Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits, 26183-26189 [2015-10628]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Tuesdays through Saturdays throughout the deviation period. In addition, the span will be in the closed position on Mondays, but available to open from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. when given 3 hours advanced notice. The bridge will operate as normal on Sundays. Waterway usage on the Lewis and Clark River is primarily small recreational boaters and fishing vessels transiting to and from Fred Wahl Marine Construction Inc. The bascule span of the bridge will have a containment system installed which will reduce the vertical clearance by 5 feet from 17.3 feet above mean high water to 12.3 feet above mean high water. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for any emergency if a three-hour notice is given from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday; on Sundays the bridge will be able to open in accordance with 33 CFR 117.899(c), and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: May 1, 2015. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2015–10635 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG–2015–0334] wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW), Atlantic City, NJ Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US 40–322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across Inside SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 Thorofare, NJICW mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the American Cancer Society Bike-a-thon. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position to vessels requesting a bridge opening to ensure the biker’s safety and that there are no delays. DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 14, 2015. ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation [USCG–2015–0334] is available at https://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ‘‘Search’’ box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on the Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Kashanda Booker, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, telephone (757) 398–6227, email Kashanda.l.booker@uscg.mil. If you have questions on reviewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The American Cancer Society on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Transportation has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation of the US 40–322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across Inside Thorofare, NJICW mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ. The closure has been requested to ensure the safety of the bikers and spectators that will be participating in the American Cancer Society Bike-athon. Under this temporary deviation, the US 40–322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge will remain in the closed position from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 14, 2015. The vertical clearance of this bascule bridge is 10 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited in the open position. The current operating regulation is outlined at 33 CFR 117.733(f), which requires that the bridge shall open on signal, except that from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. the draw need only open on the hour and half hour. The majority of the vessels that transit the bridge this time of year are recreational boats. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The Atlantic Ocean is an PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 26183 alternate route for vessels with mast heights greater than 10 feet. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners’ of the closure periods so that vessels can plan their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. At all other times during the affected period, the bridge will operate as outlined at 33 CFR 117.733(f). In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: April 28, 2015. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2015–11017 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0071; FRL–9926–98– OAR] RIN 2060–AS57 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to amend the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program regulations to allow for rescission of certain PSD permits issued by the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities under Step 2 of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule). We are taking this action in order to provide a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind PSD permits that are no longer required in light of the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court’s decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation (Coalition) v. EPA, vacating that rule. These decisions determined that Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule was not required under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 26184 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations and vacated the EPA regulations implementing Step 2. When effective, this action will authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind Step 2 PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate that they are eligible for permit rescission. DATES: This rule is effective on July 6, 2015 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by June 8, 2015. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by May 18, 2015, the EPA will hold a public hearing on May 22, 2015 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0071, by one of the following methods: • https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2015–0071 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0071, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0071. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 0071. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means the EPA will not know your wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES ADDRESSES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any CD you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, avoid any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the https:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at https:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this direct final should be addressed to Mrs. Jessica ˜ Montanez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, (C504–03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541–3407, email at montanez.jessica@epa.gov. To request a public hearing or questions concerning a public hearing, please contact Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, (C504–01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 number (919) 541–0641, email at long.pam@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble is organized as follows: I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule? II. Does this action apply to me? III. Background A. What is the PSD program? B. What is the Tailoring Rule? C. What is the UARG v. EPA decision and why does the EPA need to revise the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR 52.21(w) in light of the decision? 1. What is the UARG v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court decision? 2. Why are we revising the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR 52.21(w) in light of the Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition? IV. Direct Final Action V. Environmental Justice Considerations VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executve Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution and Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) L. Determination Under Section 307(d) VII. Judicial Review I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule? The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. This action narrowly amends the permit rescission provisions in the federal PSD regulations found in 40 CFR 52.21(w) to allow for the rescission of EPA-issued PSD permits 1 that were 1 For purposes of this rule, the phrases ‘‘EPAissued PSD permits that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule’’ and ‘‘EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits’’ are intended to have the same meaning. The use of the term ‘‘EPA-issued’’ in both phrases includes PSD permits issued by the EPA as well as permits issued by state or local reviewing E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule 2 permitting regulations. The U.S. Supreme Court determined the permitting requirements under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule to be invalid in UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part an earlier decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In further proceedings upon consideration of the Supreme Court decision, the D.C. Circuit amended its judgment in the Coalition case. The Amended Judgment vacated particular provisions of the EPA’s regulations implementing Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule. This direct final action does not itself rescind any permits; it only provides the regulatory mechanism through which the EPA or state or local program administering the PSD program through a delegation of federal authority from the EPA could rescind, upon request of a source, an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit vacating the regulations. However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this Federal Register publication, we also are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to amend the same federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(w) if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule, and any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on the proposed rule, see the ADDRESSES section in that separate document in this Federal Register publication. II. Does this action apply to me? The entities potentially affected by this rule include new and modified stationary sources that obtained an EPAissued Step 2 PSD permit under the federal PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 solely because the source or a modification of the source was expected authorities exercising federal law authority delegated by an EPA Regional Office under 40 CFR 52.21(u). 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v). VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 to emit or increase GHG emissions over the applicable thresholds. This includes (1) sources classified as major for PSD purposes solely on the basis of their potential GHG emissions; and (2) sources emitting major amounts of other pollutants that experienced a modification resulting in an increase of only GHG emissions above the applicable levels in the EPA regulations. Entities affected by this rule may also include state or local reviewing authorities that have been delegated federal authority to implement the federal PSD regulations under 40 CFR 52.21(u) and that have issued Step 2 PSD permits to sources within their jurisdiction. This rule does not address the requirements for approval of a PSD program into a state implementation plan (40 CFR 51.166) or the rescission of PSD permits issued by states and local programs with such approved programs. Stationary sources with questions on the PSD permitting obligations arising from Step 2 PSD permits issued by state or local reviewing authorities under the permitting programs approved into state implementation plans should review the governing statutory provisions and provisions in the applicable approved state or local permitting program to determine how to address any Step 2 PSD permitting issues and consult with the EPA as necessary. III. Background A. What is the PSD program? Part C of title I of the Act contains the requirements for a component of the major New Source Review (NSR) program known as the PSD program. This program sets forth procedures for the construction review and permitting of new and modified stationary sources of air pollution locating in areas meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (‘‘attainment’’ areas) and areas for which there is insufficient information to classify an area as either attainment or nonattainment (‘‘unclassifiable’’ areas). The applicability of PSD to a particular source must be determined in advance of construction of a new source or major modification of an existing source and is pollutant-specific. Once a source is determined to be subject to PSD, among other requirements, the source must demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment,3 and that it will use the Best Available Control Technology (BACT).4 3 CAA 4 CAA PO 00000 section 165(a)(3). section 165(a)(4). Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 26185 The reviewing authority must provide notice of its preliminary decision on a source’s application for a PSD permit, and must provide an opportunity for comment by the public, industry, and other interested persons. After considering and responding to comments, the reviewing authority must issue a final determination on the permit. B. What is the Tailoring Rule? On June 3, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule, known as the Tailoring Rule, which phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs (75 FR 31514). For Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, PSD or title V requirements applied to sources’ GHG emissions only if the sources were subject to PSD or title V ‘‘anyway’’ due to their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. These sources are referred to as ‘‘anyway sources.’’ Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, applied the PSD and title V permitting requirements under the CAA to sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions and to modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD permit because they increased only GHG above applicable levels in the EPA regulations. C. What is the UARG v. EPA decision and why does the EPA need to revise the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR 52.21(w) in light of the decision? 1. What is the UARG v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court decision? On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, addressing the application of stationary source permitting requirements to GHGs. In summary, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source (or a modification thereof) is required to obtain a PSD or title V permit,5 and 5 Among other things, title V of the CAA requires all major stationary sources of air pollution and certain other sources to apply for a title V operating permit that includes emission limitations and other conditions as necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of the CAA. The title V operating permit program is a vehicle for ensuring that air quality control requirements are appropriately applied to facility emission units and for assuring compliance with such requirements, but does not generally impose new substantive air quality control requirements. The title V program is implemented through regulations promulgated Continued Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 26186 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES declared that the EPA regulations implementing that approach for determining permitting applicability are invalid. However, the U.S. Supreme Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of conventional pollutants (i.e., nonGHG pollutants), contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. That is, the ruling effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ‘‘anyway sources,’’ and invalidated PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources. To describe the EPA’s preliminary views on the U.S. Supreme Court decision, on July 24, 2014, the EPA issued a memorandum titled, ‘‘Next Steps and Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse Gases Following the Supreme Court’s Decision in UARG v. EPA’’ (Preliminary Views Memo).6 In that memorandum, the EPA explained that it ‘‘will no longer require PSD . . . permits for Step 2 sources’’ (Preliminary Views Memo at 2) and that the EPA expected ‘‘to provide additional views in the future with respect to Step 2 sources that had already obtained a PSD permit . . .’’ (Preliminary Views Memo at 4). The EPA provided additional views regarding EPA-issued Step 2 permits when it issued two memoranda on December 19, 2014. In the memorandum issued by the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and titled, ‘‘Next Steps for Addressing EPA-Issued Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Greenhouse Gas Permits and Associated Requirements’’ (OAR Next Steps Memo),7 the EPA explained that it intended to complete this rulemaking ‘‘authorizing the rescission of Step 2 PSD permits.’’ In the second memorandum, which was issued by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and titled, ‘‘No Action Assurance Regarding EPA-Issued Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits and Related Title V Requirements Following Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency’’ (OECA No Action Assurance Memo),8 OECA issued a under 40 CFR part 70, for programs implemented by state or local agencies and tribes, and 40 CFR part 71, for programs generally implemented by the EPA. 6 https://epa.gov/nsr/documents/ 20140724memo.pdf. 7 https://epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/ Step2PermitRescissinsMemoFinal_12-19-14.pdf. 8 https://epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/ OECANoActionAssuranceMemo_ December192014.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 narrowly tailored No Action Assurance for sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. The OECA No Action Assurance Memo establishes that the EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion not to pursue enforcement of the terms and conditions relating to GHGs in a source’s EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit, and for related GHG terms and conditions that are contained in the source’s title V permit, if any. The Supreme Court decisions affirmed in part and reversed in part an earlier decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In further proceedings upon consideration of the opinion in UARG, on April 10, the D.C. Circuit in Coalition issued an amended judgment in accordance with that decision. Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09–1322, 10–073, 10–1092 and 10–1167 (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015) (Amended Judgment). As relevant to this rulemaking action, the court ordered that the EPA regulations under review (including 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a modification. We are aware that between the effective date of Step 2 (July 1, 2011) and the date of the UARG v. EPA decision (June 23, 2014), several sources obtained EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits either directly from the EPA or from state or local agencies with delegated PSD programs under 40 CFR 52.21 because the sources (or modifications thereof) were classified as ‘‘major’’ solely on the basis of their GHG emissions. For some of these sources, the appropriate reviewing authorities also issued title V permits that incorporated the terms and conditions of the EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. To ensure this rule covers all stationary sources eligible for rescission of EPAissued Step 2 PSD permits, this action provides that owners or operators of stationary sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits with final permit issuance dates from July 1, 2011 to 60 days after the effective date of this rule would be able to request a permit rescission from EPA or delegated reviewing authorities as applicable. For more information on the process for requesting a permit rescission for EPAissued Step 2 PSD permits, see section PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 V of this action titled, ‘‘Direct Final Action.’’ 2. Why are we revising the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR 52.21(w) in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition? To implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and the amended appeals court judgment vacating the regulations implementing Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, it is necessary to undertake a process to rescind PSD Step 2 permits. The EPA’s implementing permitting regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 provide that ‘‘[a]ny [PSD] permit issued under this section or a prior version of this section shall remain in effect, unless and until it expires . . . or is rescinded’’ (40 CFR 52.21(w)(l)). Section 52.21(w) provides authority for a source holding a PSD permit to request rescission of the permit and for the EPA to ‘‘grant an application for rescission if the applicant shows that this section [40 CFR 52.21] would not apply to the source or modification.’’ However, as currently written, the scope of this rescission authority is limited to permits issued under 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect on or before July 30, 1987. Since any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits were issued under regulations effective after July 30, 1987, the rescission authority in 40 CFR 52.21(w) is not currently available to sources with EPAissued Step 2 PSD permits. This rulemaking action is a narrow revision to 52.21(w) solely to enable the rescission of Step 2 PSD permits consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the D.C. Circuit amended judgment. This rule does not address any issues concerning the federal PSD permit rescission regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(w) that are not related to the Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment vacating the Step 2 regulations. We recognize, however, that other circumstances may arise in the future where the appropriate course of action may be permit rescission. We would expect these circumstances to be rare. Under the current rules, a rulemaking would need to be undertaken in each such circumstance as we are doing here. Therefore, the EPA is developing a separate rulemaking action that will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on any other situations where the July 30, 1987 date in 52.21(w) may be an impediment to the rescission of PSD permits under particular circumstances where that might be appropriate. E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations IV. Direct Final Action In this action, the EPA is revising 40 CFR 52.21(w)(2) by adding references to 40 CFR 52.21(49)(b)(v)(a) and (b) to allow for rescission of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits upon request by the permitted source, which is consistent with the EPA’s understanding of the Supreme Court decision and the amended appeals court judgment vacating the regulations. In addition, the EPA is adding the following sentence to 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) to make clear that PSD requirements no longer apply to Step 2 sources: ‘‘As a result of a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, this section does not apply to sources or modifications that meet only the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v).’’ This regulatory action does not make any change to 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1) or (4). In addition, it does not affect the standard for determining whether a source is eligible for permit rescission under 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3). It serves only to revise 40 CFR 52.21(w)(2)–(3) of the EPA’s federal PSD regulations to authorize the EPA to undertake permit rescissions for EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. As the EPA previously explained in its December 19, 2014, OAR Next Steps Memo, once this rule is final, sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits will be able to seek a permit rescission from the EPA or delegated state or local reviewing authority. Specifically, consistent with the 2014 OAR Next Steps Memo at page 3, the EPA expects that PSD permit-holders interested in qualifying for the rescission of an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit under 40 CFR 52.21(w) will need to provide information to demonstrate that either (1) the source did not, at the time the source obtained its EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit, emit or have the potential to emit any regulated pollutant other than GHGs above the major source threshold applicable to that type of source; or (2) a modification at a source emitting major amounts of a regulated NSR pollutant other than GHGs did not result in an increase in emissions of any regulated pollutant other than GHGs in an amount equal to or greater than the applicable significance level for that pollutant. Furthermore, the EPA intends to consider whether the EPA or another reviewing authority is relying on the EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit for any other regulatory purpose. Rescission of a PSD permit that is no longer required should not extend to eliminate regulatory obligations that remain regarding non GHG-pollutants or inadvertently place the permitted source VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 in a situation where it may be out of compliance with other requirements that the PSD permit satisfied. For example, as noted in the memoranda mentioned previously, a source with an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit may now have other regulatory or permitting obligations (e.g., minor NSR requirements), which generally concern sources emitting pollutants subject to a NAAQS. The source may have previously not needed to obtain a minor source permit because it used its Step 2 permit to satisfy its preconstruction permitting obligations, but it might now need to obtain a minor NSR permit. Until such time as the source and the