Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties to Attainment of the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard, 73205-73210 [2014-28799]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:45 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 February 9, 2015.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register, rather than file
an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: November 3, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73205
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(165)(i)(B)(2) and
(c)(381)(i)(G)(3) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(165) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Rule 1140, ‘‘Abrasive Blasting,’’
amended on August 2, 1985.
*
*
*
*
*
(381) * * *
(i) * * *
(G) * * *
(3) Rule 403, ‘‘Fugitive Dust,’’
amended on April 20, 2010.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–28802 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0989; FRL 9920–14Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of
Lake and Porter Counties to
Attainment of the 2008 Eight-Hour
Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is disapproving a
December 5, 2012, request from the state
of Indiana to redesignate Lake and
Porter Counties to attainment of the
2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard)
because Indiana has not demonstrated
that the Chicago-Naperville, IllinoisIndiana-Wisconsin (IL-IN-WI) ozone
nonattainment area (Chicago
nonattainment area), which includes
Lake and Porter Counties, has attained
this NAAQS. EPA is also disapproving
Indiana’s ozone maintenance plan and
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
(MVEBs) for Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX), submitted with Indiana’s ozone
redesignation request.
DATES: This final rule is effective
January 9, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action: Docket ID No.
EPA EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0989. All
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
73206
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Edward
Doty, Environmental Scientist, at (312)
886–6057 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057,
doty.edward@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments did we receive on the
proposed rule?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. What is the background for this
action?
The background for this action is
discussed in detail in EPA’s June 30,
2014, proposed rule (79 FR 36692). In
that proposed rulemaking, we noted
that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR
part 50, the 2008 ozone standard is
violated when the three-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum eight-hour ozone
concentrations at any monitoring site in
the subject area 1 is greater 0.075 parts
per million parts of air (ppm). See 77 FR
30088 (May 21, 2012) for further
1 In this case, the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 eight-hour
ozone NAAQS. This area is composed of Lake and
Porter Counties in Indiana; Cook, DuPage, Kane,
Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, Aux Sable and
Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County, and
Oswego Township in Kendall County in Illinois;
and the area east of and including the Interstate 94
corridor in Kenosha County in Wisconsin.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:45 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
information regarding area designations
for the 2008 ozone standard and 77 FR
34221 (June 11, 2012) for information
regarding the designation of the
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area for
the 2008 ozone standard. See 40 CFR
50.15 and appendix P to 40 CFR part 50
regarding the ozone data requirements
for a determination of whether an area
has attained the 2008 ozone standard.
Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), EPA may redesignate a
nonattainment area (or a portion
thereof) to attainment if sufficient
complete, quality-assured data are
available to demonstrate that the
nonattainment area as a whole has
attained the standard and if all other
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)
have been met.
The Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM)
submitted a request for the
redesignation of Lake and Porter
Counties to attainment of the 2008
ozone standard on December 5, 2012.
The redesignation request included
summarized ozone data for all monitors
in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
ozone nonattainment area along with
other information specific to Lake and
Porter Counties to demonstrate that all
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA have been satisfied. The June
30, 2014, proposed disapproval
provides a detailed discussion of the
ozone data for the period of 2006
through 2013 (see tables 1 and 2 in the
June 30, 2014, proposed rule at 79 FR
36694), which show a violation of the
2008 ozone standard in the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI area based on
current, quality-assured ozone data. It
does not, however, discuss in detail
other components of Indiana’s submittal
because EPA believes that Indiana failed
to meet the most basic requirement for
redesignation, a demonstration that the
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone
nonattainment area has attained the
2008 ozone standard. We proposed to
disapprove Indiana’s ozone
redesignation request based on the
violation of the 2008 ozone standard,
but we proposed no action on Indiana’s
MVEBs and ozone maintenance
demonstration for the 2008 ozone
standard.
II. What comments did we receive on
the proposed rule?
During the public comment period for
the June 30, 2014, proposed rule, we
received two sets of comments, which
we summarize and address here. One
set of comments was submitted by IDEM
and the other set was submitted by an
industrial corporation with a facility in
Gary, Indiana.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comment 1: Both commenters
objected to EPA’s proposed disapproval
of Indiana’s ozone redesignation request
based on violations of the 2008 ozone
standard at several monitoring sites in
the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone
nonattainment area, but outside of Lake
and Porter Counties (no violations of the
2008 ozone standard were recorded in
Lake and Porter Counties), during the
period of 2011–2013 (the most recent
three-year period with quality-assured,
state-certified ozone monitoring data).2
These objections are based on the
commenters’ view that section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides for the
redesignation of a portion of a
nonattainment area as well as for the
entire nonattainment area. Both
commenters contend that, since all
monitors in Lake and Porter Counties
have monitored attainment of the 2008
ozone standard and since Indiana’s
ozone redesignation request only
applies to Lake and Porter Counties,
EPA has erred in its interpretation of
section 107(d)(3)(E) and in its insistence
of judging Indiana’s redesignation
request based on the current ozone data
for all ozone monitors in the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment
area.
IDEM makes two additional points in
support of this comment. First, IDEM
asserts that the plain language of section
107(d)(3)(E) does not mandate that EPA
use as a prerequisite for approval of a
redesignation request that all monitors
in a nonattainment area show
attainment of the NAAQS. IDEM
contends that EPA misreads section
107(d)(3)(E) with regard to the word
‘‘area’’ contained in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i). IDEM argues that this
subsection cannot be parsed from
section 107(d)(3)(E) as a whole, and that
a reading of section 107(d)(3)(E) as a
whole shows that the word ‘‘area’’ in
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) may apply to
a portion of the nonattainment area, as
covered by the state’s redesignation
request, in this case Lake and Porter
Counties, since other subsections of
section 107(d)(3)(E) and the lead-in
clauses of section 107(d)(3)(E) (of
general applicability to all of section
107(d)(3)(E) and its subsections) can
apply to a portion of the nonattainment
area.3 IDEM cites two cases, Kokoszka v.
