Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Ozone Maintenance Plan, 32235-32239 [2016-11963]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Affairs, Enforcement Programs and
Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 478
Administrative practice and
procedure, Arms and munitions,
Customs duties and inspection, Exports,
Imports, Intergovernmental relations,
Law enforcement officers, Military
personnel, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Research,
Seizures and forfeitures, and
Transportation.
Authority and Issuance
Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR part
478 is amended as follows:
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS
AND AMMUNITION
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR
part 478 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847,
921–930; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
2. In § 478.72, add a new fifth
sentence to read as follows:
■
§ 478.72
Hearing after application denial.
* * * During the hearing the
applicant will have the opportunity to
submit facts and arguments for review
and consideration; offers of settlement
will not be entertained at the hearing
but may be made before or after the
hearing. * * *
gun storage or safety device for that
handgun.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 478.74, revise the fifth and
sixth sentences and add a seventh
sentence to read as follows:
§ 478.74 Request for hearing after notice
of suspension, revocation, or imposition of
civil fine.
* * * If the decision is that the
license should be revoked, or, in actions
under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(5) or 924(p), that
the license should be revoked or
suspended, or that a civil fine should be
imposed, a certified copy of the
summary shall be furnished to the
licensee with the final notice of
revocation, suspension, or imposition of
a civil fine on ATF Form 5300.13. If the
decision is that the license should not
be revoked, or in actions under 18
U.S.C. 922(t)(5) or 924(p), that the
license should not be revoked or
suspended, and a civil fine should not
be imposed, the licensee shall be
notified in writing. During the hearing
the licensee will have the opportunity to
submit facts and arguments for review
and consideration; offers of settlement
will not be entertained at the hearing
but may be made before or after the
hearing.
Dated: May 17, 2016.
Loretta E. Lynch,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2016–12100 Filed 5–20–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P
3. In § 478.73, revise the last sentence
of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 478.73 Notice of revocation, suspension,
or imposition of civil fine.
(a) * * * In addition, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 922(t)(5) and 18 U.S.C. 924(p), a
notice of revocation, suspension, or
imposition of a civil fine may be issued
on ATF Form 4500 whenever the
Director has reason to believe that a
licensee has knowingly transferred a
firearm to an unlicensed person and
knowingly failed to comply with the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1) with
respect to the transfer and, at the time
that the transferee most recently
proposed the transfer, the national
instant criminal background check
system was operating and information
was available to the system
demonstrating that the transferee’s
receipt of a firearm would violate 18
U.S.C. 922(g) or 922(n) or State law; or
that a licensee has violated 18 U.S.C.
922(z)(1) by selling, delivering, or
transferring any handgun to any person
other than a licensee, unless the
transferee was provided with a secure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0289; FRL–9946–69–
Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire;
Ozone Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of New
Hampshire that contains an ozone
maintenance plan for New Hampshire’s
former 1-hour ozone nonattainment
areas. The Clean Air Act requires that
areas that are designated attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and
also had been previously designated
either nonattainment or maintenance for
the 1-hour ozone standard, develop a
plan showing how the state will
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32235
maintain the ozone standard for the
area. The intended effect of this action
is to approve New Hampshire’s
maintenance plan. This action is being
taken in accordance with the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective July 22, 2016, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 22,
2016. If adverse comments are received,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2012–0289 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne Arnold, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05–
02, Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone
number (617) 918–1047, fax number
(617) 918–0047, email arnold.anne@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Organization of this document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What action is EPA taking?
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
32236
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
III. What is a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance
plan?
IV. How has New Hampshire addressed the
components of a Section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
30, 1994 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated
and classified areas for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Also, on April 30, 2004
(69 FR 23951), EPA published the Phase
1 rule for implementation of the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. Among other
requirements, this rule set forth
requirements for anti-back sliding
purposes for areas designated
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
Subsequently, in 2008, and in 2015,
EPA again revised the ozone NAAQS to
0.075 ppm and 0.070 ppm, respectively.
I. What is the background for this
action?