permitting authority can determine whether and how to replace Step 2 PSD permit conditions for such pollutants with a permit satisfying minor NSR requirements, continued compliance with PSD permit terms and conditions for such permits is important to protect the NAAQS, and rescission may, thus, be premature. Further, if the GHG condition in an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit has been used to satisfy another state or federal requirement, rescission may not be appropriate without assurances that another method will be established for complying with other federal, state, and local requirements (e.g., if the state is presuming the source builds consistent with the efficiency requirement in the EPA-issued Step 2 permit in order to satisfy other state air pollution requirements). In sum, the rescission of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits should not proceed without an understanding of how minor source construction permitting requirements and other legal obligations will be met going forward. Since the EPA generally does not issue construction permits for minor sources except in Indian country, the EPA Regional Offices and sources holding EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits should consult with the appropriate state or local reviewing authorities and develop a plan to ensure that sources remain in compliance with applicable minor source and other legal requirements after rescission of EPAissued Step 2 PSD permits. As part of the rescission process for EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits, the EPA anticipates that some sources will also want to seek revisions to title V operating permits that include the EPAissued Step 2 PSD permit terms and conditions. Therefore, once an EPAissued Step 2 PSD permit is formally rescinded by the EPA or delegated reviewing authority, the EPA or delegated reviewing authority will encourage the applicable title V state or local permitting authorities to take PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 26187 appropriate actions with the sources to resolve any issues related to the incorporation of the EPA-issued PSD Step 2 permit requirements into title V permits that have already been issued and as further described in the OAR Next Steps Memo at page 4. The EPA is not revising its title V regulations in this action because the EPA believes that its existing title V regulations contain sufficient procedures for the actions discussed in the OAR Next Steps Memo and no revisions to EPA’s title V regulations are necessary to enable these steps to proceed. This action only contains the regulatory revisions necessary to allow for rescission of EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits in order to conform to the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. In this action, the EPA is not making any other regulatory changes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision or the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. The EPA intends to take additional rulemaking action to remove the vacated provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations and make further revisions to its PSD and title V regulations, as appropriate. V. Environmental Justice Considerations This action amends one provision of the federal PSD program regulations to allow for the rescission of EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits in order to conform to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that declared invalid regulations that implemented the requirement that Step 2 sources obtain PSD permits and an amended judgment by the D.C. Circuit vacating those regulations. When effective, this action will authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind Step 2 PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate that they are eligible for permit rescission. Therefore, this action itself does not compel any specific permit action that will affect the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people. Rather, it ensures that the EPA has the authority to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. Rescission of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits under this rule revision would follow all applicable permitting requirements. E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 26188 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060–0003. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule relieves regulatory burden by providing a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind PSD permits that are no longer required in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA, which invalidates Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule and of the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit vacating that rule. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector to rescind these EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. Sources can ask for rescission of their EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits at their discretion. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Although the Tribal Air Rule (76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011) under the CAA gives tribes the opportunity to request and be granted delegation of the federal PSD program found at 40 CFR 52.21 to issue PSD permits, there are no tribal agencies currently implementing the federal PSD permitting program. As a result, this action will not affect any tribal reviewing authorities. In addition, any tribally-owned sources with EPAissued Step 2 PSD permits have the discretion to request the EPA to rescind their permit. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. The results of this evaluation are contained in the section VI titled, ‘‘Environmental Justice Considerations’’ for this action. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the U.S. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). L. Determination Under Section 307(d) Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines that this action is subject to provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to rulemaking under the CAA. Section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as the Administrator may determine.’’ VII. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit within 60 days from May 7, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2) of the CAA). Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file any comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this Federal Register publication, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule to allow the EPA to withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment(s) in the proposed rulemaking. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, National ambient air quality standards, New source review, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permit rescissions, Preconstruction permitting, Sulfur oxides, Tailoring rule, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 30, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTAION PLANS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: [EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0636; FRL–9927–24– Region 6] ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County; Revisions to Emissions Inventory Requirements, and General Provisions Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Section 52.21 is amended by revising paragraphs (w)(2) and (3) to read as follows: ■ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: § 52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES * * * * * (w) * * * (2) Any owner or operator of a stationary source or modification who holds a permit for the source or modification may request that the Administrator rescind the permit or a particular portion of the permit if the permit for the source or modification was issued: (i) Under § 52.21 as in effect on July 30, 1987 or any earlier version of this section; (ii) Under § 52.21 between July 1, 2011 and July 6, 2015 to a source that was classified as a major stationary source under paragraph (b)(1) of this section solely on the basis of potential emissions of greenhouse gases, which were defined as a regulated NSR pollutant through the application of paragraph (b)(49)(v)(a) of this section as in effect during this time period; or (iii) Under § 52.21 between July 1, 2011 and July 6, 2015 for a modification that was classified as a major modification under paragraph (b)(2) solely on the basis of an increase in emissions of greenhouse gases, which were defined as a regulated NSR pollutant through the application of paragraph (b)(49)(v)(b) of this section as in effect during this time period. (3) The Administrator shall grant an application for rescission if the application shows that this section would not apply to the source or modification. As a result of a decision of the United States Supreme Court, this section does not apply to sources or modifications that meet only the applicability criteria in paragraph (b)(49)(v) of this section. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–10628 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:40 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 40 CFR Part 52 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions add definitions and clarifying changes to the general provisions and add a new emissions inventory regulation that establishes reporting requirements for stationary sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. SUMMARY: DATES: This rule is effective on June 8, 2015. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0636. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Walser (6PD–L), Air Planning Section, telephone (214) 665–7128, email: walser.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. ADDRESSES: I. Background The background for today’s action is discussed in detail in our February 2, 2015 direct final rule and proposal (80 FR 5471). The rule and proposal stated that if any relevant adverse comments were received by the end of the public comment period on March 4, 2015, the direct final rule would be withdrawn PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 26189 and we would respond to the comments in a subsequent final action. A relevant adverse comment was received during the comment period, and the direct final rule was withdrawn on March 26, 2015 (80 FR 15901). Our February 2, 2015 proposal provides the basis for today’s final action. The SIP revisions proposed for approval add definitions and clarifying changes to the general provisions and add a new emissions inventory regulation that establishes reporting requirements for stationary sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. II. Response to Comments We received one comment letter dated February 20, 2015, from the Sierra Club, regarding our direct final rule. Comment: ‘‘Acting regional administrator Sam Coleman cannot sign approvals, disapprovals, or any combination of approvals or disapproval, in whole or in part, due to the fact that agency actions on state implementation plans are required to be signed by the regional administrator, Ron Curry, not the current deputy regional administrator as stated in the agency’s delegations manual. The manual specifically states that SIP actions can’t be redelegated from the regional administrator.’’ Response: As the Acting Regional Administrator, Deputy Regional Administrator Sam Coleman had authority to sign the proposal and direct final action on this State Implementation Plan. On January 15, 2015, the day that the proposal and direct final action were signed, Sam Coleman was acting in the capacity of the Regional Administrator for Ron Curry, who was absent from Region 6 at the time. The following language is listed in the Region 6 Deputy Regional Administrator’s position description ‘‘In the absence of the Regional Administrator, the Deputy Regional Administrator will perform the duties of the Regional Administrator.’’ A copy of the Deputy Regional Administrator’s position description is included in the docket for this rulemaking. Further, EPA Region 6 Order 1110.11 establishes a line of succession to perform the duties of the Regional Administrator should the Regional Administrator be absent from the office. The Deputy Regional Administrator is the first person listed on that line of succession. A copy of EPA Region 6 Order 1110.11 is included in the docket for this rulemaking. The heads of administrative agencies are statutorily vested with the authority to delegate authorities to subordinate officials, 5 U.S.C. 302. Federal Courts have held that rules, including internal E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM 07MYR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26183-26189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10628]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071; FRL-9926-98-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS57