2 As noted in the June 30, 2014, proposed rule,
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment
area has experienced a violation of the 2008 ozone
standard for every three-year period from 2009 to
2013.
3 The leading clauses of section 107(d)(3)(E) refer
to the ‘‘nonattainment area (or portion thereof).’’ In
addition, the term ‘‘area’’ in subsections
107(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iv), and (v) can be applied to a subportion of a nonattainment area, generally to a
state’s portion of a multi-state nonattainment area.
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Bellford, 417 U.S. 642, 650 (1974), and
Dada v. Mukasey, 544 U.S. 1 (2008), for
the principle that ‘‘When interpreting a
statute, the court will not look merely to
a particular clause in which general
words may be used, but will take in
connection with it the whole statute
. . .’’. IDEM argues that this legal
principle supports its view that
interpretation of ‘‘the area’’ in
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) must be
informed and modified by ‘‘a
nonattainment area (or portion thereof)’’
as provided in the lead-in clauses of
section 107(d)(3)(E).
Second, IDEM cites EPA’s approval of
the redesignation of Kentucky’s portion
of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OhioKentucky (OH-KY) nonattainment area
to attainment of the 1990 ozone
standard in further support of its
position. IDEM notes that EPA approved
a redesignation request for the Kentucky
portion even though the Ohio portion of
this ozone nonattainment area was
denied redesignation. IDEM points out
that in doing so, EPA interpreted the
term ‘‘area’’ in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) to mean a portion of the
nonattainment area, rather than the
nonattainment area as a whole.
Similarly, IDEM notes that, in EPA’s
subsequent final rule approving the
redesignation of the Kentucky portion of
the nonattainment area, EPA said that it
had the authority to redesignate the
Kentucky portion of the nonattainment
area independent of whether Ohio had
met all of the requirements for a fully
approved State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for its portion of the
nonattainment area. IDEM believes that
EPA’s interpretation of ‘‘area’’ in
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) in the
redesignation of the Kentucky portion of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY
nonattainment area is the correct
interpretation and should apply to
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to support the
approval of Indiana’s ozone
redesignation request for Lake and
Porter Counties.
Response 1: Section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA specifies five criteria for
evaluating the adequacy of a state’s
redesignation request. A key element of
these criteria is contained in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i), which requires that the
Administrator (EPA) determine that
‘‘the area has attained the national
ambient air quality standard.’’ EPA has
consistently interpreted ‘‘area’’ in this
subsection to mean the entire
nonattainment area and has required
that all monitors in the subject
nonattainment area have monitored
attainment of the subject air quality
standard. This is true for multi-state
nonattainment areas, such as the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:45 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
nonattainment area, and for single state
nonattainment areas. See, e.g., 77 FR
6743, February 9, 2012, (proposed
redesignation of the Illinois portion of
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone
standard); 76 FR 79579, December 22,
2011, (proposed redesignation of the
Illinois portion of the St. Louis,
Missouri-Illinois nonattainment area for
the 1997 ozone standard); 72 FR 26759,
May 11, 2007, (proposed redesignation
of the Kentucky portion of the
Huntington-Ashland, Kentucky-West
Virginia nonattainment area for the 1997
ozone standard); 72 FR 1474, January
12, 2007, (proposed redesignation of the
West Virginia portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta, West VirginiaOhio nonattainment area for the 1997
ozone standard); and 75 FR 12090,
March 12, 2010, (proposed
redesignation of the Indiana portion of
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IllinoisIndiana nonattainment area for the 1997
ozone standard).
The commenters assert that section
107(d)(3)(E) criteria allow the
redesignation of a portion of a
nonattainment area. We agree with these
commenters that EPA can, and has
under certain circumstances,
redesignated portions of a
nonattainment area to attainment of the
NAAQS while leaving other portions of
the nonattainment area designated as
nonattainment. See the above list of
proposed rules for proposed partial area
redesignations. However, regardless of
whether EPA considers a redesignation
of a part of a nonattainment area or the
redesignation of an entire
nonattainment area, EPA considers the
air quality data for the entire
nonattainment area to establish
compliance with the air quality
requirements of subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i). EPA has consistently
taken this approach because to do
otherwise could result in the stripping
of source areas that are otherwise
attaining the NAAQS away from the
remainder of a nonattainment area that
continues to violate the NAAQS. This
would clearly undermine the CAA’s
intent for nonattainment areas to
include both the violating areas and the
source areas that contribute to the
violations of the NAAQS, as expressed
in subsection 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA.
Redesignating portions of
nonattainment areas when the areas, as
wholes, are not attaining the NAAQS
would also interfere with the CAA’s
emission control requirements that are
designed to bring the nonattainment
areas back into attainment of the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73207
NAAQS by controlling emissions in
source areas within the nonattainment
areas.
EPA disagrees with IDEM that the
CAA compels EPA to interpret the word
‘‘area’’ in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to
mean a nonattainment area or a portion
of a nonattainment area. The language of
section 107(d)(3)(E) and its subsections,
read with the CAA as a whole, does not
lend itself to a clear and unambiguous
interpretation of the term ‘‘area’’ in
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i).
IDEM argues that EPA must interpret
‘‘area’’ in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) in
light of the CAA as a whole. EPA agrees,
and believes that, contrary to IDEM’s
position, this legal principle supports
EPA’s reading of the statute. As noted
above, if EPA were to interpret ‘‘area’’
in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to permit
the agency to approve a redesignation
where the air quality standard was not
being attained in all portions of the
nonattainment area, the agency would
contravene Congress’ intent that
nonattainment areas include not only
areas that do not meet the air quality
standard but also areas ‘‘that contribute
[ ] to ambient air quality in a nearby
area that does not meet’’ the standard.