This action addresses requirements
associated with the transition from the
1-hour National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level
ozone to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
EPA has established, and periodically
reviews and revises, the NAAQS for
ground-level ozone. On July 18, 1997
(62 FR 38855), EPA published a final
rule for a new 8-hour ozone standard of
0.08 parts per million (ppm). On April
II. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of New
Hampshire on March 2, 2012. The SIP
revision consists of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) section 110(a)(1) ozone
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard for New Hampshire. The
maintenance plan demonstrates how the
state intends to maintain the 1997 8hour National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for ozone.
The CAA section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan requirement applies
to areas that are designated as
attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8hour ozone standard and also had a
designation of either nonattainment or
attainment with an approved
maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone
standard as of June 15, 2004, the
effective date of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard designation for these areas (See
69 FR 23857). In New Hampshire, this
area consists of the cities and towns
listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1—1-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT/MAINTENANCE AREAS DESIGNATED UNCLASSIFIABLE/ATTAINMENT FOR THE 8HOUR STANDARD AS OF JUNE 15, 2004
[= New Hampshire maintenance planning area]
Area
County
Cities and towns included
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester
Area.
Manchester Area .......................
Hillsborough (part) ...................
Mont Vernon, Wilton.
Hillsborough (part) ...................
Antrim, Bennington, Deering, Francestown, Greenfield, Greenville, Hancock,
Hillsborough, Lyndeborough, Mason, New Boston, New Ipswich, Peterborough, Sharon, Temple, Weare, Windsor.
Allenstown, Andover, Boscawen, Bow, Bradford, Canterbury, Chichester,
Concord, Danbury, Dunbarton, Epsom, Franklin, Henniker, Hill, Hopkinton,
Loudon, New London, Newbury, Northfield, Pembroke, Pittsfield, Salisbury,
Sutton, Warner, Webster, Wilmot.
Deerfield, Northwood, Nottingham.
Barrington, Farmington, Lee, Madbury, Middleton, Milton, New Durham,
Strafford.
Alstead, Chesterfield, Dublin, Fitzwilliam, Gilsum, Harrisville, Hinsdale,
Jaffrey, Keene, Marlborough, Marlow, Nelson, Richmond, Rindge,
Roxbury, Stoddard, Sullivan, Surry, Swanzey, Troy, Walpole, Westmoreland, Winchester.
Merrimack (part) ......................
Rockingham County ..................
Strafford County ........................
Rockingham (part) ...................
Strafford (part) .........................
Cheshire County .......................
Cheshire (all) ...........................
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. What is a Section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan?
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, the implementation rule
for the 1997 ozone standard requires
that areas that were either
nonattainment or maintenance areas for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, submit a plan to demonstrate
the continued maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA established
June 15, 2007, three years after the
effective date of the initial 1997 8-hour
ozone designations, as the deadline for
submission of plans for these areas. See
40 CFR 51.905.
On May 20, 2005, EPA issued
guidance 1 that applies, in part, to areas
1 ‘‘Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for
Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1)
of Clean Air Act,’’ EPA memorandum dated May
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
that are designated attainment/
unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard and either have an approved 1hour ozone maintenance plan or were
designated nonattainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard. The purpose of the
guidance is to assist the states in the
development of a section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan SIP. There are five
components of a section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan which are: (1) An
attainment inventory, which is based on
actual typical summer day emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for a ten-year
period from a base year as chosen by the
state; (2) a maintenance demonstration
which shows how the area will remain
in compliance with the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard for 10 years after the
effective date of designations (June 15,
20, 2005, from Lydia Wegman to Air Division
Directors.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2004); (3) a commitment to continue to
operate air quality monitors; (4) a
contingency plan that will ensure that a
violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is promptly addressed; and (5)
an explanation of how the state will
track the progress of the maintenance
plan.
Subsequently, in the implementation
rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR
12264; March 6, 2015), EPA revoked the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Nevertheless, New Hampshire’s March
2, 2012 SIP revision of a Section
110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is
pending before us, so we are taking
action on it at this time.
IV. How has New Hampshire addressed
the components of a Section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan?
EPA has determined that the New
Hampshire Department of
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
32237
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Environmental Services (NHDES) 1997
8-hour ozone maintenance plan
addresses all of the necessary
components of a Section 110(a)(1) 1997
8-hour ozone maintenance plan as
discussed below.
includes an explanation of the
methodology used for determining the
anthropogenic emissions (point, area,
and mobile sources) in the maintenance
area. The inventory is based on
emissions for a ‘‘typical summer day.’’
