQ's 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission is not approvable 
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because it fails to include 
enforceable emission limitations sufficient to ensure attainment and 
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in attainment areas. In 
light of the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position 
regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to 
ensure that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement 
a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and 
maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.
    EPA's interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general 
planning SIPs is consistent with the statute as understood in light of 
its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it 
did not include provisions requiring states and EPA to label areas as 
attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include 
all areas of the state in ``air quality control regions'' (AQCRs) and 
section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for 
these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be 
able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general 
planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into 
compliance with the NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time, 
section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 110 plan provide for 
``attainment'' of the NAAQS and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the 
plan must include ``emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for 
compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be 
necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].'' In 
1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not 
sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time, 
Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA 
to identify whether areas of the state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., 
were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) 
and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas 
not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still had air quality not 
meeting the NAAQS and Congress again amended the CAA and added yet 
another layer of more prescriptive planning requirements for each of 
the NAAQS, with the primary provisions for ozone in section 182. At 
that same time, Congress modified section 110 to remove references to 
the section 110 SIP providing for attainment, including removing pre-
existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and renumbering 
subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, Congress 
replaced the clause ``as may be necessary to insure attainment and 
maintenance [of the NAAQS]'' with ``as may be necessary or appropriate 
to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.'' Thus, the CAA 
has significantly evolved in the more than 40 years since it was 
originally enacted. While at one time section 110 did provide the only 
detailed SIP planning provisions for states and specified that such 
plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS, under the structure of 
the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial stepping-stone in the 
planning process for a specific NAAQS. And, more detailed, later-
enacted provisions govern the substantive planning process, including 
planning for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA believes that section 
110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs 
that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and 
maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that they contain enforceable 
control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available 
tools and authority to

[[Page 68455]]

develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
    As stated in EPA's proposed approval for this rule, to meet section 
110(a)(2)(A), North Carolina submitted a list of existing emission 
reduction and other control measures in the SIP that control emissions 
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX. The submission 
also identifies North Carolina's statutory authority to adopt emission 
control standards to meet established air quality standards such as the 
2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA believes North Carolina's submission 
appropriately reflects the first step in the State's planning process 
for attaining and maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS and meets the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) because the SIP contains 
enforceable control measures for ozone precursors and the submission 
provides that North Carolina has the tools to develop and implement 
measures as may be needed to attain and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone 
standard.
    Comment 2: The Commenter contends that recent monitoring of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS in areas not designated nonattainment confirms that 
North Carolina's existing emission limitations are insufficient to 
attain and maintain the NAAQS. The Commenter specifically contends that 
the exceedances of the ozone NAAQS with 2010-2012 data, in areas 
[Forsyth and Guilford counties] not designated nonattainment under the 
standard demonstrate that North Carolina's existing emissions 
limitations cannot ensure attainment and maintenance of the eight-hour 
ozone standard.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that 
NCDAQ's 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP submission is not 
approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because of the monitor 
design values noted by the Commenter. While EPA shares the Commenter's 
concern regarding any county monitoring violations of the NAAQS, such 
concerns are outside the scope of what is germane to an evaluation of 
section 110(a)(2)(A) for an infrastructure SIP submission. With regard 
to the 2010-2012 design values for Forsyth and Guilford Counties as 
mentioned by the Commenter, Forsyth and Guilford Counties attained the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with 2011-2013 data and continue to attain with 
preliminary 2013-2015 data.
    Regardless, EPA does not believe that this 2010-2012 monitoring 
data referenced by the Commenter provides an appropriate basis upon 
which to disapprove North Carolina's infrastructure SIP as it relates 
to section 110(a)(2)(A) requirements. Pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(A), 
an infrastructure SIP submission must include enforceable emission 
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including 
economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of 
emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, 
as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements 
of the Act. The Commenter, however, seems to believe that in the 
context of an infrastructure SIP submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) 
requires the state to submit control measures sufficient to demonstrate 
attainment in an area designated attainment but that has a recent 
monitored violation of the NAAQS. EPA does not believe that this is a 
reasonable interpretation of the provision with respect to 
infrastructure SIP submissions. Rather, EPA believes that the proper 
inquiry at this juncture is whether the state has met the basic 
structural SIP requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is 
acting upon it. The CAA provides states with three years to develop 
infrastructure SIPs and states cannot reasonably be expected to address 
the annual change in an area's design value for each year over that 
period, nor to predict the air quality data in periods after 
development and submission of the SIPs.
    Further, the Act provides states and EPA with other tools to 
address concerns that arise with respect to violations of the NAAQS in 
a designated attainment area, such as the authority to redesignate 
areas pursuant to section 107(d)(3), the authority to issue a ``SIP 
Call'' pursuant to section 110(k)(5), or the general authority to 
approve SIP revisions that can address such violations of the NAAQS 
through other appropriate measures. As described above, EPA believes 
that North Carolina's infrastructure submission is sufficient because 
it appropriately addresses the structural SIP requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(A) by including enforceable emission control measures and the 
authority to adopt and implement additional measures, if needed.
    Comment 3: The Commenter contends that North Carolina's 
infrastructure SIP must ensure that proper mass limitations and short 
term averaging periods are imposed on certain specific large sources of 
NOX such as power plants. Moreover, the Commenter contends 
that emission limits must apply at all times, including during periods 
of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), to ensure that all areas 
of North Carolina attain and maintain the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. 
Absent such limits, the Commenter contends that an I-SIP submission may 
not be approved. Specifically the Commenter contends that enforceable 
emission limitations for the State's coal fired EGUs [electric 
generating units] should be set on a pounds per hour (``lb/hr'') basis, 
based on, at most, a corresponding 0.07 lb/MMBtu limit. The Commenter 
further contends that setting a lb/hr limit will ensure consistent 
protection of the ambient air quality regardless of whether the nominal 
maximum heat input capacity for the unit is accurate or changes in the 
future and addresses the issue of variations in mass emissions during 
startup and shutdown so that even if the NOX emission rate 
in lb/MMBtu is higher during startup and shutdown (for instance when 
selective catalytic reduction technology is not being engaged), hourly 
emissions of NOX would not cause or contribute to violations 
of the NAAQS.
    Response 3: EPA appreciates the commenter's support of North 
Carolina's pursuit of additional NOX emission limitations at 
coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. However, EPA does not 
believe that approval of the infrastructure SIP is contingent on the 
State adopting additional controls for the State's coal fired EGUs. 
Congress established the CAA such that each state has primary 
responsibility for assuring air quality within the state and 
determining an emission reduction program for its areas subject to EPA 
approval, with such approval dependent upon whether the SIP as a whole 
meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. See Commonwealth of 
Virginia, et al., v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 
(D.C. Cir. 1995)). EPA cannot condition approval of the North Carolina 
infrastructure SIP upon inclusion of a particular emission reduction 
program as long as the SIP otherwise meets the requirements of the CAA. 
As explained in the proposal and in this final action, North Carolina 
does not need to adopt additional emission control requirements in 
order to meet the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(A).
    Furthermore, we disagree with the commenter's contention that EPA 
cannot approve an infrastructure SIP submission without ensuring that 
it contains emission limits applicable at all times, including during 
periods of SSM. For the reasons stated in the proposal, EPA does not 
believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP is necessarily 
the appropriate type of action to address this type of deficiency.

[[Page 68456]]