42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(i). Interpreting
the statute in the manner suggested by
IDEM would allow a portion of a
nonattainment area, which itself is not
violating the NAAQS but is contributing
to nonattainment in that area, to be
redesignated to attainment immediately
after being designated as part of the
nonattainment area under CAA
subsection 107(d)(1)(A)(i) if the state
could demonstrate compliance with the
provisions of subsections
107(d)(3)(E)(ii)–(v). This is not a
reasonable reading of the statute, and
thus EPA disagrees with IDEM that, in
reading the statute as a whole, the word
‘‘area’’ in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i)
should be interpreted to include ‘‘a
portion of the nonattainment area.’’
In fact, the requested redesignation at
issue illustrates precisely the
hypothetical example set out above. On
June 11, 2012, EPA finalized its
designation of Lake and Porter Counties
as part of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-INWI ozone nonattainment area (77 FR
34221). EPA explained in that rule that
Lake and Porter Counties were included
in the ozone nonattainment area
designation based on their emissions
and contribution to high ozone
concentrations in other parts of the
nonattainment area. See EPA’s final
technical support document (TSD) for
the designation of the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI area (available at
https://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/
2008standards/documents/
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73208
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
R5_Chicago_TSD_Final.pdf). In
particular, in the TSD, EPA noted that
Lake and Porter Counties account for
10.4 percent of the total VOC emissions
and 18.8 percent of the total NOX
emissions for the entire Chicago
consolidated statistical area. Id. at 9. In
the TSD, EPA also noted that other
county-specific factors, including
population levels, traffic levels (vehicle
miles of travel), and meteorology during
high ozone days in the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI area also supported
the inclusion of Lake and Porter
Counties in the Chicago-Naperville, ILIN-WI ozone nonattainment area for the
2008 ozone standard.
In the designations process, Indiana
objected to the inclusion of Lake and
Porter Counties in the ozone
nonattainment area, and EPA responded
to those comments. See EPA’s
‘‘ADDENDUM to Response to
Significant Comments on the State and
Tribal Designation Recommendations
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
Section 3.2.5.1. Chicago-Naperville, ILIN-WI area’’ (RTC Addendum),
(available at https://www.epa.gov/
ozonedesignations/2008standards/
documents/20120531chicagortc.pdf). In
both the TSD and the RTC Addendum,
EPA discussed ozone modeling analyses
conducted by the Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium (LADCO) that
demonstrate that Lake and Porter
Counties’ ozone precursor emissions
significantly contributed to high ozone
levels at the Zion, Illinois monitoring
site (the worst-case ozone design value
monitoring site considered during ozone
designation process for the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI area) during the
high ozone days modeled by LADCO
(TSD at 17–19 and RTC Addendum at
10–12).
EPA’s inclusion of Lake and Porter
Counties as part of the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI ozone
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
standard is also consistent with section
107(d)(1) of the CAA and EPA’s
interpretation of the statute as it
pertains to ozone designations as
expressed in a December 4, 2008, EPA
policy memorandum (‘‘Area
Designations for the 2008 Revised
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,’’ from Robert J. Meyers,
Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, to Regional
Administrators, Regions I–X). As noted
in that memorandum, because
‘‘[g]round-level ozone and ozone
precursor emissions are pervasive and
readily transported . . . EPA believes it
is important to examine ozonecontributing emissions across a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:45 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
relatively broad geographic area.’’ Id. at
3.
Indiana requested redesignation of the
Lake and Porter Counties portion of the
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
nonattainment area in December 2012,
six months after the initial designation
of the nonattainment area was finalized.
The state’s request is based on the same
years of air quality data that were used
to designate the area nonattainment.
Thus, interpreting ‘‘area’’ in section
107(d)(3)(E) as IDEM suggests would
have the effect of immediately reversing
the designation of the nonattainment
area, an outcome that Congress could
not have intended. Indiana has objected
to the inclusion of Lake and Porter
Counties in the Chicago nonattainment
area and it has filed a petition for
judicial review of that decision.4 The
redesignation process, however, is not
the proper forum in which to challenge
EPA’s designation decisions.
IDEM’s assertion that EPA’s
redesignation of the Kentucky portion of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY
nonattainment area for the 1990 ozone
standard is inconsistent with EPA’s
action here is also mistaken. In that
redesignation, EPA clearly considered
ozone data for all ozone monitoring sites
in the entire Cincinnati-Hamilton
nonattainment area, and not just for the
portion of the area that was being
redesignated, in determining that the
Kentucky portion of the area had met
the criteria for redesignation. 65 FR
3630 (January 24, 2000) and 65 FR
37879 (June 19, 2000). IDEM accurately
notes that EPA interpreted the word
‘‘area’’ for purposes of subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) to mean the statespecific portion of the nonattainment
area in the Cincinnati-Hamilton
redesignation, consistent with EPA’s
long-standing interpretation of that
provision.
EPA acknowledges that the meaning
of the word ‘‘area’’ in section
107(d)(3)(E) is ambiguous. In the
Cincinnati-Hamilton redesignation cited
by IDEM, and in other actions, EPA has
consistently interpreted the word ‘‘area’’
in subsections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iv), and
(v) to include the single-state portions of
multi-state nonattainment areas in
addition to entire nonattainment areas
seeking redesignation. Subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) requires that an area
have a fully approved applicable SIP,
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) requires that
an area have a fully approved
maintenance plan, and subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires an area to have
4 Mississippi Commission on Environmental
Quality, et al. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 12–1309 and
consolidated cases).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
met all applicable requirements under
section 110 and part D. These
subsections are distinguishable from
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) in that
interpreting ‘‘area’’ in these subsections
to include a single-state portion of a
multi-state area does not interfere with
any other requirement of the CAA.
Furthermore, EPA interprets ‘‘area’’ in
subsections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iv), and (v)
to include portions of nonattainment
areas because those provisions all relate
to SIP revision requirements, and each
state is independently responsible for
obtaining approval of the applicable SIP
provisions for redesignation.