A. Emissions Inventory
An emissions inventory is an itemized
list of emission estimates for sources of
air pollution in a given area for a
specified time period. NHDES has
provided a comprehensive emissions
inventory for ozone precursors (NOX
and VOCs) in the area. NHDES uses
2002 as the base year from which it
projects emissions. The submittal also
B. Maintenance Demonstration
With regard to demonstrating
continued maintenance of the 1997 8hour ozone standard, NHDES projects
that the total emissions from the
maintenance area will decrease during
the ten-year maintenance period.
NHDES has projected emissions from
2002 until 2014. The projected trend in
emissions is downward. This clearly
demonstrates that the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard will be maintained for
the ten year period between 2004 and
2014, which is the required test.
Table 2 shows the total VOC and NOx
emissions for the maintenance area in
New Hampshire for the base year (2002),
an interim year (2012), and a final year
(2014).2 More detailed emissions tables
can be found in the NHDES submittal.
The trend in emissions is downward, for
each pollutant in the area. As such, the
plan demonstrates that, from an
emissions projections standpoint,
emissions are projected to decrease.
TABLE 2—2002, 2012, AND 2014 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR CHESHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH, MERRIMACK, ROCKINGHAM,
AND STRAFFORD COUNTIES
[Pounds per day]
VOC
NOX
Source category
2002
2012
2014
2002
2012
2014
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
Non-Road Mobile .....................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
15,898
93,778
68,223
87,161
6,696
85,443
40,210
36,904
7,005
91,068
35,121
34,245
67,347
10,516
49,787
261,303
48,358
9,091
36,131
75,202
50,739
9,134
31,215
62,347
Total ..................................................
265,060
169,253
167,439
388,953
168,782
153,435
C. Ambient Monitoring
With regard to the ambient air
monitoring component of a maintenance
plan, New Hampshire’s submittal
describes the ozone monitoring network
in the maintenance area and New
Hampshire commits to the continuing
operation of an effective air quality
monitoring network to verify the area’s
attainment status in accordance with the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
specifically, 40 CFR part 58. New
Hampshire’s SIP revision was submitted
on March 2, 2012 and includes ozone
design values 3 for 2010 and 2011 which
demonstrate that the maintenance area
is meeting the 0.08 ppm 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. In addition, based on
more recent ozone data from 2014, all of
New Hampshire meets the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. Furthermore,
preliminary ozone data for 2015 shows
that all of New Hampshire continues to
meet the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Table 3 shows the ozone design values
for each monitor in the five county area
listed in Table 2. As noted in Table 1,
portions of these counties make up New
Hampshire’s maintenance area.
TABLE 3—OZONE DESIGN VALUES (PPM) FOR MONITORS IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE MAINTENANCE AREA
Design Value
AQS 4 No.
Monitor location
2014
Keene ...........................................................................................................................................
Peterborough ...............................................................................................................................
Nashua .........................................................................................................................................
Concord .......................................................................................................................................
Portsmouth ...................................................................................................................................
Rye ...............................................................................................................................................
Londonderry .................................................................................................................................
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
D. Contingency Measures
EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) of the
CAA to require that the state develop a
contingency plan that will ensure that
2 It should be noted that the emissions shown in
this table are for the entire five counties named,
rather than the somewhat smaller maintenance area,
due to the difficulty of parsing out inventory data
to a sub-county basis. This difference is not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
330050007
330115001
330111011
330131007
330150014
330150016
330150018
0.062
0.070
0.066
0.063
0.068
0.068
0.067
2015 5
0.060
0.067
0.064
0.062
0.066
0.068
0.065
any violation of a NAAQS is promptly
corrected. Therefore, as required by
section 110(a)(1) of the Act, New
Hampshire has listed in its submittal
possible contingency measures, as well
as a protocol the state will follow, in the
event of a future ozone air quality
problem. As noted in New Hampshire’s
considered significant, and does not affect the
downward trend shown in the emissions.
3 The design value at an ozone monitor is the 3year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average ozone concentration measured at
that monitor. The design value for an area is the
highest design value recorded at any monitor in the
area.
4 AQS is EPA’s Air Quality System. States submit
ozone monitoring data to AQS.
