Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revision Required of Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District for Jefferson County, KY, 2591-2596 [2011-769]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2591
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
compounds, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
PART 52—[AMENDED]
Subpart Z—Mississippi
Dated: January 3, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
■
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 52.1270 (c) the table is
amended by revising the following entry
for ‘‘APC–S–5’’ to read as follows:
§ 52.1270
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MISSISSIPPI REGULATIONS
State citation
*
*
All ..................................
*
*
*
*
..............................................
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0107; FRL–9253–2]
Action To Ensure Authority To Issue
Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Failure To
Submit State Implementation Plan
Revision Required of Louisville Metro
Air Pollution Control District for
Jefferson County, KY
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA is making a finding
that the Louisville Metro Air Pollution
Control District (LMAPCD) has failed to
submit a revision to its EPA-approved
state implementation plan (SIP) for
Jefferson County, Kentucky, to satisfy
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
to apply Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements to
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
18:39 Jan 13, 2011
EPA approval
date
Explanation
*
*
*
*
APC–S–5–Regulations for Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Air Quality
[FR Doc. 2011–377 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
State effective
date
Title/subject
Jkt 223001
12/1/2010
12/29/2010
75 FR 81858
greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting sources.
By notice dated December 13, 2010,
EPA issued a ‘‘SIP call’’ for 13 states
(comprising 15 state and local programs,
including Kentucky’s LMAPCD),
requiring each state to revise its SIP as
necessary to correct the SIP’s failure to
apply PSD to such sources and
establishing a SIP submittal deadline for
each state. By this action, EPA is making
a finding that the LMAPCD has failed to
submit the required SIP revision by
January 1, 2011, which is the SIP
submittal deadline that EPA established
in the SIP call for LMAPCD. This
finding requires EPA to promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) for
Jefferson County, Kentucky, applying
PSD to GHG-emitting sources, and EPA
is taking a separate action to promulgate
the FIP immediately.
DATES: This action is effective on
January 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this rulemaking under Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0107. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
APC–S–5 incorporates by reference the regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 as of September 13, 2010. This EPA action is approving the incorporation by reference with the
exception of the phrase ‘‘except ethanol production facilities producing ethanol by natural
fermentation under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes
325193 or 312140,’’ APC–S–5 incorporated
by reference from 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a)
and (b)(1(iii)(t) APC–S–5. In addition, this
EPA action is not incorporating by reference,
into the Mississippi SIP, the administrative
regulations that were amended in the Fugitive Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882) and are
stayed through October 3, 2011.
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., 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 Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742.
Ms.
Lisa Sutton, Air Quality Policy Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (C504–03), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541–3450; fax number: (919) 541–
5509; e-mail address:
sutton.lisa@epa.gov. For information
regarding the Louisville Metro Air
Pollution Control District permitting
authority, contact Ms. Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
2592
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Branch, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
Benjamin’s telephone number is (404)
562–9040; e-mail address:
benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Jefferson County, Kentucky, is the
only entity affected by this rule.1 By this
action, EPA is making a finding of
failure to submit the required SIP for the
LMAPCD because its EPA-approved SIP
PSD program does not apply to GHGemitting sources in Jefferson County,
Kentucky. This action only applies to
Jefferson County, Kentucky, and does
not apply to the remainder of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. On
December 13, 2010, the Kentucky
Division of Air Quality provided EPA
with the required corrective SIP revision
to address PSD requirements related to
GHG-emitting sources for all other areas
in Kentucky. On December 29, 2010,
EPA took final action to approve the
Commonwealth’s December 13, 2010,
SIP revision. See 75 FR 81868.
B. How is the preamble organized?
The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
1 In a final action published on December 29,
2010, EPA announced that the Agency made a
separate finding of failure to submit for seven other
states (comprising eight state and local programs)
because those states failed to provide required SIP
revisions to correct their EPA-approved SIP PSD
programs for applicability to GHG-emitting sources
by the established deadlines for those states. See 75
FR 81874. For convenience, we refer to ‘‘states’’ in
this rulemaking to collectively mean state and local
permitting authorities. The seven states addressed
in EPA’s December 29, 2010, rulemaking are
Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon,
and Wyoming. In Arizona, the finding applies to
two EPA PSD permit programs—‘‘Pinal County’’ and
‘‘Rest of State (Excludes Maricopa County, Pima
County, and Indian County).’’
17:19 Jan 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
II. Background
A. CAA and Regulatory Context
EPA described the relevant
background information in the proposed
and final rulemaking for what we call
the GHG PSD SIP call or, simply, the
SIP call,2 as well as in what we call the
Tailoring Rule.3 75 FR at 31518–21.
Knowledge of this background
information is presumed and will be
only briefly summarized here.
1. SIP PSD Requirements
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. How is the preamble organized?
II. Background
A. CAA and Regulatory Context
1. SIP PSD Requirements
2. SIP Inadequacy and Corrective Action
B. Recent EPA Regulatory Action
Concerning PSD Requirements for GHGEmitting Sources
III. Final Action: Finding of Failure of
Kentucky’s Louisville Metro Air
Pollution Control District To Submit a
Corrective SIP Revision
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Notice and Comment Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
B. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
VerDate Mar<15>2010
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform
F. Executive Order 13132—Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211—Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
K. Executive Order 12898—Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations
L. Congressional Review Act
V. Judicial Review
VI. Statutory Authority
In general, under the CAA PSD
program, a stationary source must
obtain a permit prior to undertaking
construction or modification projects
that would result in specified amounts
of new or increased emissions of air
pollutants that are subject to regulation
under other provisions of the CAA. CAA
sections 165(a)(1), 169(1). As we
described in the SIP call and elsewhere,
several CAA provisions, taken together,
mandate that SIPs include PSD
programs that are applicable to any air
pollutant that is subject to regulation
under the CAA, including, as discussed
later in this preamble, GHGs on and
after January 2, 2011. CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(J), 161.