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse
Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule
Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to amend the federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program regulations to allow for rescission of
certain PSD permits issued by the EPA and delegated reviewing
authorities under Step 2 of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and Title V Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule). We
are taking this action in order to provide a mechanism for the EPA and
delegated reviewing authorities to rescind PSD permits that are no
longer required in light of the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court's
decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA and the amended
appeals court judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation
(Coalition) v. EPA, vacating that rule. These decisions determined that
Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule was not required under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act)

[[Page 26184]]

and vacated the EPA regulations implementing Step 2. When effective,
this action will authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities
to rescind Step 2 PSD permits in response to requests from applicants
who can demonstrate that they are eligible for permit rescission.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 6, 2015 without further notice,
unless the EPA receives adverse comment by June 8, 2015. If the EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by May 18, 2015, the EPA will hold a public hearing on May 22,
2015 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0071, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0071 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA
William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0071.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0071. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and
with any CD you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, avoid any form of encryption and
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
Room 3334, EPA William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Air and
Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this direct final
should be addressed to Mrs. Jessica Monta[ntilde]ez, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Planning Division, (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-3407, email at montanez.jessica@epa.gov. To
request a public hearing or questions concerning a public hearing,
please contact Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning
Division, (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-0641, email at long.pam@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Background
A. What is the PSD program?
B. What is the Tailoring Rule?
C. What is the UARG v. EPA decision and why does the EPA need to
revise the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR 52.21(w) in
light of the decision?
1. What is the UARG v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court decision?
2. Why are we revising the permit rescission provisions under 40
CFR 52.21(w) in light of the Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA
and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition?
IV. Direct Final Action
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executve Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution and Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
L. Determination Under Section 307(d)
VII. Judicial Review