5 Ozone design values for 2015 are based on
preliminary data.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
32238
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
SIP revision, at the conclusion of each
ozone season, NHDES will evaluate
whether the design value for any ozone
monitor in the maintenance area meets
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. If the
design value is above the standard,
NHDES will evaluate the potential
causes of this design value increase,
specifically, whether this increase is
due to an increase in local in-state
emissions, an increase in upwind outof-state emissions, or an exceptional
event as defined in 40 CFR 50.1. If an
increase in in-state emissions is
determined to be a contributing factor to
the design value increase, NHDES will
evaluate the projected in-state emissions
for the maintenance area for the ozone
season in the following year. If in-state
emissions are not expected to
satisfactorily decrease in the following
ozone season in order to mitigate the
violation, New Hampshire will
implement one or more of the
contingency measures listed in the
submittal, or substitute other VOC or
NOx control measures to achieve
additional in-state emission reductions.
The contingency measure(s) will be
selected by the Governor, or the
Governor’s designee, within six months
of the end of the ozone season for which
contingency measures have been
determined necessary. Further details
on the types of possible control
measures to be used as contingencies
can be found in the New Hampshire
submittal. New Hampshire’s submittal
satisfies EPA’s contingency measure
requirements.
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
E. Tracking Progress
New Hampshire’s SIP revision notes
that the State will track the maintenance
of attainment by analyzing air quality
trends at local monitors and annually
updating the state’s emissions
inventories. NHDES produces
comprehensive emission inventories on
a three-year cycle and revises the
inventories annually using updated
emissions data for the largest sources.
Finally, as a practical matter, at this
point in time, the 10 year maintenance
period (2004–2014) has ended and, as
noted by the ozone design values in
Table 3 above, the area has maintained
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
V. Final Action
EPA is approving into the New
Hampshire SIP the Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(1) 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the New
Hampshire area that is required to have
such a plan. This area includes the
cities and towns listed in Table 1 above.
The EPA is publishing this action
without prior proposal because the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register
publication, EPA is publishing a
separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision
should relevant adverse comments be
filed. This rule will be effective July 22,
2016 without further notice unless the
Agency receives relevant adverse
comments by June 22, 2016.
If the EPA receives such comments,
then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on
the proposed rule. All parties interested
in commenting on the proposed rule
should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is
advised that this rule will be effective
on July 22, 2016 and no further action
will be taken on the proposed rule.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 July 22, 2016.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: May 4, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of 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.
Subpart EE—New Hampshire
2. Section 52.1534 is amended by
adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1534
Control strategy: Ozone.
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Approval—EPA is approving the
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard in the area of the New
Hampshire required to have such a plan.
This area includes portions of
Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham,
and Strafford Counties, and all of
Cheshire County. This maintenance
plan was submitted to EPA on March 2,
2012.
[FR Doc. 2016–11963 Filed 5–20–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 20, 2016
Jkt 238001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0783; FRL–9946–66–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New
Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of
Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral,
Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is disapproving severable
portions of the February 6, 2012
Oklahoma State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submittal that are inconsistent
with federal laws based on recent
decisions by the United States Courts
and subsequent EPA rulemaking. This
submittal established Minor New
Source Review permitting requirements
for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
includes Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting
provisions for sources that are classified
as major, and, thus, required to obtain
a PSD permit, based solely on their
potential GHG emissions. The PSD
permitting provisions also require a PSD
permit for modifications of otherwise
major sources because they increased
only GHG emissions above applicable
levels. Additionally, we are
disapproving severable portions of SIP
submittals for the States of Arkansas,
New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing
the EPA’s July 20, 2011 rule deferring
PSD requirements for carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from bioenergy and
other biogenic sources (‘‘Biomass
Deferral’’). We are disapproving the
provisions adopting the Biomass
Deferral because they are no longer
consistent with federal laws and
regulations. The EPA is finalizing this
disapproval under section 110 and part
C of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on June 22,
2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0783. 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.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32239
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:
Ms.
Adina Wiley, (214) 665–2115,
wiley.adina@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA.