2 ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits
under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call—
Final Rule,’’ 75 FR at 77698, 77700–04 (December
13, 2010) (final SIP call); ‘‘Action To Ensure
Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy and SIP Call—Proposed Rule,’’ 75 FR
53892, 53896–98 (September 2, 2010) (proposed SIP
call).
3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title
V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule. 75 FR
31514, 31518–21 (June 3, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. SIP Inadequacy and Corrective Action
The CAA provides a mechanism for
the correction of SIPs with certain types
of inadequacies. CAA section 110(k)(5)
authorizes the Administrator to
‘‘find [ ] that [a SIP] * * * is
substantially inadequate to * * *
comply with any requirement of this
Act,’’ and, based on that finding, to
‘‘require the State to revise the [SIP]
* * * to correct such inadequacies.’’
This latter action is commonly referred
to as a ‘‘SIP call.’’ In addition, this
provision provides that EPA must notify
the state of the substantial inadequacy
and authorizes EPA to establish a
‘‘reasonable deadline[ ] (not to exceed
18 months after the date of such notice)’’
for the submission of the corrective SIP
revision.
If EPA does not receive the corrective
SIP revision by the deadline, CAA
section 110(c)(1)(A) authorizes EPA to
‘‘find [ ] that [the] State has failed to
make a required submission.’’ Once EPA
makes that finding, CAA section
110(c)(1) requires EPA to ‘‘promulgate a
Federal implementation plan at any
time within 2 years after the [finding]
* * * unless the State corrects the
deficiency, and [EPA] approves the plan
or plan revision, before [EPA]
promulgates such [FIP].’’
B. Recent EPA Regulatory Action
Concerning PSD Requirements for GHGEmitting Sources
In recent months, EPA has taken
several distinct actions related to GHGs
under the CAA. Some of these, in
conjunction with the operation of the
CAA, trigger PSD applicability for GHGemitting sources on and after January 2,
2011, but focus the scope of PSD on the
largest GHG-emitting sources. These
actions include what we call the
Endangerment Finding,4 the Light-Duty
Vehicle Rule,5 the Johnson Memo
Reconsideration,6 and the Tailoring
Rule.
Closely related to this action, EPA
promulgated the PSD GHG SIP call,
under authority of CAA section
110(k)(5). In that action, applicable to 13
states, the Administrator issued a
finding of substantial inadequacy as
well as a SIP call and established a
deadline for submission of the
corrective SIP revision. The deadline
4 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496
(December 15, 2009).
5 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).
6 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine
Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting
Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
missed that SIP submittal deadline, and
thus is the subject of this final rule.7
Also closely related to this action,
EPA proposed a FIP 8 action related to
GHGs. We stated in the proposed FIP
that if any of the states for which we
issued the SIP call did not meet its SIP
submittal deadline, we would
immediately issue a finding of failure to
submit a required SIP revision, under
CAA section 110(c)(1)(A), and
immediately thereafter promulgate a FIP
for the state. We explained that we
would take these actions immediately in
TABLE II–1—SIP CALL STATES AND
order to minimize any period of time
SIP SUBMITTAL DEADLINES
during which larger-emitting sources
may be under an obligation to obtain
SIP submittal
State (or area)
PSD permits for their GHGs when they
deadline
construct or modify, but no permitting
Arizona: Pinal County ...........
12/22/10 authority is authorized to issue those
permits. 75 FR at 53889. Seven of the 13
Arizona: Rest of State (Excludes Maricopa County,
SIP-called states (including 8 of the 15
Pima County, and Indian
affected PSD programs) stated that they
Country) ............................
12/22/10 did not object to a SIP submittal
Arkansas ...............................
12/22/10 deadline of December 22, 2010 (the
California: Sacramento Metearliest possible deadline).
ropolitan AQMD ................
01/31/11
Subsequently, for those seven states,
Connecticut ...........................
03/01/11
EPA made a finding of failure to submit
Florida ...................................
12/22/10
a corrective SIP revision (75 FR at
Idaho .....................................
12/22/10
Kansas ..................................
12/22/10 77705; December 29, 2010) and by 9
separate action promulgated a FIP.
Kentucky (Jefferson County):
was 12 months after the date of the SIP
call, unless the state indicated to EPA
that it did not object to an earlier
deadline, as early as 3 weeks after the
date of the SIP call. Twelve of the states
so indicated and therefore received an
earlier deadline. The LMAPCD
requested a SIP submittal deadline of
January 1, 2011. 75 FR at 77705.
All 13 states and their deadlines are
listed in table II–1, ‘‘SIP Call States and
SIP Submittal Deadlines’’:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District ...........
Kentucky: Rest of State (Excludes Louisville Metro Air
Pollution Control District
(Jefferson County)) ...........
Nebraska ..............................
Nevada: Clark County ..........
Oregon ..................................
Texas ....................................
Wyoming ...............................
III. Final Action: Finding of Failure of
Kentucky’s Louisville Metro Air
Pollution Control District To Submit a
Corrective SIP Revision
03/31/11
By this final rule, EPA is making a
03/01/11 finding under CAA section 110(c) that
07/01/11 Kentucky’s LMAPCD has failed to
12/22/10 submit, through the Kentucky Energy
12/01/11 and Environment Cabinet (KEEC), a
12/22/10 corrective SIP for Jefferson County by
January 1, 2011, which was its SIP
The SIP submittal deadlines that the
submittal deadline, as established under
final SIP call rule established for the
our SIP call. The LMAPCD is the air
states reflect, in almost all instances, a
permitting authority that administers
recognition by EPA and the states of the the Jefferson County portion of
need to move expeditiously to assure
Kentucky’s SIP. Although two EPAthe availability of a permitting
7 More detailed discussion about the 13 states is
authority. In the SIP call, EPA made
clear that the purpose of establishing the included in the Supplemental Information
Document prepared by EPA in support of the final
shorter period as the deadline—for any
SIP call. The Supplemental Information Document
state that advised us that it did not
can be found in the docket for this rulemaking, at
Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0107–0129.
object to that shorter period—is to
8 Proposed rule, ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to
accommodate states that wish to ensure
Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant
that a FIP is in effect as a backstop to
Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse
avoid any gap in PSD permitting. 75 FR
Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan.’’ 75
at 77710.
