Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Ohio NSR PM2.5, 13457-13460 [2018-06368]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
4. In § 478.11, amend the definition of
‘‘Machine gun’’ by adding two sentences
at the end of the definition to read as
follows:
recordkeeping requirements, Seizures
and forfeitures, Transportation.
Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR parts
447, 478, and 479 are proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 447—IMPORTATION OF ARMS,
AMMUNITION AND IMPLEMENTS OF
WAR
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR
part 447 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2778, E.O. 13637, 78
FR 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013).
2. In § 447.11, amend the definition of
‘‘Machinegun’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 447.11
Meaning of terms.
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
Machinegun. A ‘‘machinegun’’,
‘‘machine pistol’’, ‘‘submachinegun’’, or
‘‘automatic rifle’’ is a weapon which
shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically
more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the
trigger. The term shall also include the
frame or receiver of any such weapon,
any part designed and intended solely
and exclusively, or combination of parts
designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegun,
and any combination of parts from
which a machinegun can be assembled
if such parts are in the possession or
under the control of a person. For
purposes of this definition, the term
‘‘automatically’’ as it modifies ‘‘shoots,
is designed to shoot, or can be readily
restored to shoot,’’ means functioning as
the result of a self-acting or selfregulating mechanism that allows the
firing of multiple rounds through a
single function of the trigger; and
‘‘single function of the trigger’’ means a
single pull of the trigger. The term
‘‘machinegun’’ includes bump-stocktype devices, i.e., devices that allow a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more
than one shot with a single pull of the
trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of
the semiautomatic firearm to which it is
affixed so that the trigger resets and
continues firing without additional
physical manipulation of the trigger by
the shooter.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS
AND AMMUNITION
3. The authority citation for 27 CFR
part 478 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 921–
931.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
Dated: March 23, 2018.
Jefferson B. Sessions III,
Attorney General.
§ 478.11
BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P
■
Authority and Issuance
13457
Meaning of terms.
*
*
*
*
Machine gun.
* * * For purposes of this definition,
the term ‘‘automatically’’ as it modifies
‘‘shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot,’’ means
functioning as the result of a self-acting
or self-regulating mechanism that allows
the firing of multiple rounds through a
single function of the trigger; and
‘‘single function of the trigger’’ means a
single pull of the trigger. The term
‘‘machine gun’’ includes bump-stocktype devices, i.e., devices that allow a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more
than one shot with a single pull of the
trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of
the semiautomatic firearm to which it is
affixed so that the trigger resets and
continues firing without additional
physical manipulation of the trigger by
the shooter.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–06292 Filed 3–28–18; 8:45 am]
*
PART 479—MACHINE GUNS,
DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND
CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS
5. The authority citation for 27 CFR
part 479 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
6. In § 479.11, amend the definition of
‘‘Machine gun’’ by adding two sentences
at the end of the definition to read as
follows:
■
§ 479.11
Meaning of terms.
*
*
*
*
*
Machine gun.
* * * For purposes of this definition,
the term ‘‘automatically’’ as it modifies
‘‘shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot,’’ means
functioning as the result of a self-acting
or self-regulating mechanism that allows
the firing of multiple rounds through a
single function of the trigger; and
‘‘single function of the trigger’’ means a
single pull of the trigger. The term
‘‘machine gun’’ includes bump-stocktype devices, i.e., devices that allow a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more
than one shot with a single pull of the
trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of
the semiautomatic firearm to which it is
affixed so that the trigger resets and
continues firing without additional
physical manipulation of the trigger by
the shooter.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0164; FRL–9976–
14—Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Ohio NSR
PM2.5 Precursors
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve,
under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
revisions to Ohio’s state implementation
plan (SIP) as requested by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) on March 10, 2017, and
supplemented on July 18, 2017. The
revisions to Ohio’s SIP implement
certain EPA regulations for particulate
matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5) for nonattainment areas by
establishing definitions related to PM2.5
and defining PM2.5 precursors. The
revisions also incorporate the findings
of a comprehensive precursor
demonstration performed by OEPA,
which determined that volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3)
are an insignificant source of PM2.5 for
the purpose of new source review in
nonattainment areas in Ohio.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 30, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2017–0164 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
damico.genevieve@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, 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. EPA will generally not consider
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
13458
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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:
Charmagne Ackerman, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0448,
ackerman.charmagne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. Review of State Submittals
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
On March 10, 2017, OEPA submitted
to EPA revisions to Ohio Administrative
Code (OAC) chapter 3745–31–01. The
revisions were made to implement the
‘‘Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State
Implementation Plan Requirements.’’