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule
because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no
adverse comment. This action narrowly amends the permit rescission
provisions in the federal PSD regulations found in 40 CFR 52.21(w) to
allow for the rescission of EPA-issued PSD permits \1\ that were

[[Page 26185]]

issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule \2\ permitting regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ For purposes of this rule, the phrases ``EPA-issued PSD
permits that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule'' and
``EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits'' are intended to have the same
meaning. The use of the term ``EPA-issued'' in both phrases includes
PSD permits issued by the EPA as well as permits issued by state or
local reviewing authorities exercising federal law authority
delegated by an EPA Regional Office under 40 CFR 52.21(u).
\2\ Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010); 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. Supreme Court determined the permitting requirements under
Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule to be invalid in UARG v. EPA, 134 S. Ct.
2427 (2014). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part an
earlier decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible
Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In further
proceedings upon consideration of the Supreme Court decision, the D.C.
Circuit amended its judgment in the Coalition case. The Amended
Judgment vacated particular provisions of the EPA's regulations
implementing Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule.
This direct final action does not itself rescind any permits; it
only provides the regulatory mechanism through which the EPA or state
or local program administering the PSD program through a delegation of
federal authority from the EPA could rescind, upon request of a source,
an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court
decision and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit vacating the
regulations. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal
Register publication, we also are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposed rule to amend the same federal PSD
regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(w) if adverse comments are received on this
direct final rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish
a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this direct final rule will not take effect. In that case, we would
address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on the
proposed rule, and any parties interested in commenting must do so at
this time. For further information about commenting on the proposed
rule, see the ADDRESSES section in that separate document in this
Federal Register publication.

II. Does this action apply to me?

The entities potentially affected by this rule include new and
modified stationary sources that obtained an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD
permit under the federal PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 solely
because the source or a modification of the source was expected to emit
or increase GHG emissions over the applicable thresholds. This includes
(1) sources classified as major for PSD purposes solely on the basis of
their potential GHG emissions; and (2) sources emitting major amounts
of other pollutants that experienced a modification resulting in an
increase of only GHG emissions above the applicable levels in the EPA
regulations. Entities affected by this rule may also include state or
local reviewing authorities that have been delegated federal authority
to implement the federal PSD regulations under 40 CFR 52.21(u) and that
have issued Step 2 PSD permits to sources within their jurisdiction.
This rule does not address the requirements for approval of a PSD
program into a state implementation plan (40 CFR 51.166) or the
rescission of PSD permits issued by states and local programs with such
approved programs. Stationary sources with questions on the PSD
permitting obligations arising from Step 2 PSD permits issued by state
or local reviewing authorities under the permitting programs approved
into state implementation plans should review the governing statutory
provisions and provisions in the applicable approved state or local
permitting program to determine how to address any Step 2 PSD
permitting issues and consult with the EPA as necessary.