FR 53883 (September 2, 2010). The notice can be
found in the docket for this rulemaking, at
Seven of the 13 SIP-called states
Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0107–0045.
(including 8 of the 15 affected PSD
9 In a final action published on December 30,
programs) stated that they did not object 2010, EPA promulgated a FIP to apply to seven
to a SIP submittal deadline of December states (comprising eight state and local programs)
failed to provide required SIP
22, 2010 (the earliest possible deadline), because those statestheir EPA-approved SIP PSD
revisions to correct
75 FR at 77705, and those states are the
programs for applicability to GHG-emitting sources.
subject of a final rule that EPA issued
Final rule, ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue
on December 29, 2010. See 75 FR 81874. Permits under the Prevention of Significant
The LMAPCD requested a SIP submittal Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan.’’ 75
deadline of January 1, 2011, has since
FR 82246.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Jan 13, 2011
01/01/11
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2593
approved PSD programs in Kentucky—
‘‘Jefferson County’’ and ‘‘Rest of State’’—
were included in EPA’s recent SIP call,
this finding of failure to submit applies
only to Jefferson County, Kentucky.
Subsequent to EPA’s SIP call, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted
a corrective SIP revision to apply its
PSD program to GHG-emitting sources
in the remainder of the Commonwealth
of Kentucky. On December 29, 2010,
EPA took final action to approve the
Commonwealth’s December 13, 2010,
SIP revision. See 75 FR 81868.
As we stated in our proposed FIP
rulemaking (see 75 FR at 53889), if a
state for which we issue the SIP call
does not meet its SIP submittal
deadline, we would immediately issue a
finding of failure to submit a required
SIP revision under CAA section
110(c)(1)(A). Once we make that
finding, we are required under CAA
section 110(c) to promulgate a FIP
(unless first the state corrects the
deficiency and EPA approves the plan
or plan revision). By a separate action
today, we are promulgating the FIP
immediately.
The making of a finding of failure in
this final rule is important because it is
the prerequisite for the FIP, and the FIP,
in turn, establishes EPA as the
permitting authority for GHG-emitting
sources. Without our acting as that
authority, large GHG-emitting sources in
Jefferson County, Kentucky, may be
unable to obtain a PSD permit for their
GHG emissions and therefore may face
delays in undertaking construction or
modification projects. Sources that emit
or plan to emit large amounts of GHGs
are, starting January 2, 2011, required to
obtain PSD permits before undertaking
new construction or modification
projects, but neither the LMAPCD nor,
absent the FIP, EPA would be
authorized to issue the permits. With
the FIP, EPA will have the authority to
issue PSD permits for Jefferson County,
Kentucky.
This rule is effective immediately
upon publication in the Federal
Register. Section 553(d) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(d), generally provides that
rules may not take effect earlier than 30
days after they are published in the
Federal Register. However, APA section
553(d)(3) provides an exception when
the agency finds good cause exists for a
rule to take effect in less than 30 days.
We find good cause exists here to
make this rule effective upon
publication because implementing a 30day delayed effective date would
interfere with the Agency’s ability to
ensure that there is a permitting
authority authorized to issue the
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
2594
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
required PSD permits for GHG
emissions to certain major stationary
sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
A 30-day delay in the effective date of
this rule will impede implementation of
this rule and create regulatory
confusion. This rule, establishing that
the LMAPCD has failed to submit a
corrective SIP revision by its January 1,
2011 deadline, is necessary so that EPA
can promulgate a FIP for Jefferson
County, Kentucky, soon afterward. This
timing will allow the FIP to be
published and become effective as soon
as possible after the January 2, 2011 date
that PSD began to apply to GHGemitting sources under the CAA. As of
January 2, 2011, certain major stationary
sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky,
if seeking PSD permits for other
pollutants, are already required to
obtain PSD permits for GHG emissions
where no permitting authority is
authorized to issue such a permit.
However, it is impractical to wait 30
days for this rule to take effect, during
which time no permitting authority
would be authorized to issue permits to
any major stationary sources that apply
to obtain PSD permits for GHG
emissions. Moreover, EPA finds that it
is necessary to make this rule effective
upon publication to avoid any economic
harm that the public and the regulated
industry might incur if there is no
permitting authority able to issue PSD
permits for GHG emissions when such
permits are requested in Jefferson
County, Kentucky.
The purpose of the APA’s 30-day
effective date provision is to give
affected parties time to adjust their
behavior before the final rule takes
effect. The LMAPCD, to which this
rulemaking applies, indicated in a
comment letter to EPA that it did not
object to a SIP submittal deadline of
January 1, 2011. Both the LMAPCD and
the public have been aware that we
would take this approach to this rule for
some time, that is, that we would
establish a SIP submittal deadline on a
date to which the state does not object,
potentially as early as December 22,
2010, so that we could make a finding
of failure to submit and promulgate a
FIP immediately thereafter, and
potentially as early as December 23,
2010, in order that the FIP could be in
effect on or as soon as possible after the
January 2, 2011, date that PSD begins to
apply to GHG-emitting sources. We
described this approach in the proposed
SIP call that was signed and made
available to the public on August 12,
2010, even before its September 2, 2010
publication date in the Federal Register.
Moreover, the public was afforded the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Jan 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
opportunity to comment on this
approach in the SIP call proposal. See
75 FR 53892, 53896.
In addition, this rule is not a major
rule under the Congressional Review
Act (CRA). Thus, the 60-day delay in
effective date required for major rules
under the CRA does not apply.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Notice and Comment Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
This is a final EPA action but is not
subject to notice-and-comment
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
EPA believes that because of the limited
time provided to make findings of
failure to submit regarding SIP
submissions, Congress did not intend
such findings to be subject to noticeand-comment rulemaking.
