Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin and Determination for Kansas Regarding Interstate Transport of Ozone: Effect of Stay of Transport Rule, 5710-5711 [2012-2328]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
5710
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 6, 2012.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see 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, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: November 18, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(405) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(405) New and amended regulations
for the following APCDs were submitted
on August 26, 2011 by the Governor’s
designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 4684, ‘‘Polyester Resin
Operations,’’ amended on August 18,
2011.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–2599 Filed 2–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:13 Feb 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 97
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)
343–9252, email at
stevens.gabrielle@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9626–2]
I. Background
Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa,
Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and
Wisconsin and Determination for
Kansas Regarding Interstate Transport
of Ozone: Effect of Stay of Transport
Rule
On July 6, 2011, the EPA issued a
final rule promulgating the Transport
Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). The
Transport Rule limits the interstate
transport of emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
that contribute to harmful levels of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone in
downwind states. The rule identified
emissions within 27 states in the eastern
United States that significantly affect
the ability of downwind states to attain
and maintain compliance with the 1997
and 2006 fine particulate matter
NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
EPA established trading programs to
reduce these emissions through Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) that
regulate electric generating units (EGUs)
in the 27 states.
As explained in the preambles to the
final Transport Rule (76 FR 48208) and
the supplemental notice of final
rulemaking (SNFR) (76 FR 80761), EPA
updated and improved its modeling
platforms and inputs in response to
public comments received on the
proposed Transport Rule and
subsequent Notices of Data Availability
(NODAs), and performed other updates.
Therefore, some of the results of the
analysis performed for the final
Transport Rule differed from the results
of the analysis conducted for the
Transport Rule proposal. Under the
proposed Transport Rule, EPA’s
analysis did not identify Wisconsin,
Iowa, and Missouri as states that
significantly contribute to
nonattainment and/or interfere with
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in
another state with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS. Under the final
Transport Rule’s analysis, however, the
results indicated that emissions from
these states do interfere with
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS of
another state. The results also showed
that emissions from Missouri
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS in
another state. The analysis for the final
rule also identified two ozone
maintenance receptors, located in
Allegan County, Michigan and Harford
County, Maryland, which were not
identified by modeling conducted for
the proposed rule. The analysis
indicated that five states—Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin—
interfered with maintenance problems
at these receptors. EPA did not include
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Intent.
AGENCY:
A December 30, 2011 order of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit stayed the
Transport Rule, also known as the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule.1 This
document sets out EPA’s interpretation
of the effect of the Court’s stay on the
federal implementation plans finalized
by EPA on December 15, 2011 (SNFR),
which included the conclusion that
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Wisconsin significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) in other states and required
sources in five states to comply with the
Transport Rule’s ozone season NOX
trading program.2
DATES: The effective date of this notice
of intent is February 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets
Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
SUMMARY:
1 Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for
22 States: Final Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011).
Available on the Web at https://www.epa.gov/
crossstaterule.
2 EPA did not finalize a FIP for Kansas with
respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the SNFR.
EPA had previously approved a section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission from the state of
Kansas for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
on March 9, 2007 (75 FR 10608), and that SIP
submission did not rely on the unlawful CAIR
trading programs or on the conclusion that
compliance with CAIR was sufficient to satisfy its
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect to the
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore did
not have the obligation to promulgate a FIP for
Kansas under section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, and
instead proposed a SIP Call for Kansas under
section 110(k)(5) of the Act (76 FR 763, January 6,
2011). EPA proposed to find Kansas’ SIP
substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS based on the proposed conclusion that
emissions from Kansas are significantly
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another
state. EPA has not taken final action yet on the
proposed SIP Call.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06FER1.SGM
06FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
these states in the final Transport Rule
with respect to the 1997 ozone season
NAAQS or finalize ozone season NOX
budgets for these states, but instead
published a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPR) (76 FR
40662) to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on the
conclusion that these states significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in downwind states. EPA
finalized the supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking on December 15,
2011, which was published in the
Federal Register on December 27, 2011
(SNFR) (76 FR 80761). The SNFR found
that emissions of NOX from sources in
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Wisconsin either
significantly contributed to
nonattainment or interfered with
maintenance in downwind states. The
SNFR also finalized FIPs for Iowa,
Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and
Wisconsin that required sources within
the states to comply with the Transport
Rule.3
After publication of the final
Transport Rule, various parties filed
petitions for review of EPA’s action in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302
and consolidated cases). On December
30, 2011, upon the motions of various
petitioners, the Court ordered the
Transport Rule stayed pending the
completion of its review.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. This Notice of Intent
The Court did not explicitly address
the effect of its order on the SNFR
affecting Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.