EPA does not think it is necessary to
require one state to wait for another
state to complete its SIP actions before
becoming eligible for redesignation if
the nonattainment area as a whole is
attaining the NAAQS. On the other
hand, although EPA will determine that
a state containing a portion of a multistate nonattainment area has satisfied
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) where only
that state has submitted a fully
approved maintenance plan, EPA
requires as a matter of course that the
state communicate with the other states
governing the multi-state nonattainment
area and demonstrate projected
maintenance of the NAAQS in the other
portions of the nonattainment area, even
in the absence of fully approved
maintenance plans from those other
states. EPA has, therefore, been
consistent in interpreting ‘‘area’’ in
107(d)(3)(E) to mean the entire
nonattainment area with respect to air
quality concerns, even where the
Agency has interpreted the term ‘‘area’’
to include single-state portions of multistate nonattainment areas when the
requirement is limited to SIP
submission and processing.
In conclusion, EPA believes that
interpreting the word ‘‘area’’ in
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to mean a
portion of a nonattainment area
contravenes the CAA mandate in
subsection 107(d)(1)(A)(i) for the
nonattainment area to include both the
violating areas and the source areas that
contribute to the violations of the
NAAQS. Even if EPA believed that it
could redesignate a portion of an area
when another portion of the area is
violating the NAAQS, we would decline
to take that approach as a policy matter
because we believe that our current
interpretation of subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i) is most protective of
human health and the environment.
Comment 2: IDEM requests that EPA
re-evaluate Indiana’s December 5, 2012,
redesignation request in total, after
consideration of its arguments as
summarized in comment 1, to determine
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
whether the request as a whole
conforms to the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(D).
Response 2: As explained in response
to Comment 1 above, we disagree with
IDEM’s interpretation of ‘‘area’’ in
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) and have
determined that this subsection requires
attainment of the 2008 ozone standard
in the entire Chicago-Naperville, IL-INWI nonattainment area. Since the 2008
ozone standard has not been attained in
the entire nonattainment area, as
evidenced by the ozone monitoring data
summarized in the June 30, 2014,
proposed rule (see tables 1 and 2 at 79
FR 36692, 36694–36695), we conclude
that the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
area and Indiana’s ozone redesignation
request for Lake and Porter Counties
have not met the most basic requirement
for redesignation, attainment of the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
Since attainment of the NAAQS is a
prerequisite for development of an
acceptable attainment emissions
inventory (and the MVEBs derived
thereof) and for demonstrations of
maintenance, we cannot approve these
components of Indiana’s ozone
redesignation request for Lake and
Porter Counties. In our June 30, 2014,
proposed rule, we explained that rather
than acting on these components of
Indiana’s redesignation request, which
would almost certainly have resulted in
proposed disapproval on the grounds of
the failure of the Chicago-Naperville, ILIN-WI area to attain the 2008 ozone
standard, we chose to take no action on
these components (79 FR 36692, 36696).
In so doing, we explained that an
approvable ozone maintenance plan
must contain an ozone attainment
emissions inventory documenting VOC
and NOX emissions for the period in
which the area has attained the ozone
standard. We concluded that ‘‘[s]ince
the Chicago ozone nonattainment area
continues to violate the 2008 eight-hour
ozone standard, we cannot conclude
that Indiana has developed an
acceptable attainment year emissions
inventory. This means that the ozone
maintenance demonstration portion of
the ozone maintenance plan is
unacceptable.’’ Id. Similarly, with
regard to Indiana’s proposed MVEBs for
VOCs and NOX, we explained that
‘‘since the estimation of the VOC and
NOX MVEBs depends on the
determination of mobile source
emissions that, along with other
emissions in the nonattainment area,
provide for attainment of the ozone
standard, and since the Chicago
nonattainment area continues to violate
the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we
conclude that Indiana’s estimates of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:45 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
VOC and NOX MVEBs are also not
acceptable.’’ Id.
Subsequently, IDEM submitted its
comment requesting that we take action
on the remaining components of its
submittal in light of our re-evaluation of
our interpretation of ‘‘area’’ in
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i). We had
proposed to take no action on those
remaining components; but based on
our earlier findings that those
components are not approvable and on
IDEM’s comment urging us to take
action on its request as a whole, we now
conclude that we cannot approve the
remaining portions of Indiana’s
request—its maintenance plan and its
proposed MVEBs. As a result, we are in
this action disapproving these
remaining portions of Indiana’s
submission. We believe this disapproval
is a logical outgrowth of our proposal,
because we included in that notice not
only our explanation for why these
elements were not approvable, but also
indicated that ‘‘if we were to propose
actions on these ozone redesignation
request elements, we would find it
necessary to propose disapproval.’’ 79
FR 36692, 36696. We believe this
alerted commenters that we were
considering disapproval of the
maintenance plan and MVEBs.
Therefore, we are determining that the
MVEBs and ozone maintenance plan
included with Indiana’s ozone
redesignation request must be
disapproved on the basis that the
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area
continues to violate the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
Comment 3: The corporate commenter
asserted that EPA’s failure to
redesignate the portions of
nonattainment areas that meet the
NAAQS unnecessarily burdens
economic development in such areas.
The commenter objected to the
implementation of (nonattainment) New
Source Review (NSR) requirements in
these areas on the basis that such
implementation unjustly burdens the
sources in these areas.
Response 3: Since the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI area continues to
violate the 2008 ozone standard, it is
imperative that NSR continue to be
applied in all parts of the nonattainment
area to avoid exacerbation of the
existing ozone air quality problem. The
‘‘attainment’’ portions of nonattainment
areas that the commenter refers to are in
this case source areas contributing to
violations of the NAAQS in other
portions of the nonattainment area. See
also our response to Comment 1, above.
Therefore, it is inappropriate to
redesignate the attaining portions of the
nonattainment areas and to remove NSR
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73209
requirements, including new source
offsets, in these attaining portions while
violations of the NAAQS continue in
other portions of the nonattainment
areas.