However, to the extent such findings
are subject to notice-and-comment
rulemaking, EPA invokes the good cause
exception pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), which excuses the noticeand-comment obligation ‘‘when the
agency for good cause finds (and
incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefor in the
rules issued) that notice and public
procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.’’ While the good cause
exception is to be narrowly construed,
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 236
F.3d 749, 754 (D.C. Cir. 2001), it is also
‘‘an important safety valve to be used
where delay would do real harm.’’ U.S.
Steel Corp. v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 595 F.2d 207, 214
(5th Cir. 1979). Notice and comment is
impracticable where ‘‘an agency finds
that due and timely execution of its
functions would be impeded by the
notice otherwise required.’’ Utility Solid
Waste Activities Group, 236 F.3d at 754.
Notice and comment is contrary to the
public interest where ‘‘the interest of the
public would be defeated by any
requirement of advance notice.’’ Id. at
755.
Here, notice and comment are
unnecessary because no EPA judgment
is involved in making a nonsubstantive
finding of failure to submit elements of
SIP submissions required by the CAA.
Furthermore, providing notice and
comment would be impracticable
because of the limited time provided
under the statute for making such
determinations. Finally, notice and
comment would be contrary to the
public interest because it would divert
agency resources from the critical
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
substantive review of complete SIPs.
See 58 FR 51270, 51272, n.17 (October
1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853 (August 4,
1994). In addition, in this case, notice
and comment would be impracticable
and contrary to the public interest for
the same reasons, discussed earlier in
this preamble, why a 30-day effective
date would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest.
B. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). This action
issues a finding that the LMAPCD has
failed to submit a corrective SIP by the
deadline established in EPA’s recently
promulgated SIP call for Jefferson
County, Kentucky. This type of action is
exempt from review under EO 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden.
However, OMB has previously approved
the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations for
PSD (see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21) and title
V (see 40 CFR parts 70 and 71) under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and has assigned OMB control number
2060–0003 and OMB control number
2060–0336 respectively. The OMB
control numbers for EPA’s regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice-and-comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or
any other statute. This rule is not
subject to the notice-and-comment
requirement of the APA, because the
Agency has invoked the ‘‘good cause’’
exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Thus,
this rule is not subject to the RFA.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. Therefore, this action
is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA because it contains no regulatory
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
action does not impose any new
obligations or enforceable duties on any
small governments.
F. 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This action
merely prescribes EPA’s action for states
that do not meet their existing
obligation for PSD SIP submittal. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and state and local governments, EPA
specifically solicited comment on this
action, as part of the FIP proposal, from
state and local officials.
G. Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). In this action, EPA is not
addressing any tribal implementation
plans. This action is limited to states
that do not meet their existing
obligation for PSD SIP submittal. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
Although Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this final rule, EPA
specifically solicited additional
comment on the proposal for this action
from tribal officials and we received one
comment from a tribal agency.
Additionally, EPA participated in a
conference call on July 29, 2010, with
the National Tribal Air Association
(NTAA).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
H. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
EO 13045 because it merely prescribes
EPA’s action for states that do not meet
their existing obligation for PSD SIP
submittal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Jan 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
I. Executive Order 13211—Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)),
because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
This action merely prescribes EPA’s
action for states that do not meet their
existing obligation for PSD SIP
submittal.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA is
not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
K. Executive Order 12898—Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the U.S.
EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does
not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the
environment. This rule merely
prescribes EPA’s action for states that do
not meet their existing obligation for
PSD SIP submittal.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2595
L. Congressional Review Act
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. Section 804
exempts from section 801 the following
types of rules: (1) Rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency
management or personnel; and (3) rules
of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties. 5 U.S. 804(3). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report
regarding this action under section 801
because this is a rule of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that
does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.
V. Judicial Review
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA specifies
which Federal Courts of Appeal have
jurisdiction to hear petitions for review
of which final actions by EPA. 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.’’
This rule is nationally applicable
under CAA section 307(b)(1). It is
merely the next step in the suite of rules
addressing inadequacies in SIPs related
to 13 states’ failure to apply PSD to
GHG-emitting sources such as the SIP
call, the finding of failure to submit
issued on December 29, 2010, and the
FIP issued on December 30, 2010. In
particular, this rule simply follows up
on the finding of failure to submit
issued on December 29, 2010, which
affected seven states that chose the
earliest possible deadline, and takes the
next step to make an identical finding
for Jefferson County, Kentucky, now
that this area, too, has missed its SIP
submittal deadline. The circumstances
that have led to this rulemaking are
national in scope and are substantially
the same for the LMAPCD as they were
for each of the seven affected states in
the earlier finding of failure to submit
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
2596
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
issued on December 29, 2010. They
include EPA’s promulgation of
nationally applicable GHG requirements
that, in conjunction with the operation
of the CAA PSD provisions, have
resulted in GHG-emitting sources’
becoming subject to PSD; as well as
EPA’s finding of substantial SIP
inadequacy, imposition of a SIP call,
and establishment of deadlines for SIP
submittal. Moreover, in this rule, EPA is
applying the same uniform principles
for promulgating the finding of failure to
submit in Jefferson County, Kentucky,
as it did for each of the seven earlieraffected states. The FIP for Jefferson
County, Kentucky, accompanying this
rule has substantially the same, if not
identical, terms as the FIP for each
earlier-affected state in the December
30, 2010, rule. This rulemaking action is
supported by the same single
administrative record as the earlier
December 29, 2010, finding of failure to
submit rule and does not involve factual
questions unique to the LMAPCD. In
addition, as stated earlier in this
preamble, this rule is part of a single
approach to correcting certain
inadequacies in SIPs in multiple states
across the country and in several
judicial circuits.