III. Background

A. What is the PSD program?

Part C of title I of the Act contains the requirements for a
component of the major New Source Review (NSR) program known as the PSD
program. This program sets forth procedures for the construction review
and permitting of new and modified stationary sources of air pollution
locating in areas meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) (``attainment'' areas) and areas for which there is
insufficient information to classify an area as either attainment or
nonattainment (``unclassifiable'' areas).
The applicability of PSD to a particular source must be determined
in advance of construction of a new source or major modification of an
existing source and is pollutant-specific. Once a source is determined
to be subject to PSD, among other requirements, the source must
demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS or PSD increment,\3\ and that it will use the Best Available
Control Technology (BACT).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ CAA section 165(a)(3).
\4\ CAA section 165(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reviewing authority must provide notice of its preliminary
decision on a source's application for a PSD permit, and must provide
an opportunity for comment by the public, industry, and other
interested persons. After considering and responding to comments, the
reviewing authority must issue a final determination on the permit.

B. What is the Tailoring Rule?

On June 3, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule, known as the
Tailoring Rule, which phased in permitting requirements for GHG
emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V
permitting programs (75 FR 31514).
For Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011,
PSD or title V requirements applied to sources' GHG emissions only if
the sources were subject to PSD or title V ``anyway'' due to their
emissions of non-GHG pollutants. These sources are referred to as
``anyway sources.'' Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July
1, 2011, applied the PSD and title V permitting requirements under the
CAA to sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to
obtain a permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions and to
modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD permit
because they increased only GHG above applicable levels in the EPA
regulations.

C. What is the UARG v. EPA decision and why does the EPA need to revise
the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR 52.21(w) in light of the
decision?

1. What is the UARG v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court decision?
On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in UARG
v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, addressing the application of stationary
source permitting requirements to GHGs. In summary, the U.S. Supreme
Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for the
specific purpose of determining whether a source (or a modification
thereof) is required to obtain a PSD or title V permit,\5\ and

[[Page 26186]]

declared that the EPA regulations implementing that approach for
determining permitting applicability are invalid. However, the U.S.
Supreme Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD
permits, otherwise required based on emissions of conventional
pollutants (i.e., non-GHG pollutants), contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of BACT. That is, the ruling
effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under
Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ``anyway sources,'' and invalidated
PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Among other things, title V of the CAA requires all major
stationary sources of air pollution and certain other sources to
apply for a title V operating permit that includes emission
limitations and other conditions as necessary to assure compliance
with applicable requirements of the CAA. The title V operating
permit program is a vehicle for ensuring that air quality control
requirements are appropriately applied to facility emission units
and for assuring compliance with such requirements, but does not
generally impose new substantive air quality control requirements.
The title V program is implemented through regulations promulgated
under 40 CFR part 70, for programs implemented by state or local
agencies and tribes, and 40 CFR part 71, for programs generally
implemented by the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To describe the EPA's preliminary views on the U.S. Supreme Court
decision, on July 24, 2014, the EPA issued a memorandum titled, ``Next
Steps and Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act
Permitting Programs to Greenhouse Gases Following the Supreme Court's
Decision in UARG v. EPA'' (Preliminary Views Memo).\6\ In that
memorandum, the EPA explained that it ``will no longer require PSD . .
. permits for Step 2 sources'' (Preliminary Views Memo at 2) and that
the EPA expected ``to provide additional views in the future with
respect to Step 2 sources that had already obtained a PSD permit . .
.'' (Preliminary Views Memo at 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ https://epa.gov/nsr/documents/20140724memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA provided additional views regarding EPA-issued Step 2
permits when it issued two memoranda on December 19, 2014. In the
memorandum issued by the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and titled,
``Next Steps for Addressing EPA-Issued Step 2 Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Greenhouse Gas Permits and Associated Requirements'' (OAR
Next Steps Memo),\7\ the EPA explained that it intended to complete
this rulemaking ``authorizing the rescission of Step 2 PSD permits.''
In the second memorandum, which was issued by the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and titled, ``No Action Assurance
Regarding EPA-Issued Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Permits and Related Title V Requirements Following Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency'' (OECA No Action
Assurance Memo),\8\ OECA issued a narrowly tailored No Action Assurance
for sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. The OECA No Action
Assurance Memo establishes that the EPA will exercise its enforcement
discretion not to pursue enforcement of the terms and conditions
relating to GHGs in a source's EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit, and for
related GHG terms and conditions that are contained in the source's
title V permit, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ https://epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/Step2PermitRescissinsMemoFinal_12-19-14.pdf.
\8\ https://epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/OECANoActionAssuranceMemo_December192014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court decisions affirmed in part and reversed in part
an earlier decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for
Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In
further proceedings upon consideration of the opinion in UARG, on April
10, the D.C. Circuit in Coalition issued an amended judgment in
accordance with that decision. Coalition for Responsible Regulation,
Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322, 10-073, 10-1092 and 10-1167 (D.C. Cir. April
10, 2015) (Amended Judgment). As relevant to this rulemaking action,
the court ordered that the EPA regulations under review (including 40
CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated to the extent they require a stationary
source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only
pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above
the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a
significant emissions increase from a modification.
We are aware that between the effective date of Step 2 (July 1,
2011) and the date of the UARG v. EPA decision (June 23, 2014), several
sources obtained EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits either directly from the
EPA or from state or local agencies with delegated PSD programs under
40 CFR 52.21 because the sources (or modifications thereof) were
classified as ``major'' solely on the basis of their GHG emissions. For
some of these sources, the appropriate reviewing authorities also
issued title V permits that incorporated the terms and conditions of
the EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. To ensure this rule covers all
stationary sources eligible for rescission of EPA-issued Step 2 PSD
permits, this action provides that owners or operators of stationary
sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits with final permit issuance
dates from July 1, 2011 to 60 days after the effective date of this
rule would be able to request a permit rescission from EPA or delegated
reviewing authorities as applicable. For more information on the
process for requesting a permit rescission for EPA-issued Step 2 PSD
permits, see section V of this action titled, ``Direct Final Action.''
2. Why are we revising the permit rescission provisions under 40 CFR
52.21(w) in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA and
the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition?
To implement the U.S. Supreme Court's decision and the amended
appeals court judgment vacating the regulations implementing Step 2 of
the Tailoring Rule, it is necessary to undertake a process to rescind
PSD Step 2 permits. The EPA's implementing permitting regulations at 40
CFR 52.21 provide that ``[a]ny [PSD] permit issued under this section
or a prior version of this section shall remain in effect, unless and
until it expires . . . or is rescinded'' (40 CFR 52.21(w)(l)).
Section 52.21(w) provides authority for a source holding a PSD
permit to request rescission of the permit and for the EPA to ``grant
an application for rescission if the applicant shows that this section
[40 CFR 52.21] would not apply to the source or modification.''
However, as currently written, the scope of this rescission authority
is limited to permits issued under 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect on or
before July 30, 1987. Since any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits were
issued under regulations effective after July 30, 1987, the rescission
authority in 40 CFR 52.21(w) is not currently available to sources with
EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. This rulemaking action is a narrow
revision to 52.21(w) solely to enable the rescission of Step 2 PSD
permits consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the D.C.
Circuit amended judgment.
This rule does not address any issues concerning the federal PSD
permit rescission regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(w) that are not related
to the Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA and the amended appeals
court judgment vacating the Step 2 regulations. We recognize, however,
that other circumstances may arise in the future where the appropriate
course of action may be permit rescission. We would expect these
circumstances to be rare. Under the current rules, a rulemaking would
need to be undertaken in each such circumstance as we are doing here.
Therefore, the EPA is developing a separate rulemaking action that will
provide an opportunity for the public to comment on any other
situations where the July 30, 1987 date in 52.21(w) may be an
impediment to the rescission of PSD permits under particular
circumstances where that might be appropriate.