Because the underlying programs of the
Transport Rule have been stayed by the
Court, there is no practical way for
covered sources under the SNFR to
comply with those programs. The SNFR
employs the same methodology,
modeling, and analysis as the final
Transport Rule and extends the
programs established in the Transport
Rule to additional states. The agency
will therefore treat the new rule in the
same manner as the underlying
Transport Rule, which has been stayed.
EPA does not expect covered sources
under the SNFR to comply with the
provisions of that rule for the duration
of the Court’s stay.
3 EPA did not finalize a FIP for Kansas. See supra
footnote 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:13 Feb 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Dated: January 26, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012–2328 Filed 2–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
42 CFR Part 81
[Docket Number NIOSH–209]
RIN 0920–AA39
Guidelines for Determining Probability
of Causation Under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000;
Revision of Guidelines on NonRadiogenic Cancers
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In a notice of proposed
rulemaking published in the Federal
Register on March 21, 2011, the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) proposed to treat
chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as
a radiogenic cancer under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000
(EEOICPA) (76 FR 15268). Under this
final rule, CLL will be treated as being
potentially caused by radiation and
hence as potentially compensable under
EEOICPA. HHS reverses its decision to
exclude CLL from such treatment.
DATES: This final rule is effective March
7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stuart Hinnefeld, Director, Division of
Compensation Analysis and Support,1
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676
Columbia Parkway, MS–C46,
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513–
533–6800 (this is not a toll-free
number). Information requests can also
be submitted by email to dcas@cdc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. Public Participation and Technical Review
by the Advisory Board on Radiation and
Worker Health
II. Background
A. Introduction
B. NIOSH Reconsideration of CLL
C. Purpose of the Rule
III. Summary of Final Rule
IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
1 The name of the NIOSH Office of Compensation
Analysis and Support (OCAS) was changed to the
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support
(DCAS) in March 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5711
A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice)
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
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. Plain Writing Act of 2010
I. Public Participation and Technical
Review by the Advisory Board on
Radiation and Worker Health
On March 21, 2011, HHS published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (76 FR
15268), proposing to treat CLL as a
radiogenic cancer. HHS initially
solicited public comments from March
21, 2011, to June 20, 2011. Upon
request, HHS extended the comment
period to July 20, 2011 (76 FR 36891,
June 23, 2011).
HHS received comments from seven
stakeholders, including the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health,
which was required by EEOICPA to
provide a technical review of a
proposed amendment to the probability
of causation guidelines.2 All of the
comments offered support for the
inclusion of CLL under the coverage
provided by EEOICPA. Specifically, the
Advisory Board concurred with the
NIOSH position that ‘‘given that the law
requires the use of the upper 99 percent
credibility level in making
compensation decisions, the inclusion
of CLL despite the limited evidence of
radiogenicity, is considered appropriate
by NIOSH.’’ Furthermore, the Advisory
Board agreed that the risk model
proposed by NIOSH is based on the best
available science and methodological
approaches to express the dose-response
relationship between radiation exposure
and CLL. In addition to the technical
review submitted by the Advisory
Board, three of the seven comments
were personal stories submitted by
family members of deceased energy
employees who developed CLL, and the
remaining three comments argued that
to be fair to claimants, CLL should be
included as a radiogenic cancer under
Part B of EEOIPCA. There were no
comments opposing this change.
II. Background
A. Introduction
The Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of
2 42
E:\FR\FM\06FER1.SGM
U.S.C. 7384n(c)(2), 7384o(b)(1).
06FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5710-5711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2328]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 97
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-9626-2]
Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, Michigan, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Wisconsin and Determination for Kansas Regarding
Interstate Transport of Ozone: Effect of Stay of Transport Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A December 30, 2011 order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit stayed the Transport Rule, also known as
the Cross State Air Pollution Rule.\1\ This document sets out EPA's
interpretation of the effect of the Court's stay on the federal
implementation plans finalized by EPA on December 15, 2011 (SNFR),
which included the conclusion that Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Wisconsin significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other states and required sources in five
states to comply with the Transport Rule's ozone season NOX
trading program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP
Approvals for 22 States: Final Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011).
Available on the Web at https://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule.
\2\ EPA did not finalize a FIP for Kansas with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS in the SNFR. EPA had previously approved a section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission from the state of Kansas for the 1997
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on March 9, 2007 (75 FR
10608), and that SIP submission did not rely on the unlawful CAIR
trading programs or on the conclusion that compliance with CAIR was
sufficient to satisfy its 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore
did not have the obligation to promulgate a FIP for Kansas under
section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, and instead proposed a SIP Call for
Kansas under section 110(k)(5) of the Act (76 FR 763, January 6,
2011). EPA proposed to find Kansas' SIP substantially inadequate to
meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS based on the proposed conclusion that emissions from
Kansas are significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another
state. EPA has not taken final action yet on the proposed SIP Call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: The effective date of this notice of intent is February 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9252, email at stevens.gabrielle@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 6, 2011, the EPA issued a final rule promulgating the
Transport Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). The Transport Rule limits
the interstate transport of emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) that contribute to
harmful levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone
in downwind states. The rule identified emissions within 27 states in
the eastern United States that significantly affect the ability of
downwind states to attain and maintain compliance with the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA
established trading programs to reduce these emissions through Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) that regulate electric generating units
(EGUs) in the 27 states.
As explained in the preambles to the final Transport Rule (76 FR
48208) and the supplemental notice of final rulemaking (SNFR) (76 FR
80761), EPA updated and improved its modeling platforms and inputs in
response to public comments received on the proposed Transport Rule and
subsequent Notices of Data Availability (NODAs), and performed other
updates. Therefore, some of the results of the analysis performed for
the final Transport Rule differed from the results of the analysis
conducted for the Transport Rule proposal. Under the proposed Transport
Rule, EPA's analysis did not identify Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri as
states that significantly contribute to nonattainment and/or interfere
with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in another state with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Under the final Transport Rule's analysis,
however, the results indicated that emissions from these states do
interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS of another state. The
results also showed that emissions from Missouri significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS in another state. The
analysis for the final rule also identified two ozone maintenance
receptors, located in Allegan County, Michigan and Harford County,
Maryland, which were not identified by modeling conducted for the
proposed rule. The analysis indicated that five states--Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin--interfered with maintenance problems
at these receptors. EPA did not include
[[Page 5711]]
these states in the final Transport Rule with respect to the 1997 ozone
season NAAQS or finalize ozone season NOX budgets for these
states, but instead published a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPR) (76 FR 40662) to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on the conclusion that these states
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. EPA finalized the
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on December 15, 2011, which
was published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2011 (SNFR) (76
FR 80761). The SNFR found that emissions of NOX from sources
in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin either
significantly contributed to nonattainment or interfered with
maintenance in downwind states. The SNFR also finalized FIPs for Iowa,
Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin that required sources
within the states to comply with the Transport Rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA did not finalize a FIP for Kansas. See supra footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After publication of the final Transport Rule, various parties
filed petitions for review of EPA's action in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
v. EPA, No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). On December 30, 2011, upon
the motions of various petitioners, the Court ordered the Transport
Rule stayed pending the completion of its review.
II. This Notice of Intent
The Court did not explicitly address the effect of its order on the
SNFR affecting Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and
Wisconsin. Because the underlying programs of the Transport Rule have
been stayed by the Court, there is no practical way for covered sources
under the SNFR to comply with those programs. The SNFR employs the same
methodology, modeling, and analysis as the final Transport Rule and
extends the programs established in the Transport Rule to additional
states. The agency will therefore treat the new rule in the same manner
as the underlying Transport Rule, which has been stayed. EPA does not
expect covered sources under the SNFR to comply with the provisions of
that rule for the duration of the Court's stay.
Dated: January 26, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-2328 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