For similar reasons, this rule is based
on determinations of nationwide scope
or effect. For the LMAPCD, EPA is
determining that it is appropriate to
make this finding of failure to submit
effective immediately in order to
promulgate the FIP immediately and to
apply the FIP to GHG-emitting sources,
but not other sources, in the same way
it made the same determination for the
seven other states in the December 29,
2010, finding of failure to submit. These
determinations are the same for each of
the states. The provisions of this finding
of failure to submit are also
substantially the same, if not identical,
to those for the seven earlier-affected
states. Moreover, EPA is making this
finding and promulgating this action
within the context of nationwide
rulemakings and interpretation of the
applicable CAA provisions, as noted
earlier in this preamble.
Thus, under section 307(b)(1) of the
Act, judicial review of this final action
is available by filing of a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by
March 15, 2011. Any such judicial
review is limited to only those
objections that were raised with
reasonable specificity in timely
comments. Under section 307(b)(2) of
the Act, the requirements of this final
action may not be challenged later in
civil or criminal proceedings brought by
us to enforce these requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Jan 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
VI. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by sections 101, 111, 114,
116, and 301 of the CAA as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, and
7601).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide,
Carbon dioxide equivalents, Carbon
monoxide, Environmental protection,
Greenhouse gases, Hydrofluorocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Methane, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrous
oxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Perfluorocarbons, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
hexafluoride, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: January 11, 2011.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2011–769 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–8163]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule identifies
communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), that are scheduled for
suspension on the effective dates listed
within this rule because of
noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the
program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives
documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain
management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this
rule, the suspension will not occur and
a notice of this will be provided by
publication in the Federal Register on a
subsequent date.
DATES: Effective Dates: The effective
date of each community’s scheduled
suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’)
listed in the third column of the
following tables.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
If
you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended
on the suspension date or for further
information, contact David Stearrett,
Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646–2953.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP
enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not
otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and
administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance
coverage as authorized under the NFIP,
42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an
appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in
this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance
with program regulations, 44 CFR part
59. Accordingly, the communities will
be suspended on the effective date in
the third column. As of that date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in
the community. However, some of these
communities may adopt and submit the
required documentation of legally
enforceable floodplain management
measures after this rule is published but
prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be
suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A
notice withdrawing the suspension of
the communities will be published in
the Federal Register.
In addition, FEMA has identified the
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in
these communities by publishing a
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The
date of the FIRM, if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth
column of the table. No direct Federal
financial assistance (except assistance
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for
construction or acquisition of buildings
in identified SFHAs for communities
not participating in the NFIP and
identified for more than a year, on
FEMA’s initial flood insurance map of
the community as having flood-prone
areas (section 202(a) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42
U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This
prohibition against certain types of
Federal assistance becomes effective for
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2591-2596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-769]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107; FRL-9253-2]
Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan
Revision Required of Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District
for Jefferson County, KY
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is making a finding that the Louisville Metro Air
Pollution Control District (LMAPCD) has failed to submit a revision to
its EPA-approved state implementation plan (SIP) for Jefferson County,
Kentucky, to satisfy requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to apply
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements to
greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting sources. By notice dated December 13,
2010, EPA issued a ``SIP call'' for 13 states (comprising 15 state and
local programs, including Kentucky's LMAPCD), requiring each state to
revise its SIP as necessary to correct the SIP's failure to apply PSD
to such sources and establishing a SIP submittal deadline for each
state. By this action, EPA is making a finding that the LMAPCD has
failed to submit the required SIP revision by January 1, 2011, which is
the SIP submittal deadline that EPA established in the SIP call for
LMAPCD. This finding requires EPA to promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) for Jefferson County, Kentucky, applying PSD
to GHG-emitting sources, and EPA is taking a separate action to
promulgate the FIP immediately.
DATES: This action is effective on January 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107. All documents in the docket are
listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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 Air
Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lisa Sutton, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-3450; fax number: (919) 541-5509; e-mail
address: sutton.lisa@epa.gov. For information regarding the Louisville
Metro Air Pollution Control District permitting authority, contact Ms.
Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
[[Page 2592]]
Branch, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Benjamin's telephone number is (404)
562-9040; e-mail address: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Jefferson County, Kentucky, is the only entity affected by this
rule.\1\ By this action, EPA is making a finding of failure to submit
the required SIP for the LMAPCD because its EPA-approved SIP PSD
program does not apply to GHG-emitting sources in Jefferson County,
Kentucky. This action only applies to Jefferson County, Kentucky, and
does not apply to the remainder of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. On
December 13, 2010, the Kentucky Division of Air Quality provided EPA
with the required corrective SIP revision to address PSD requirements
related to GHG-emitting sources for all other areas in Kentucky. On
December 29, 2010, EPA took final action to approve the Commonwealth's
December 13, 2010, SIP revision. See 75 FR 81868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In a final action published on December 29, 2010, EPA
announced that the Agency made a separate finding of failure to
submit for seven other states (comprising eight state and local
programs) because those states failed to provide required SIP
revisions to correct their EPA-approved SIP PSD programs for
applicability to GHG-emitting sources by the established deadlines
for those states. See 75 FR 81874. For convenience, we refer to
``states'' in this rulemaking to collectively mean state and local
permitting authorities. The seven states addressed in EPA's December
29, 2010, rulemaking are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas,
Oregon, and Wyoming. In Arizona, the finding applies to two EPA PSD
permit programs--``Pinal County'' and ``Rest of State (Excludes
Maricopa County, Pima County, and Indian County).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How is the preamble organized?
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. How is the preamble organized?