I. Background
The background for this action is
discussed in detail in our January 11,
2016 proposal. See 81 FR 1141. In that
document we proposed to disapprove
severable portions of the February 6,
2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal
establishing GHG permitting
requirements for minor sources and for
sources that are classified as major, and
thus, required to obtain a PSD permit
based solely on their potential GHG
emissions (referred to as ‘‘Step 2’’ PSD
sources in our proposed action) because
we determined that these revisions to
the Oklahoma SIP establish permitting
requirements that are inconsistent with
federal laws resulting from recent
decisions by United States Courts. We
also proposed to disapprove severable
portions of the November 6, 2012
Arkansas SIP submittal, the January 8,
2013 New Mexico SIP, and the January
18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP submittal that
include the Biomass Deferral in the
Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma
PSD programs. Our analysis found that
these revisions to the Arkansas, New
Mexico, and Oklahoma SIPs should be
disapproved because adoption or
implementation of these provisions is
no longer consistent with federal laws
and regulations for PSD permitting.
II. Response to Comments
We received one comment on our
proposed action. Our response to the
submitted comment is provided below.
Comment: One commenter stated that
‘‘not requiring states to continue step
two of the permitting for GHG as a major
source thus requiring a PSD or Title V
permit is the right decisions based on
law.’’ Additionally, the commenter
stated that ‘‘GHG emission issues would
be better addressed in it’s [sic] own
statute rather than having the supreme
court [sic] dictate the regulatory
framework of GHG emissions.’’
Response: We acknowledge the
support of the commenter in finding
that our proposed disapproval action is
consistent with current law. GHG
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32235-32239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11963]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0289; FRL-9946-69-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Ozone Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New
Hampshire that contains an ozone maintenance plan for New Hampshire's
former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act requires
that areas that are designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, and also had been previously designated either nonattainment
or maintenance for the 1-hour ozone standard, develop a plan showing
how the state will maintain the ozone standard for the area. The
intended effect of this action is to approve New Hampshire's
maintenance plan. This action is being taken in accordance with the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 22, 2016, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by June 22, 2016. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2012-0289 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Arnold, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05-
02, Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1047, fax number
(617) 918-0047, email arnold.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What action is EPA taking?
[[Page 32236]]
III. What is a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan?
IV. How has New Hampshire addressed the components of a Section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this action?
This action addresses requirements associated with the transition
from the 1-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
ground-level ozone to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA has established, and periodically reviews and revises, the
NAAQS for ground-level ozone. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38855), EPA
published a final rule for a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts
per million (ppm). On April 30, 1994 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated and
classified areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Also, on April 30,
2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA published the Phase 1 rule for implementation
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Among other requirements, this rule set
forth requirements for anti-back sliding purposes for areas designated
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Subsequently, in 2008, and in 2015, EPA again revised the ozone
NAAQS to 0.075 ppm and 0.070 ppm, respectively.
II. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of New Hampshire on March 2, 2012. The SIP
revision consists of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(1)
ozone maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for New
Hampshire. The maintenance plan demonstrates how the state intends to
maintain the 1997 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
ozone.
The CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan requirement applies to
areas that are designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard and also had a designation of either nonattainment
or attainment with an approved maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone
standard as of June 15, 2004, the effective date of the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard designation for these areas (See 69 FR 23857). In New
Hampshire, this area consists of the cities and towns listed in Table
1.
Table 1--1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment/Maintenance Areas Designated
Unclassifiable/Attainment for the 8-Hour Standard as of June 15, 2004
[= New Hampshire maintenance planning area]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area County Cities and towns included
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester Hillsborough Mont Vernon, Wilton.
Area. (part).
Manchester Area............. Hillsborough Antrim, Bennington,
(part). Deering, Francestown,
Greenfield, Greenville,
Hancock, Hillsborough,
Lyndeborough, Mason, New
Boston, New Ipswich,
Peterborough, Sharon,
Temple, Weare, Windsor.
Merrimack Allenstown, Andover,
(part). Boscawen, Bow, Bradford,
Canterbury, Chichester,
Concord, Danbury,
Dunbarton, Epsom,
Franklin, Henniker,
Hill, Hopkinton, Loudon,
New London, Newbury,
Northfield, Pembroke,
Pittsfield, Salisbury,
Sutton, Warner, Webster,
Wilmot.