See 80 FR at 13315-17. Rather, as described in the proposal, EPA 
believes that the authority Congress provided to EPA under section 
110(k)(5), for example, allows EPA to take appropriately tailored 
action. Indeed, EPA recognizes that a number of states have existing 
SSM provisions contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance and, in the time 
since the proposal for this action, has finalized a separate action 
addressing those state regulations. See ``State Implementation Plans: 
Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's 
SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and 
SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During 
Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 
2015) (SSM SIP Action of 2015). In the SSM SIP Action of 2015, EPA 
concluded that certain SIP provisions in 36 states (applicable in 45 
statewide and local jurisdictions) are substantially inadequate to meet 
CAA requirements and thus issued a ``SIP call'' for each of those 36 
states pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).\1\ North Carolina's unlawful 
SSM provisions are covered by that action. See, e.g., id. at 33964. EPA 
continues to believe that existing, unlawful provisions related to 
excess emissions during SSM events should be addressed through more 
appropriate authorities provided by Congress; not in piecemeal fashion, 
in the context of reviewing a state's infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SSM SIP Action of 2015 also embodies EPA's updated SSM 
Policy as it applies to SIP provisions and provides guidance to 
states for compliance with CAA requirements for SIP provisions 
applicable to excess emissions during SSM events. EPA has encouraged 
any state with deficient SSM provisions to correct those provisions 
as soon as possible (as some states already have), but in no case 
longer than the 18-month timeframe provided in the SSM SIP Action of 
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: The Commenter contends that, to comply with section 
110(a) and avoid additional nonattainment designations for areas 
impacted by ozone levels above the standard, ``EPA must disapprove 
North Carolina's infrastructure SIP to ensure that large sources of 
NOX and VOCs cannot cause or contribute to exceedances of 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and, thereby prohibit implementation, 
attainment, and maintenance of the NAAQS throughout all areas of the 
State, in violation of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)(A).'' The 
commenter states that the inadequacies of the SIP are highlighted by 
recent monitoring data.
    Response 4: EPA disagrees that it must disapprove North Carolina's 
submittal to ensure that large sources of NOX and VOC do not 
contribute to exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS such that 
additional areas would need to be designated nonattainment in the 
future. In essence, this comment suggests that as part of the 
110(a)(2)(A) SIP, the state must demonstrate that all areas of the 
state will maintain the standard in the future. As explained 
previously, we disagree that the language and structure of the CAA 
mandate such a result. The CAA recognizes that air quality may change 
over time, such as an area slipping from attainment to nonattainment or 
changing from nonattainment to attainment and has provisions addressing 
such changes. These include provisions providing for redesignation in 
section 107(d) and provisions in section 110(k)(5) allowing EPA to call 
on the state to revise its SIP, as appropriate.
    Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(H), the State must demonstrate in its 
infrastructure SIP submission that it has the authority to revise of 
its SIP, including as needed to address any finding by EPA that the SIP 
is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS. To satisfy CAA section 
110(a)(2)(H), North Carolina's submittal cites to statutory authority 
that allows the state to adopt standards and plans to implement the 
requirements of the CAA and Federal implementing regulations, and to 
specifically establish lower emissions limits if needed to attain or 
maintain the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the CAA provides appropriate tools 
to address changes in air quality over time and North Carolina's 
submittal also appropriately addresses the elements needed to address 
any changes in air quality over time.
    Comment 5: The Commenter contends that ozone concentrations will be 
exacerbated by ongoing climate change and that North Carolina's 
existing emission limits are not stringent enough to adequately protect 
the public from the dangers posed by exposure to elevated ozone 
concentrations. The Commenter contends that this underscores the need 
for North Carolina to impose tighter emission limits if it hopes to 
attain and maintain the current NAAQS for ozone in areas not currently 
designated nonattainment.
    Response 5: EPA agrees that climate change is a serious 
environmental issue; however, for the reasons provided in the previous 
responses, we disagree that states are required to anticipate and plan 
for possible future nonattainment within each area of the state as part 
of the infrastructure SIP.
    We note that given the potential wide-ranging impacts of climate 
change on air quality planning, EPA is developing climate adaptation 
implementation plans to assess the key vulnerabilities to our programs 
(including how climate change might affect attainment of national 
ambient air quality standards) and to identify priority actions to 
minimize these vulnerabilities. With respect to climate impacts on 
future ozone levels, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has identified 
as a priority action the need to adjust air quality modeling tools and 
guidance as necessary to account for climate-driven changes in 
meteorological conditions and meteorologically-dependent emissions. 
These efforts are just beginning.
    Additionally, as previously stated regarding tighter emission 
limits, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably 
interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first 
step in their planning for attaining and maintaining a new or revised 
NAAQS and that they contain enforceable control measures and a 
demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to 
develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. As 
explained above, to the extent that climate change or any other factor 
exacerbates air quality in the future, the CAA provides the appropriate 
tools to assess and address these conditions.

III. Today's Action

    In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve the 
portions of North Carolina's infrastructure submission as demonstrating 
that the State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception 
of the PSD permitting provisions in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 
D(i) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the state board 
requirements of section 110(E)(ii).

IV. Final Action

    With the exceptions described above, EPA is taking final action to 
approve North Carolina's November 2, 2012, infrastructure SIP 
submission because it addresses the required infrastructure elements 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. NCDAQ has addressed the elements of 
the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to section 110 of 
the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, 
enforced, and maintained in North Carolina.

[[Page 68457]]

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2016. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are 
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of 
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules 
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate 
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can 
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed 
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 22, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. In Sec.  52.1770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an 
entry for ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end of the 
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Federal
            Provision             State effective   EPA Approval date       Register           Explanation
                                        date                                citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure       11/2/2012   11/5/2015 [Insert    ...............  With the exception of
 Requirements for the 2008 8-                       Federal Register                      sections: 110(a)(2)(C)
 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air                    citation].                            and (J) concerning PSD
 Quality Standards.                                                                       permitting
                                                                                          requirements;
                                                                                          110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
                                                                                          (II) (prongs 1 through
                                                                                          4) concerning
                                                                                          interstate transport
                                                                                          requirements;
                                                                                          110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
                                                                                          concerning state board
                                                                                          requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 68458]]

[FR Doc. 2015-28098 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P