II. Background
A. CAA and Regulatory Context
1. SIP PSD Requirements
2. SIP Inadequacy and Corrective Action
B. Recent EPA Regulatory Action Concerning PSD Requirements for
GHG-Emitting Sources
III. Final Action: Finding of Failure of Kentucky's Louisville
Metro Air Pollution Control District To Submit a Corrective SIP
Revision
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform
F. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
K. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act
V. Judicial Review
VI. Statutory Authority
II. Background
A. CAA and Regulatory Context
EPA described the relevant background information in the proposed
and final rulemaking for what we call the GHG PSD SIP call or, simply,
the SIP call,\2\ as well as in what we call the Tailoring Rule.\3\ 75
FR at 31518-21. Knowledge of this background information is presumed
and will be only briefly summarized here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call--Final Rule,'' 75 FR at 77698, 77700-04 (December 13, 2010)
(final SIP call); ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and
SIP Call--Proposed Rule,'' 75 FR 53892, 53896-98 (September 2, 2010)
(proposed SIP call).
\3\ Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule. 75 FR 31514, 31518-21
(June 3, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SIP PSD Requirements
In general, under the CAA PSD program, a stationary source must
obtain a permit prior to undertaking construction or modification
projects that would result in specified amounts of new or increased
emissions of air pollutants that are subject to regulation under other
provisions of the CAA. CAA sections 165(a)(1), 169(1). As we described
in the SIP call and elsewhere, several CAA provisions, taken together,
mandate that SIPs include PSD programs that are applicable to any air
pollutant that is subject to regulation under the CAA, including, as
discussed later in this preamble, GHGs on and after January 2, 2011.
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(J), 161.
2. SIP Inadequacy and Corrective Action
The CAA provides a mechanism for the correction of SIPs with
certain types of inadequacies. CAA section 110(k)(5) authorizes the
Administrator to ``find [ ] that [a SIP] * * * is substantially
inadequate to * * * comply with any requirement of this Act,'' and,
based on that finding, to ``require the State to revise the [SIP] * * *
to correct such inadequacies.'' This latter action is commonly referred
to as a ``SIP call.'' In addition, this provision provides that EPA
must notify the state of the substantial inadequacy and authorizes EPA
to establish a ``reasonable deadline[ ] (not to exceed 18 months after
the date of such notice)'' for the submission of the corrective SIP
revision.
If EPA does not receive the corrective SIP revision by the
deadline, CAA section 110(c)(1)(A) authorizes EPA to ``find [ ] that
[the] State has failed to make a required submission.'' Once EPA makes
that finding, CAA section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to ``promulgate a
Federal implementation plan at any time within 2 years after the
[finding] * * * unless the State corrects the deficiency, and [EPA]
approves the plan or plan revision, before [EPA] promulgates such
[FIP].''
B. Recent EPA Regulatory Action Concerning PSD Requirements for GHG-
Emitting Sources
In recent months, EPA has taken several distinct actions related to
GHGs under the CAA. Some of these, in conjunction with the operation of
the CAA, trigger PSD applicability for GHG-emitting sources on and
after January 2, 2011, but focus the scope of PSD on the largest GHG-
emitting sources. These actions include what we call the Endangerment
Finding,\4\ the Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,\5\ the Johnson Memo
Reconsideration,\6\ and the Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
\5\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
\6\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closely related to this action, EPA promulgated the PSD GHG SIP
call, under authority of CAA section 110(k)(5). In that action,
applicable to 13 states, the Administrator issued a finding of
substantial inadequacy as well as a SIP call and established a deadline
for submission of the corrective SIP revision. The deadline
[[Page 2593]]
was 12 months after the date of the SIP call, unless the state
indicated to EPA that it did not object to an earlier deadline, as
early as 3 weeks after the date of the SIP call. Twelve of the states
so indicated and therefore received an earlier deadline. The LMAPCD
requested a SIP submittal deadline of January 1, 2011. 75 FR at 77705.
All 13 states and their deadlines are listed in table II-1, ``SIP
Call States and SIP Submittal Deadlines'':
Table II-1--SIP Call States and SIP Submittal Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP submittal
State (or area) deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Pinal County................................... 12/22/10
Arizona: Rest of State (Excludes Maricopa County, Pima 12/22/10
County, and Indian Country)............................
Arkansas................................................ 12/22/10
California: Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD................ 01/31/11
Connecticut............................................. 03/01/11
Florida................................................. 12/22/10
Idaho................................................... 12/22/10
Kansas.................................................. 12/22/10
Kentucky (Jefferson County): Louisville Metro Air 01/01/11
Pollution Control District.............................
Kentucky: Rest of State (Excludes Louisville Metro Air 03/31/11
Pollution Control District (Jefferson County)).........
Nebraska................................................ 03/01/11
Nevada: Clark County.................................... 07/01/11
Oregon.................................................. 12/22/10
Texas................................................... 12/01/11
Wyoming................................................. 12/22/10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP submittal deadlines that the final SIP call rule
established for the states reflect, in almost all instances, a
recognition by EPA and the states of the need to move expeditiously to
assure the availability of a permitting authority. In the SIP call, EPA
made clear that the purpose of establishing the shorter period as the
deadline--for any state that advised us that it did not object to that
shorter period--is to accommodate states that wish to ensure that a FIP
is in effect as a backstop to avoid any gap in PSD permitting. 75 FR at
77710.
Seven of the 13 SIP-called states (including 8 of the 15 affected
PSD programs) stated that they did not object to a SIP submittal
deadline of December 22, 2010 (the earliest possible deadline), 75 FR
at 77705, and those states are the subject of a final rule that EPA
issued on December 29, 2010. See 75 FR 81874. The LMAPCD requested a
SIP submittal deadline of January 1, 2011, has since missed that SIP
submittal deadline, and thus is the subject of this final rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ More detailed discussion about the 13 states is included in
the Supplemental Information Document prepared by EPA in support of
the final SIP call. The Supplemental Information Document can be
found in the docket for this rulemaking, at Document ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0107-0129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also closely related to this action, EPA proposed a FIP \8\ action
related to GHGs. We stated in the proposed FIP that if any of the
states for which we issued the SIP call did not meet its SIP submittal
deadline, we would immediately issue a finding of failure to submit a
required SIP revision, under CAA section 110(c)(1)(A), and immediately
thereafter promulgate a FIP for the state. We explained that we would
take these actions immediately in order to minimize any period of time
during which larger-emitting sources may be under an obligation to
obtain PSD permits for their GHGs when they construct or modify, but no
permitting authority is authorized to issue those permits. 75 FR at
53889. Seven of the 13 SIP-called states (including 8 of the 15
affected PSD programs) stated that they did not object to a SIP
submittal deadline of December 22, 2010 (the earliest possible
deadline). Subsequently, for those seven states, EPA made a finding of
failure to submit a corrective SIP revision (75 FR at 77705; December
29, 2010) and by separate action promulgated a FIP.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Proposed rule, ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan.'' 75 FR
53883 (September 2, 2010). The notice can be found in the docket for
this rulemaking, at Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107-0045.