[[Page 26187]]

IV. Direct Final Action

In this action, the EPA is revising 40 CFR 52.21(w)(2) by adding
references to 40 CFR 52.21(49)(b)(v)(a) and (b) to allow for rescission
of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits upon request by the permitted
source, which is consistent with the EPA's understanding of the Supreme
Court decision and the amended appeals court judgment vacating the
regulations. In addition, the EPA is adding the following sentence to
40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) to make clear that PSD requirements no longer apply
to Step 2 sources: ``As a result of a decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court, this section does not apply to sources or modifications that
meet only the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v).''
This regulatory action does not make any change to 40 CFR
52.21(w)(1) or (4). In addition, it does not affect the standard for
determining whether a source is eligible for permit rescission under 40
CFR 52.21(w)(3). It serves only to revise 40 CFR 52.21(w)(2)-(3) of the
EPA's federal PSD regulations to authorize the EPA to undertake permit
rescissions for EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. As the EPA previously
explained in its December 19, 2014, OAR Next Steps Memo, once this rule
is final, sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits will be able to
seek a permit rescission from the EPA or delegated state or local
reviewing authority.
Specifically, consistent with the 2014 OAR Next Steps Memo at page
3, the EPA expects that PSD permit-holders interested in qualifying for
the rescission of an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit under 40 CFR 52.21(w)
will need to provide information to demonstrate that either (1) the
source did not, at the time the source obtained its EPA-issued Step 2
PSD permit, emit or have the potential to emit any regulated pollutant
other than GHGs above the major source threshold applicable to that
type of source; or (2) a modification at a source emitting major
amounts of a regulated NSR pollutant other than GHGs did not result in
an increase in emissions of any regulated pollutant other than GHGs in
an amount equal to or greater than the applicable significance level
for that pollutant. Furthermore, the EPA intends to consider whether
the EPA or another reviewing authority is relying on the EPA-issued
Step 2 PSD permit for any other regulatory purpose. Rescission of a PSD
permit that is no longer required should not extend to eliminate
regulatory obligations that remain regarding non GHG-pollutants or
inadvertently place the permitted source in a situation where it may be
out of compliance with other requirements that the PSD permit
satisfied. For example, as noted in the memoranda mentioned previously,
a source with an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit may now have other
regulatory or permitting obligations (e.g., minor NSR requirements),
which generally concern sources emitting pollutants subject to a NAAQS.
The source may have previously not needed to obtain a minor source
permit because it used its Step 2 permit to satisfy its preconstruction
permitting obligations, but it might now need to obtain a minor NSR
permit. Until such time as the source and the permitting authority can
determine whether and how to replace Step 2 PSD permit conditions for
such pollutants with a permit satisfying minor NSR requirements,
continued compliance with PSD permit terms and conditions for such
permits is important to protect the NAAQS, and rescission may, thus, be
premature. Further, if the GHG condition in an EPA-issued Step 2 PSD
permit has been used to satisfy another state or federal requirement,
rescission may not be appropriate without assurances that another
method will be established for complying with other federal, state, and
local requirements (e.g., if the state is presuming the source builds
consistent with the efficiency requirement in the EPA-issued Step 2
permit in order to satisfy other state air pollution requirements). In
sum, the rescission of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits should not
proceed without an understanding of how minor source construction
permitting requirements and other legal obligations will be met going
forward. Since the EPA generally does not issue construction permits
for minor sources except in Indian country, the EPA Regional Offices
and sources holding EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits should consult with
the appropriate state or local reviewing authorities and develop a plan
to ensure that sources remain in compliance with applicable minor
source and other legal requirements after rescission of EPA-issued Step
2 PSD permits.
As part of the rescission process for EPA-issued Step 2 PSD
permits, the EPA anticipates that some sources will also want to seek
revisions to title V operating permits that include the EPA-issued Step
2 PSD permit terms and conditions. Therefore, once an EPA-issued Step 2
PSD permit is formally rescinded by the EPA or delegated reviewing
authority, the EPA or delegated reviewing authority will encourage the
applicable title V state or local permitting authorities to take
appropriate actions with the sources to resolve any issues related to
the incorporation of the EPA-issued PSD Step 2 permit requirements into
title V permits that have already been issued and as further described
in the OAR Next Steps Memo at page 4. The EPA is not revising its title
V regulations in this action because the EPA believes that its existing
title V regulations contain sufficient procedures for the actions
discussed in the OAR Next Steps Memo and no revisions to EPA's title V
regulations are necessary to enable these steps to proceed.
This action only contains the regulatory revisions necessary to
allow for rescission of EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits in order to
conform to the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the amended judgment of
the D.C. Circuit. In this action, the EPA is not making any other
regulatory changes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision or
the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit. The EPA intends to take
additional rulemaking action to remove the vacated provisions from the
Code of Federal Regulations and make further revisions to its PSD and
title V regulations, as appropriate.