III. What action is EPA taking?
We are disapproving a December 5,
2012, request from the state of Indiana
to redesignate Lake and Porter Counties
to attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
because Indiana has not demonstrated
that the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
ozone nonattainment area, which
includes Lake and Porter Counties, has
attained this NAAQS, as required by
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA.
EPA is also disapproving Indiana’s
ozone maintenance plan and MVEBs,
submitted with Indiana’s ozone
redesignation request, because Indiana
has failed to successfully present
MVEBs and an ozone maintenance plan
which reflect attainment and
maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard
in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
ozone nonattainment area as evidenced
by the continued violation of this ozone
standard in this ozone nonattainment
area.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
and, therefore, is not subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely disapproves state
law as not meeting Federal requirements
and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule disapproves preexisting requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain any
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
73210
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
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 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
disapproves a state rule, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution
of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it disapproves
a state rule.
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:45 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a
state submission that otherwise satisfies
the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(Feb. 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 United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
action. In reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove
state choices, based on the criteria of the
CAA. Accordingly, this action merely
disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section
110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA
and will not in-and-of itself create any
new requirements. Accordingly, it does
not provide EPA with the discretionary
authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable
and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898.
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. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by February 9, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule 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 oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: November 25, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.777 is amended by
adding paragraph (ss), to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.777 Control strategy: photochemical
oxidents (hydrocarbons).
*
*
*
*
*
(ss) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving
Indiana’s December 5, 2012, ozone
redesignation request for Lake and
Porter Counties for the 2008 ozone
standard. EPA is also disapproving
Indiana’s motor vehicle emission
budgets and ozone maintenance plan
submitted with the redesignation
request.
[FR Doc. 2014–28799 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0601; FRL–9918–88]
Alpha-cypermethrin; Pesticide
Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes a
tolerance for residues of alphacypermethrin in or on food
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73205-73210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28799]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0989; FRL 9920-14-Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of
Lake and Porter Counties to Attainment of the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone
Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving a
December 5, 2012, request from the state of Indiana to redesignate Lake
and Porter Counties to attainment of the 2008 ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) because Indiana has not
demonstrated that the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin
(IL-IN-WI) ozone nonattainment area (Chicago nonattainment area), which
includes Lake and Porter Counties, has attained this NAAQS. EPA is also
disapproving Indiana's ozone maintenance plan and Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), submitted with Indiana's ozone
redesignation request.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 9, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID No.
EPA EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0989. All
[[Page 73206]]
documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
at (312) 886-6057 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057,
doty.edward@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged
as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this action?
The background for this action is discussed in detail in EPA's June
30, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 36692). In that proposed rulemaking, we
noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 ozone
standard is violated when the three-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations at any monitoring
site in the subject area \1\ is greater 0.075 parts per million parts
of air (ppm). See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012) for further information
regarding area designations for the 2008 ozone standard and 77 FR 34221
(June 11, 2012) for information regarding the designation of the
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area for the 2008 ozone standard. See 40
CFR 50.15 and appendix P to 40 CFR part 50 regarding the ozone data
requirements for a determination of whether an area has attained the
2008 ozone standard. Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), EPA may redesignate a nonattainment area (or a portion thereof)
to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are
available to demonstrate that the nonattainment area as a whole has
attained the standard and if all other requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this case, the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone
nonattainment area for the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. This area is
composed of Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana; Cook, DuPage, Kane,
Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships
in Grundy County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County in Illinois;
and the area east of and including the Interstate 94 corridor in
Kenosha County in Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted
a request for the redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties to
attainment of the 2008 ozone standard on December 5, 2012. The
redesignation request included summarized ozone data for all monitors
in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area along with
other information specific to Lake and Porter Counties to demonstrate
that all requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA have been
satisfied. The June 30, 2014, proposed disapproval provides a detailed
discussion of the ozone data for the period of 2006 through 2013 (see
tables 1 and 2 in the June 30, 2014, proposed rule at 79 FR 36694),
which show a violation of the 2008 ozone standard in the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI area based on current, quality-assured ozone data.
It does not, however, discuss in detail other components of Indiana's
submittal because EPA believes that Indiana failed to meet the most
basic requirement for redesignation, a demonstration that the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area has attained the 2008
ozone standard. We proposed to disapprove Indiana's ozone redesignation
request based on the violation of the 2008 ozone standard, but we
proposed no action on Indiana's MVEBs and ozone maintenance
demonstration for the 2008 ozone standard.
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?
During the public comment period for the June 30, 2014, proposed
rule, we received two sets of comments, which we summarize and address
here. One set of comments was submitted by IDEM and the other set was
submitted by an industrial corporation with a facility in Gary,
Indiana.
Comment 1: Both commenters objected to EPA's proposed disapproval
of Indiana's ozone redesignation request based on violations of the
2008 ozone standard at several monitoring sites in the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area, but outside of Lake and
Porter Counties (no violations of the 2008 ozone standard were recorded
in Lake and Porter Counties), during the period of 2011-2013 (the most
recent three-year period with quality-assured, state-certified ozone
monitoring data).\2\ These objections are based on the commenters' view
that section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides for the redesignation of
a portion of a nonattainment area as well as for the entire
nonattainment area. Both commenters contend that, since all monitors in
Lake and Porter Counties have monitored attainment of the 2008 ozone
standard and since Indiana's ozone redesignation request only applies
to Lake and Porter Counties, EPA has erred in its interpretation of
section 107(d)(3)(E) and in its insistence of judging Indiana's
redesignation request based on the current ozone data for all ozone
monitors in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As noted in the June 30, 2014, proposed rule, Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area has experienced a
violation of the 2008 ozone standard for every three-year period
from 2009 to 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDEM makes two additional points in support of this comment. First,
IDEM asserts that the plain language of section 107(d)(3)(E) does not
mandate that EPA use as a prerequisite for approval of a redesignation
request that all monitors in a nonattainment area show attainment of
the NAAQS. IDEM contends that EPA misreads section 107(d)(3)(E) with
regard to the word ``area'' contained in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i).