\9\ In a final action published on December 30, 2010, EPA
promulgated a FIP to apply to seven states (comprising eight state
and local programs) because those states failed to provide required
SIP revisions to correct their EPA-approved SIP PSD programs for
applicability to GHG-emitting sources. Final rule, ``Action to
Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan.'' 75 FR 82246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action: Finding of Failure of Kentucky's Louisville Metro
Air Pollution Control District To Submit a Corrective SIP Revision
By this final rule, EPA is making a finding under CAA section
110(c) that Kentucky's LMAPCD has failed to submit, through the
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (KEEC), a corrective SIP for
Jefferson County by January 1, 2011, which was its SIP submittal
deadline, as established under our SIP call. The LMAPCD is the air
permitting authority that administers the Jefferson County portion of
Kentucky's SIP. Although two EPA-approved PSD programs in Kentucky--
``Jefferson County'' and ``Rest of State''--were included in EPA's
recent SIP call, this finding of failure to submit applies only to
Jefferson County, Kentucky. Subsequent to EPA's SIP call, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a corrective SIP revision to apply
its PSD program to GHG-emitting sources in the remainder of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. On December 29, 2010, EPA took final action
to approve the Commonwealth's December 13, 2010, SIP revision. See 75
FR 81868.
As we stated in our proposed FIP rulemaking (see 75 FR at 53889),
if a state for which we issue the SIP call does not meet its SIP
submittal deadline, we would immediately issue a finding of failure to
submit a required SIP revision under CAA section 110(c)(1)(A). Once we
make that finding, we are required under CAA section 110(c) to
promulgate a FIP (unless first the state corrects the deficiency and
EPA approves the plan or plan revision). By a separate action today, we
are promulgating the FIP immediately.
The making of a finding of failure in this final rule is important
because it is the prerequisite for the FIP, and the FIP, in turn,
establishes EPA as the permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources.
Without our acting as that authority, large GHG-emitting sources in
Jefferson County, Kentucky, may be unable to obtain a PSD permit for
their GHG emissions and therefore may face delays in undertaking
construction or modification projects. Sources that emit or plan to
emit large amounts of GHGs are, starting January 2, 2011, required to
obtain PSD permits before undertaking new construction or modification
projects, but neither the LMAPCD nor, absent the FIP, EPA would be
authorized to issue the permits. With the FIP, EPA will have the
authority to issue PSD permits for Jefferson County, Kentucky.
This rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal
Register. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(d), generally provides that rules may not take effect
earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register.
However, APA section 553(d)(3) provides an exception when the agency
finds good cause exists for a rule to take effect in less than 30 days.
We find good cause exists here to make this rule effective upon
publication because implementing a 30-day delayed effective date would
interfere with the Agency's ability to ensure that there is a
permitting authority authorized to issue the
[[Page 2594]]
required PSD permits for GHG emissions to certain major stationary
sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky. A 30-day delay in the effective
date of this rule will impede implementation of this rule and create
regulatory confusion. This rule, establishing that the LMAPCD has
failed to submit a corrective SIP revision by its January 1, 2011
deadline, is necessary so that EPA can promulgate a FIP for Jefferson
County, Kentucky, soon afterward. This timing will allow the FIP to be
published and become effective as soon as possible after the January 2,
2011 date that PSD began to apply to GHG-emitting sources under the
CAA. As of January 2, 2011, certain major stationary sources in
Jefferson County, Kentucky, if seeking PSD permits for other
pollutants, are already required to obtain PSD permits for GHG
emissions where no permitting authority is authorized to issue such a
permit. However, it is impractical to wait 30 days for this rule to
take effect, during which time no permitting authority would be
authorized to issue permits to any major stationary sources that apply
to obtain PSD permits for GHG emissions. Moreover, EPA finds that it is
necessary to make this rule effective upon publication to avoid any
economic harm that the public and the regulated industry might incur if
there is no permitting authority able to issue PSD permits for GHG
emissions when such permits are requested in Jefferson County,
Kentucky.
The purpose of the APA's 30-day effective date provision is to give
affected parties time to adjust their behavior before the final rule
takes effect. The LMAPCD, to which this rulemaking applies, indicated
in a comment letter to EPA that it did not object to a SIP submittal
deadline of January 1, 2011. Both the LMAPCD and the public have been
aware that we would take this approach to this rule for some time, that
is, that we would establish a SIP submittal deadline on a date to which
the state does not object, potentially as early as December 22, 2010,
so that we could make a finding of failure to submit and promulgate a
FIP immediately thereafter, and potentially as early as December 23,
2010, in order that the FIP could be in effect on or as soon as
possible after the January 2, 2011, date that PSD begins to apply to
GHG-emitting sources. We described this approach in the proposed SIP
call that was signed and made available to the public on August 12,
2010, even before its September 2, 2010 publication date in the Federal
Register. Moreover, the public was afforded the opportunity to comment
on this approach in the SIP call proposal. See 75 FR 53892, 53896.
In addition, this rule is not a major rule under the Congressional
Review Act (CRA). Thus, the 60-day delay in effective date required for
major rules under the CRA does not apply.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
This is a final EPA action but is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b). EPA believes that because of the limited time provided to make
findings of failure to submit regarding SIP submissions, Congress did
not intend such findings to be subject to notice-and-comment
rulemaking.