Rockingham County........... Rockingham Deerfield, Northwood,
(part). Nottingham.
Strafford County............ Strafford Barrington, Farmington,
(part). Lee, Madbury, Middleton,
Milton, New Durham,
Strafford.
Cheshire County............. Cheshire (all). Alstead, Chesterfield,
Dublin, Fitzwilliam,
Gilsum, Harrisville,
Hinsdale, Jaffrey,
Keene, Marlborough,
Marlow, Nelson,
Richmond, Rindge,
Roxbury, Stoddard,
Sullivan, Surry,
Swanzey, Troy, Walpole,
Westmoreland,
Winchester.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan?
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, the
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone standard requires that areas
that were either nonattainment or maintenance areas for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a
plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA established June 15, 2007, three years after the effective
date of the initial 1997 8-hour ozone designations, as the deadline for
submission of plans for these areas. See 40 CFR 51.905.
On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance \1\ that applies, in part, to
areas that are designated attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard and either have an approved 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan or were designated nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. The
purpose of the guidance is to assist the states in the development of a
section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan SIP. There are five components of a
section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan which are: (1) An attainment
inventory, which is based on actual typical summer day emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) for a ten-year period from a base year as chosen by
the state; (2) a maintenance demonstration which shows how the area
will remain in compliance with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for 10
years after the effective date of designations (June 15, 2004); (3) a
commitment to continue to operate air quality monitors; (4) a
contingency plan that will ensure that a violation of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is promptly addressed; and (5) an explanation of how the
state will track the progress of the maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour
Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act,'' EPA
memorandum dated May 20, 2005, from Lydia Wegman to Air Division
Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, in the implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
(80 FR 12264; March 6, 2015), EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Nevertheless, New Hampshire's March 2, 2012 SIP revision of a
Section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard is pending before us, so we are taking action on it at this
time.
IV. How has New Hampshire addressed the components of a Section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan?
EPA has determined that the New Hampshire Department of
[[Page 32237]]
Environmental Services (NHDES) 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan
addresses all of the necessary components of a Section 110(a)(1) 1997
8-hour ozone maintenance plan as discussed below.
A. Emissions Inventory
An emissions inventory is an itemized list of emission estimates
for sources of air pollution in a given area for a specified time
period. NHDES has provided a comprehensive emissions inventory for
ozone precursors (NOX and VOCs) in the area. NHDES uses 2002
as the base year from which it projects emissions. The submittal also
includes an explanation of the methodology used for determining the
anthropogenic emissions (point, area, and mobile sources) in the
maintenance area. The inventory is based on emissions for a ``typical
summer day.''
B. Maintenance Demonstration
With regard to demonstrating continued maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, NHDES projects that the total emissions from the
maintenance area will decrease during the ten-year maintenance period.
NHDES has projected emissions from 2002 until 2014. The projected trend
in emissions is downward. This clearly demonstrates that the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard will be maintained for the ten year period between
2004 and 2014, which is the required test.
Table 2 shows the total VOC and NOx emissions for the maintenance
area in New Hampshire for the base year (2002), an interim year (2012),
and a final year (2014).\2\ More detailed emissions tables can be found
in the NHDES submittal. The trend in emissions is downward, for each
pollutant in the area. As such, the plan demonstrates that, from an
emissions projections standpoint, emissions are projected to decrease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It should be noted that the emissions shown in this table
are for the entire five counties named, rather than the somewhat
smaller maintenance area, due to the difficulty of parsing out
inventory data to a sub-county basis. This difference is not
considered significant, and does not affect the downward trend shown
in the emissions.