IDEM argues that this subsection cannot be parsed from section
107(d)(3)(E) as a whole, and that a reading of section 107(d)(3)(E) as
a whole shows that the word ``area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) may
apply to a portion of the nonattainment area, as covered by the state's
redesignation request, in this case Lake and Porter Counties, since
other subsections of section 107(d)(3)(E) and the lead-in clauses of
section 107(d)(3)(E) (of general applicability to all of section
107(d)(3)(E) and its subsections) can apply to a portion of the
nonattainment area.\3\ IDEM cites two cases, Kokoszka v.
[[Page 73207]]
Bellford, 417 U.S. 642, 650 (1974), and Dada v. Mukasey, 544 U.S. 1
(2008), for the principle that ``When interpreting a statute, the court
will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may
be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute . . .''.
IDEM argues that this legal principle supports its view that
interpretation of ``the area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) must be
informed and modified by ``a nonattainment area (or portion thereof)''
as provided in the lead-in clauses of section 107(d)(3)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The leading clauses of section 107(d)(3)(E) refer to the
``nonattainment area (or portion thereof).'' In addition, the term
``area'' in subsections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iv), and (v) can be
applied to a sub-portion of a nonattainment area, generally to a
state's portion of a multi-state nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, IDEM cites EPA's approval of the redesignation of
Kentucky's portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky (OH-KY)
nonattainment area to attainment of the 1990 ozone standard in further
support of its position. IDEM notes that EPA approved a redesignation
request for the Kentucky portion even though the Ohio portion of this
ozone nonattainment area was denied redesignation. IDEM points out that
in doing so, EPA interpreted the term ``area'' in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) to mean a portion of the nonattainment area, rather
than the nonattainment area as a whole. Similarly, IDEM notes that, in
EPA's subsequent final rule approving the redesignation of the Kentucky
portion of the nonattainment area, EPA said that it had the authority
to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the nonattainment area
independent of whether Ohio had met all of the requirements for a fully
approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) for its portion of the
nonattainment area. IDEM believes that EPA's interpretation of ``area''
in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) in the redesignation of the Kentucky
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY nonattainment area is the
correct interpretation and should apply to subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i)
to support the approval of Indiana's ozone redesignation request for
Lake and Porter Counties.
Response 1: Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA specifies five criteria
for evaluating the adequacy of a state's redesignation request. A key
element of these criteria is contained in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i),
which requires that the Administrator (EPA) determine that ``the area
has attained the national ambient air quality standard.'' EPA has
consistently interpreted ``area'' in this subsection to mean the entire
nonattainment area and has required that all monitors in the subject
nonattainment area have monitored attainment of the subject air quality
standard. This is true for multi-state nonattainment areas, such as the
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area, and for single state
nonattainment areas. See, e.g., 77 FR 6743, February 9, 2012, (proposed
redesignation of the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
IL-IN nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone standard); 76 FR 79579,
December 22, 2011, (proposed redesignation of the Illinois portion of
the St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone
standard); 72 FR 26759, May 11, 2007, (proposed redesignation of the
Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland, Kentucky-West Virginia
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone standard); 72 FR 1474, January
12, 2007, (proposed redesignation of the West Virginia portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta, West Virginia-Ohio nonattainment area for the
1997 ozone standard); and 75 FR 12090, March 12, 2010, (proposed
redesignation of the Indiana portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
Illinois-Indiana nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone standard).
The commenters assert that section 107(d)(3)(E) criteria allow the
redesignation of a portion of a nonattainment area. We agree with these
commenters that EPA can, and has under certain circumstances,
redesignated portions of a nonattainment area to attainment of the
NAAQS while leaving other portions of the nonattainment area designated
as nonattainment. See the above list of proposed rules for proposed
partial area redesignations. However, regardless of whether EPA
considers a redesignation of a part of a nonattainment area or the
redesignation of an entire nonattainment area, EPA considers the air
quality data for the entire nonattainment area to establish compliance
with the air quality requirements of subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i). EPA
has consistently taken this approach because to do otherwise could
result in the stripping of source areas that are otherwise attaining
the NAAQS away from the remainder of a nonattainment area that
continues to violate the NAAQS. This would clearly undermine the CAA's
intent for nonattainment areas to include both the violating areas and
the source areas that contribute to the violations of the NAAQS, as
expressed in subsection 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA. Redesignating
portions of nonattainment areas when the areas, as wholes, are not
attaining the NAAQS would also interfere with the CAA's emission
control requirements that are designed to bring the nonattainment areas
back into attainment of the NAAQS by controlling emissions in source
areas within the nonattainment areas.
EPA disagrees with IDEM that the CAA compels EPA to interpret the
word ``area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to mean a nonattainment
area or a portion of a nonattainment area. The language of section
107(d)(3)(E) and its subsections, read with the CAA as a whole, does
not lend itself to a clear and unambiguous interpretation of the term
``area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i).
IDEM argues that EPA must interpret ``area'' in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i) in light of the CAA as a whole. EPA agrees, and
believes that, contrary to IDEM's position, this legal principle
supports EPA's reading of the statute. As noted above, if EPA were to
interpret ``area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to permit the agency
to approve a redesignation where the air quality standard was not being
attained in all portions of the nonattainment area, the agency would
contravene Congress' intent that nonattainment areas include not only
areas that do not meet the air quality standard but also areas ``that
contribute [ ] to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not
meet'' the standard. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(i). Interpreting the
statute in the manner suggested by IDEM would allow a portion of a
nonattainment area, which itself is not violating the NAAQS but is
contributing to nonattainment in that area, to be redesignated to
attainment immediately after being designated as part of the
nonattainment area under CAA subsection 107(d)(1)(A)(i) if the state
could demonstrate compliance with the provisions of subsections
107(d)(3)(E)(ii)-(v). This is not a reasonable reading of the statute,
and thus EPA disagrees with IDEM that, in reading the statute as a
whole, the word ``area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) should be
interpreted to include ``a portion of the nonattainment area.''