However, to the extent such findings are subject to notice-and-
comment rulemaking, EPA invokes the good cause exception pursuant to
the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), which excuses the notice-and-comment
obligation ``when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the
finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued)
that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' While the good cause
exception is to be narrowly construed, Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 236 F.3d 749, 754 (D.C. Cir.
2001), it is also ``an important safety valve to be used where delay
would do real harm.'' U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 595 F.2d 207, 214 (5th Cir. 1979). Notice and comment is
impracticable where ``an agency finds that due and timely execution of
its functions would be impeded by the notice otherwise required.''
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, 236 F.3d at 754. Notice and
comment is contrary to the public interest where ``the interest of the
public would be defeated by any requirement of advance notice.'' Id. at
755.
Here, notice and comment are unnecessary because no EPA judgment is
involved in making a nonsubstantive finding of failure to submit
elements of SIP submissions required by the CAA. Furthermore, providing
notice and comment would be impracticable because of the limited time
provided under the statute for making such determinations. Finally,
notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest because it
would divert agency resources from the critical substantive review of
complete SIPs. See 58 FR 51270, 51272, n.17 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR
39832, 39853 (August 4, 1994). In addition, in this case, notice and
comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for
the same reasons, discussed earlier in this preamble, why a 30-day
effective date would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest.
B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
This action issues a finding that the LMAPCD has failed to submit a
corrective SIP by the deadline established in EPA's recently
promulgated SIP call for Jefferson County, Kentucky. This type of
action is exempt from review under EO 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
However, OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations for PSD (see, e.g.,
40 CFR 52.21) and title V (see 40 CFR parts 70 and 71) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003 and OMB control number 2060-
0336 respectively. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This rule is not subject to
the notice-and-comment requirement of the APA, because the Agency has
invoked the ``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Thus, this
rule is not subject to the RFA.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory
[[Page 2595]]
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action does not impose any new obligations or
enforceable duties on any small governments.
F. 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely prescribes EPA's
action for states that do not meet their existing obligation for PSD
SIP submittal. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on this action, as part
of the FIP proposal, from state and local officials.
G. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In this action,
EPA is not addressing any tribal implementation plans. This action is
limited to states that do not meet their existing obligation for PSD
SIP submittal. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule,
EPA specifically solicited additional comment on the proposal for this
action from tribal officials and we received one comment from a tribal
agency. Additionally, EPA participated in a conference call on July 29,
2010, with the National Tribal Air Association (NTAA).
H. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it merely prescribes EPA's action for states that do not
meet their existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal.
I. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action
merely prescribes EPA's action for states that do not meet their
existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
K. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the U.S.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This rule merely prescribes EPA's action for states that
do not meet their existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal.
L. Congressional Review Act
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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because
this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does
not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties.
V. Judicial Review
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA specifies which Federal Courts of
Appeal have jurisdiction to hear petitions for review of which final
actions by EPA. 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.''
This rule is nationally applicable under CAA section 307(b)(1). It
is merely the next step in the suite of rules addressing inadequacies
in SIPs related to 13 states' failure to apply PSD to GHG-emitting
sources such as the SIP call, the finding of failure to submit issued
on December 29, 2010, and the FIP issued on December 30, 2010. In
particular, this rule simply follows up on the finding of failure to
submit issued on December 29, 2010, which affected seven states that
chose the earliest possible deadline, and takes the next step to make
an identical finding for Jefferson County, Kentucky, now that this
area, too, has missed its SIP submittal deadline. The circumstances
that have led to this rulemaking are national in scope and are
substantially the same for the LMAPCD as they were for each of the
seven affected states in the earlier finding of failure to submit
[[Page 2596]]
issued on December 29, 2010. They include EPA's promulgation of
nationally applicable GHG requirements that, in conjunction with the
operation of the CAA PSD provisions, have resulted in GHG-emitting
sources' becoming subject to PSD; as well as EPA's finding of
substantial SIP inadequacy, imposition of a SIP call, and establishment
of deadlines for SIP submittal. Moreover, in this rule, EPA is applying
the same uniform principles for promulgating the finding of failure to
submit in Jefferson County, Kentucky, as it did for each of the seven
earlier-affected states. The FIP for Jefferson County, Kentucky,
accompanying this rule has substantially the same, if not identical,
terms as the FIP for each earlier-affected state in the December 30,
2010, rule. This rulemaking action is supported by the same single
administrative record as the earlier December 29, 2010, finding of
failure to submit rule and does not involve factual questions unique to
the LMAPCD. In addition, as stated earlier in this preamble, this rule
is part of a single approach to correcting certain inadequacies in SIPs
in multiple states across the country and in several judicial circuits.
For similar reasons, this rule is based on determinations of
nationwide scope or effect. For the LMAPCD, EPA is determining that it
is appropriate to make this finding of failure to submit effective
immediately in order to promulgate the FIP immediately and to apply the
FIP to GHG-emitting sources, but not other sources, in the same way it
made the same determination for the seven other states in the December
29, 2010, finding of failure to submit. These determinations are the
same for each of the states. The provisions of this finding of failure
to submit are also substantially the same, if not identical, to those
for the seven earlier-affected states. Moreover, EPA is making this
finding and promulgating this action within the context of nationwide
rulemakings and interpretation of the applicable CAA provisions, as
noted earlier in this preamble.
Thus, under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this
final action is available by filing of a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March 15,
2011. Any such judicial review is limited to only those objections that
were raised with reasonable specificity in timely comments. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements of this final action may
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us
to enforce these requirements.
VI. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
101, 111, 114, 116, and 301 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401,
7411, 7414, 7416, and 7601).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents,
Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases,
Hydrofluorocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Methane, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrous oxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Perfluorocarbons, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur hexafluoride, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: January 11, 2011.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2011-769 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