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

This action amends one provision of the federal PSD program
regulations to allow for the rescission of EPA-issued Step 2 PSD
permits in order to conform to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
that declared invalid regulations that implemented the requirement that
Step 2 sources obtain PSD permits and an amended judgment by the D.C.
Circuit vacating those regulations. When effective, this action will
authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind Step 2
PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate
that they are eligible for permit rescission. Therefore, this action
itself does not compel any specific permit action that will affect the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people. Rather, it
ensures that the EPA has the authority to implement the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision and the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit.
Rescission of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits under this rule
revision would follow all applicable permitting requirements.

[[Page 26188]]

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0003.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This rule relieves regulatory burden by
providing a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities
to rescind PSD permits that are no longer required in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in UARG v. EPA, which invalidates Step 2 of the
Tailoring Rule and of the amended judgment of the D.C. Circuit vacating
that rule. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will relieve
regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector to rescind these EPA-
issued Step 2 PSD permits. Sources can ask for rescission of their EPA-
issued Step 2 PSD permits at their discretion.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Although the Tribal Air Rule (76 FR 38748, July
1, 2011) under the CAA gives tribes the opportunity to request and be
granted delegation of the federal PSD program found at 40 CFR 52.21 to
issue PSD permits, there are no tribal agencies currently implementing
the federal PSD permitting program. As a result, this action will not
affect any tribal reviewing authorities. In addition, any tribally-
owned sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits have the discretion to
request the EPA to rescind their permit. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. The results of this evaluation are contained
in the section VI titled, ``Environmental Justice Considerations'' for
this action.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the U.S. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines
that this action is subject to provisions of section 307(d). Section
307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to rulemaking under
the CAA. Section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section
307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine.''

VII. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit within 60 days from May 7, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2) of the CAA).
Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to
file any comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed
rulemaking for this action published in the ``Proposed Rules'' section
of this Federal Register publication, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule to allow the EPA
to withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment(s) in the
proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, National ambient air quality standards, New source
review, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permit
rescissions, Preconstruction permitting, Sulfur oxides, Tailoring rule,
Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 30, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

[[Page 26189]]

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTAION PLANS

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 52.21 is amended by revising paragraphs (w)(2) and (3) to
read as follows:

Sec. 52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
(w) * * *
(2) Any owner or operator of a stationary source or modification
who holds a permit for the source or modification may request that the
Administrator rescind the permit or a particular portion of the permit
if the permit for the source or modification was issued:
(i) Under Sec. 52.21 as in effect on July 30, 1987 or any earlier
version of this section;
(ii) Under Sec. 52.21 between July 1, 2011 and July 6, 2015 to a
source that was classified as a major stationary source under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section solely on the basis of potential emissions of
greenhouse gases, which were defined as a regulated NSR pollutant
through the application of paragraph (b)(49)(v)(a) of this section as
in effect during this time period; or
(iii) Under Sec. 52.21 between July 1, 2011 and July 6, 2015 for a
modification that was classified as a major modification under
paragraph (b)(2) solely on the basis of an increase in emissions of
greenhouse gases, which were defined as a regulated NSR pollutant
through the application of paragraph (b)(49)(v)(b) of this section as
in effect during this time period.
(3) The Administrator shall grant an application for rescission if
the application shows that this section would not apply to the source
or modification. As a result of a decision of the United States Supreme
Court, this section does not apply to sources or modifications that
meet only the applicability criteria in paragraph (b)(49)(v) of this
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-10628 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.