Table 2--2002, 2012, and 2014 VOC and NOX Emissions for Cheshire, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford Counties
[Pounds per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
Source category -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2012 2014 2002 2012 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 15,898 6,696 7,005 67,347 48,358 50,739
Area.................................................... 93,778 85,443 91,068 10,516 9,091 9,134
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 68,223 40,210 35,121 49,787 36,131 31,215
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 87,161 36,904 34,245 261,303 75,202 62,347
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 265,060 169,253 167,439 388,953 168,782 153,435
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Ambient Monitoring
With regard to the ambient air monitoring component of a
maintenance plan, New Hampshire's submittal describes the ozone
monitoring network in the maintenance area and New Hampshire commits to
the continuing operation of an effective air quality monitoring network
to verify the area's attainment status in accordance with the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically, 40 CFR part 58. New
Hampshire's SIP revision was submitted on March 2, 2012 and includes
ozone design values \3\ for 2010 and 2011 which demonstrate that the
maintenance area is meeting the 0.08 ppm 1997 8-hour ozone standard. In
addition, based on more recent ozone data from 2014, all of New
Hampshire meets the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Furthermore,
preliminary ozone data for 2015 shows that all of New Hampshire
continues to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Table 3 shows the
ozone design values for each monitor in the five county area listed in
Table 2. As noted in Table 1, portions of these counties make up New
Hampshire's maintenance area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The design value at an ozone monitor is the 3-year average
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration measured at that monitor. The design value for an area
is the highest design value recorded at any monitor in the area.
Table 3--Ozone Design Values (ppm) for Monitors in the New Hampshire Maintenance Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Value
Monitor location AQS \4\ No. -------------------------------
2014 2015 \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keene........................................................... 330050007 0.062 0.060
Peterborough.................................................... 330115001 0.070 0.067
Nashua.......................................................... 330111011 0.066 0.064
Concord......................................................... 330131007 0.063 0.062
Portsmouth...................................................... 330150014 0.068 0.066
Rye............................................................. 330150016 0.068 0.068
Londonderry..................................................... 330150018 0.067 0.065
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Contingency Measures
EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to require that the
state develop a contingency plan that will ensure that any violation of
a NAAQS is promptly corrected. Therefore, as required by section
110(a)(1) of the Act, New Hampshire has listed in its submittal
possible contingency measures, as well as a protocol the state will
follow, in the event of a future ozone air quality problem. As noted in
New Hampshire's
[[Page 32238]]
SIP revision, at the conclusion of each ozone season, NHDES will
evaluate whether the design value for any ozone monitor in the
maintenance area meets the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. If the design
value is above the standard, NHDES will evaluate the potential causes
of this design value increase, specifically, whether this increase is
due to an increase in local in-state emissions, an increase in upwind
out-of-state emissions, or an exceptional event as defined in 40 CFR
50.1. If an increase in in-state emissions is determined to be a
contributing factor to the design value increase, NHDES will evaluate
the projected in-state emissions for the maintenance area for the ozone
season in the following year. If in-state emissions are not expected to
satisfactorily decrease in the following ozone season in order to
mitigate the violation, New Hampshire will implement one or more of the
contingency measures listed in the submittal, or substitute other VOC
or NOx control measures to achieve additional in-state emission
reductions. The contingency measure(s) will be selected by the
Governor, or the Governor's designee, within six months of the end of
the ozone season for which contingency measures have been determined
necessary. Further details on the types of possible control measures to
be used as contingencies can be found in the New Hampshire submittal.
New Hampshire's submittal satisfies EPA's contingency measure
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ AQS is EPA's Air Quality System. States submit ozone
monitoring data to AQS.
\5\ Ozone design values for 2015 are based on preliminary data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Tracking Progress
New Hampshire's SIP revision notes that the State will track the
maintenance of attainment by analyzing air quality trends at local
monitors and annually updating the state's emissions inventories. NHDES
produces comprehensive emission inventories on a three-year cycle and
revises the inventories annually using updated emissions data for the
largest sources.
Finally, as a practical matter, at this point in time, the 10 year
maintenance period (2004-2014) has ended and, as noted by the ozone
design values in Table 3 above, the area has maintained the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard.
V. Final Action
EPA is approving into the New Hampshire SIP the Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(1) 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the New
Hampshire area that is required to have such a plan. This area includes
the cities and towns listed in Table 1 above.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective July
22, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by June 22, 2016.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on July 22, 2016 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 July 22, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for
[[Page 32239]]
the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within
which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment
in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this
action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal
Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of
this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: May 4, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart EE--New Hampshire
0
2. Section 52.1534 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1534 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(j) Approval--EPA is approving the Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard in the area of the New Hampshire required to have such a plan.
This area includes portions of Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and
Strafford Counties, and all of Cheshire County. This maintenance plan
was submitted to EPA on March 2, 2012.
[FR Doc. 2016-11963 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