In fact, the requested redesignation at issue illustrates precisely
the hypothetical example set out above. On June 11, 2012, EPA finalized
its designation of Lake and Porter Counties as part of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area (77 FR 34221). EPA
explained in that rule that Lake and Porter Counties were included in
the ozone nonattainment area designation based on their emissions and
contribution to high ozone concentrations in other parts of the
nonattainment area. See EPA's final technical support document (TSD)
for the designation of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area (available
at https://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/documents/
[[Page 73208]]
R5_Chicago_TSD_Final.pdf). In particular, in the TSD, EPA noted that
Lake and Porter Counties account for 10.4 percent of the total VOC
emissions and 18.8 percent of the total NOX emissions for
the entire Chicago consolidated statistical area. Id. at 9. In the TSD,
EPA also noted that other county-specific factors, including population
levels, traffic levels (vehicle miles of travel), and meteorology
during high ozone days in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area also
supported the inclusion of Lake and Porter Counties in the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
standard.
In the designations process, Indiana objected to the inclusion of
Lake and Porter Counties in the ozone nonattainment area, and EPA
responded to those comments. See EPA's ``ADDENDUM to Response to
Significant Comments on the State and Tribal Designation
Recommendations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for Section 3.2.5.1. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
area'' (RTC Addendum), (available at https://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/documents/20120531chicagortc.pdf). In
both the TSD and the RTC Addendum, EPA discussed ozone modeling
analyses conducted by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO) that demonstrate that Lake and Porter Counties' ozone precursor
emissions significantly contributed to high ozone levels at the Zion,
Illinois monitoring site (the worst-case ozone design value monitoring
site considered during ozone designation process for the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI area) during the high ozone days modeled by LADCO
(TSD at 17-19 and RTC Addendum at 10-12).
EPA's inclusion of Lake and Porter Counties as part of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
standard is also consistent with section 107(d)(1) of the CAA and EPA's
interpretation of the statute as it pertains to ozone designations as
expressed in a December 4, 2008, EPA policy memorandum (``Area
Designations for the 2008 Revised Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' from Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X). As noted in
that memorandum, because ``[g]round-level ozone and ozone precursor
emissions are pervasive and readily transported . . . EPA believes it
is important to examine ozone-contributing emissions across a
relatively broad geographic area.'' Id. at 3.
Indiana requested redesignation of the Lake and Porter Counties
portion of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area in
December 2012, six months after the initial designation of the
nonattainment area was finalized. The state's request is based on the
same years of air quality data that were used to designate the area
nonattainment. Thus, interpreting ``area'' in section 107(d)(3)(E) as
IDEM suggests would have the effect of immediately reversing the
designation of the nonattainment area, an outcome that Congress could
not have intended. Indiana has objected to the inclusion of Lake and
Porter Counties in the Chicago nonattainment area and it has filed a
petition for judicial review of that decision.\4\ The redesignation
process, however, is not the proper forum in which to challenge EPA's
designation decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality, et al. v.
EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 12-1309 and consolidated cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDEM's assertion that EPA's redesignation of the Kentucky portion
of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY nonattainment area for the 1990 ozone
standard is inconsistent with EPA's action here is also mistaken. In
that redesignation, EPA clearly considered ozone data for all ozone
monitoring sites in the entire Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area,
and not just for the portion of the area that was being redesignated,
in determining that the Kentucky portion of the area had met the
criteria for redesignation. 65 FR 3630 (January 24, 2000) and 65 FR
37879 (June 19, 2000). IDEM accurately notes that EPA interpreted the
word ``area'' for purposes of subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) to mean the
state-specific portion of the nonattainment area in the Cincinnati-
Hamilton redesignation, consistent with EPA's long-standing
interpretation of that provision.
EPA acknowledges that the meaning of the word ``area'' in section
107(d)(3)(E) is ambiguous. In the Cincinnati-Hamilton redesignation
cited by IDEM, and in other actions, EPA has consistently interpreted
the word ``area'' in subsections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iv), and (v) to
include the single-state portions of multi-state nonattainment areas in
addition to entire nonattainment areas seeking redesignation.
Subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) requires that an area have a fully approved
applicable SIP, subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) requires that an area have
a fully approved maintenance plan, and subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(v)
requires an area to have met all applicable requirements under section
110 and part D. These subsections are distinguishable from subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i) in that interpreting ``area'' in these subsections to
include a single-state portion of a multi-state area does not interfere
with any other requirement of the CAA. Furthermore, EPA interprets
``area'' in subsections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iv), and (v) to include
portions of nonattainment areas because those provisions all relate to
SIP revision requirements, and each state is independently responsible
for obtaining approval of the applicable SIP provisions for
redesignation.
EPA does not think it is necessary to require one state to wait for
another state to complete its SIP actions before becoming eligible for
redesignation if the nonattainment area as a whole is attaining the
NAAQS. On the other hand, although EPA will determine that a state
containing a portion of a multi-state nonattainment area has satisfied
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) where only that state has submitted a fully
approved maintenance plan, EPA requires as a matter of course that the
state communicate with the other states governing the multi-state
nonattainment area and demonstrate projected maintenance of the NAAQS
in the other portions of the nonattainment area, even in the absence of
fully approved maintenance plans from those other states. EPA has,
therefore, been consistent in interpreting ``area'' in 107(d)(3)(E) to
mean the entire nonattainment area with respect to air quality
concerns, even where the Agency has interpreted the term ``area'' to
include single-state portions of multi-state nonattainment areas when
the requirement is limited to SIP submission and processing.
In conclusion, EPA believes that interpreting the word ``area'' in
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to mean a portion of a nonattainment area
contravenes the CAA mandate in subsection 107(d)(1)(A)(i) for the
nonattainment area to include both the violating areas and the source
areas that contribute to the violations of the NAAQS. Even if EPA
believed that it could redesignate a portion of an area when another
portion of the area is violating the NAAQS, we would decline to take
that approach as a policy matter because we believe that our current
interpretation of subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) is most protective of
human health and the environment.
Comment 2: IDEM requests that EPA re-evaluate Indiana's December 5,
2012, redesignation request in total, after consideration of its
arguments as summarized in comment 1, to determine
[[Page 73209]]
whether the request as a whole conforms to the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(D).
Response 2: As explained in response to Comment 1 above, we
disagree with IDEM's interpretation of ``area'' in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i) and have determined that this subsection requires
attainment of the 2008 ozone standard in the entire Chicago-Naperville,
IL-IN-WI nonattainment area. Since the 2008 ozone standard has not been
attained in the entire nonattainment area, as evidenced by the ozone
monitoring data summarized in the June 30, 2014, proposed rule (see
tables 1 and 2 at 79 FR 36692, 36694-36695), we conclude that the
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area and Indiana's ozone redesignation
request for Lake and Porter Counties have not met the most basic
requirement for redesignation, attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Since attainment of the NAAQS is a prerequisite for development of
an acceptable attainment emissions inventory (and the MVEBs derived
thereof) and for demonstrations of maintenance, we cannot approve these
components of Indiana's ozone redesignation request for Lake and Porter
Counties. In our June 30, 2014, proposed rule, we explained that rather
than acting on these components of Indiana's redesignation request,
which would almost certainly have resulted in proposed disapproval on
the grounds of the failure of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area to
attain the 2008 ozone standard, we chose to take no action on these
components (79 FR 36692, 36696). In so doing, we explained that an
approvable ozone maintenance plan must contain an ozone attainment
emissions inventory documenting VOC and NOX emissions for
the period in which the area has attained the ozone standard. We
concluded that ``[s]ince the Chicago ozone nonattainment area continues
to violate the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we cannot conclude that
Indiana has developed an acceptable attainment year emissions
inventory. This means that the ozone maintenance demonstration portion
of the ozone maintenance plan is unacceptable.'' Id. Similarly, with
regard to Indiana's proposed MVEBs for VOCs and NOX, we
explained that ``since the estimation of the VOC and NOX
MVEBs depends on the determination of mobile source emissions that,
along with other emissions in the nonattainment area, provide for
attainment of the ozone standard, and since the Chicago nonattainment
area continues to violate the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we
conclude that Indiana's estimates of the VOC and NOX MVEBs
are also not acceptable.'' Id.
Subsequently, IDEM submitted its comment requesting that we take
action on the remaining components of its submittal in light of our re-
evaluation of our interpretation of ``area'' in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i). We had proposed to take no action on those remaining
components; but based on our earlier findings that those components are
not approvable and on IDEM's comment urging us to take action on its
request as a whole, we now conclude that we cannot approve the
remaining portions of Indiana's request--its maintenance plan and its
proposed MVEBs. As a result, we are in this action disapproving these
remaining portions of Indiana's submission. We believe this disapproval
is a logical outgrowth of our proposal, because we included in that
notice not only our explanation for why these elements were not
approvable, but also indicated that ``if we were to propose actions on
these ozone redesignation request elements, we would find it necessary
to propose disapproval.'' 79 FR 36692, 36696. We believe this alerted
commenters that we were considering disapproval of the maintenance plan
and MVEBs. Therefore, we are determining that the MVEBs and ozone
maintenance plan included with Indiana's ozone redesignation request
must be disapproved on the basis that the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
area continues to violate the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Comment 3: The corporate commenter asserted that EPA's failure to
redesignate the portions of nonattainment areas that meet the NAAQS
unnecessarily burdens economic development in such areas. The commenter
objected to the implementation of (nonattainment) New Source Review
(NSR) requirements in these areas on the basis that such implementation
unjustly burdens the sources in these areas.
Response 3: Since the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area continues
to violate the 2008 ozone standard, it is imperative that NSR continue
to be applied in all parts of the nonattainment area to avoid
exacerbation of the existing ozone air quality problem. The
``attainment'' portions of nonattainment areas that the commenter
refers to are in this case source areas contributing to violations of
the NAAQS in other portions of the nonattainment area. See also our
response to Comment 1, above. Therefore, it is inappropriate to
redesignate the attaining portions of the nonattainment areas and to
remove NSR requirements, including new source offsets, in these
attaining portions while violations of the NAAQS continue in other
portions of the nonattainment areas.
III. What action is EPA taking?
We are disapproving a December 5, 2012, request from the state of
Indiana to redesignate Lake and Porter Counties to attainment of the
2008 ozone NAAQS because Indiana has not demonstrated that the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area, which includes Lake and
Porter Counties, has attained this NAAQS, as required by subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA. EPA is also disapproving Indiana's ozone
maintenance plan and MVEBs, submitted with Indiana's ozone
redesignation request, because Indiana has failed to successfully
present MVEBs and an ozone maintenance plan which reflect attainment
and maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in the Chicago-Naperville,
IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area as evidenced by the continued
violation of this ozone standard in this ozone nonattainment area.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely disapproves state law as not meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule disapproves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
[[Page 73210]]
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does 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 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely disapproves a state rule, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it disapproves a state rule.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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 United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and subchapter I, part D
of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements.
Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898.
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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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 oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 25, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Section 52.777 is amended by adding paragraph (ss), to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.777 Control strategy: photochemical oxidents (hydrocarbons).
* * * * *
(ss) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving Indiana's December 5, 2012,
ozone redesignation request for Lake and Porter Counties for the 2008
ozone standard. EPA is also disapproving Indiana's motor vehicle
emission budgets and ozone maintenance plan submitted with the
redesignation request.
[FR Doc. 2014-28799 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