Subsequently, on July 18, 2017, OEPA
submitted to EPA a letter clarifying the
March 10, 2017 submittal. OEPA
clarified that limited portions of OAC
3745–31–01 should be included as a SIP
revision. The revisions to OAC 3745–
31–01, specifically, subparagraph (LLL)
(6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph
(WWWW), paragraph (NNNNN),
paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph
(LLLLLL) (2) (ee) will make the rule
consistent with 40 CFR 51.165 and 40
CFR 52.21.
II. Review of State Submittals
On August 24, 2016, EPA published
the ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards: State
Implementation Plan Requirements’’
(PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule)(81 FR
58009) as a final rule in the Federal
Register. These 2016 regulations
provide details on meeting the statutory
SIP requirements that apply to areas
designated nonattainment for any PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). As part of the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, EPA has interpreted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
the requirements of the CAA to allow
the state to provide a ‘‘precursor
demonstration’’ to the EPA that
supports the determination that one or
more PM2.5 precursor need not be
subject to control and planning
requirements in a given nonattainment
area. EPA has determined that sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, VOC, and NH3
are factual and scientific precursors to
PM, and thus the attainment plan
requirements of subpart 4 initially apply
equally to emissions of direct PM2.5 and
all of its identified precursors. CAA
section 189(e) explicitly requires the
control of major stationary sources of
PM2.5 precursors, unless there is a
demonstration to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that such major
stationary sources do not contribute
significantly to PM levels that exceed
the standards in the area. The PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule became effective on
October 16, 2016.
OEPA provided a modeling analysis
for both VOC and NH3 intended to show
that increases in emissions of these
precursors that may result from new or
modified sources would not make a
significant contribution to PM2.5
concentrations in the area. This
demonstration justifies the state’s
determination that major stationary
sources of these precursors do not need
to be regulated under the NNSR
program for the area. For NNSR
permitting purposes, CAA section
189(e), as interpreted by the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, provides an option
for the state to provide a precursor
demonstration intended to show that
increases in emissions from potential
new and existing major stationary
sources of a particular precursor would
not contribute significantly to levels that
exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in a
particular nonattainment area. 40 CFR
51.1006(a)(3).
In particular, EPA’s regulations
provide that a state choosing to submit
an NNSR precursor demonstration
should evaluate the sensitivity of PM2.5
levels in the nonattainment area to an
increase in emissions of the precursor.
If the state demonstrates that the
estimated air quality changes
determined through such an analysis are
not significant, based on the facts and
circumstances of the area, the state may
use this information to identify new
major stationary sources and major
modifications of a precursor that will
not be considered to contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the standard in the nonattainment area
under CAA section 189(e). Id.
51.1006(a)(3)(i). If EPA approves the
state’s NNSR precursor demonstration
for a nonattainment area, major sources
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the relevant precursor can be
exempted from the NNSR major source
permitting requirements for PM2.5 with
respect to that precursor. Id.
51.1006(a)(3)(ii).
For NNSR permitting purposes, OEPA
conducted sensitivity analyses to
examine potential increases in
emissions through a model simulation
that evaluates the effect on PM2.5
concentrations in the area resulting from
a given set of precursor emission
increases from one or more new or
modified stationary sources. On October
14, 2016, OEPA submitted its nonsignificance finding, including the
precursor demonstration, as part of
OEPA’s attainment demonstration for
the 2012 PM2.5 annual standard. The
attainment demonstration for the PM2.5
annual standard will be addressed in a
separate action.
OEPA and the Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium (LADCO) used the
2011 and 2021 comprehensive modeling
inventories and platforms for this
analysis. OEPA and LADCO initially ran
a baseline model to predict the PM2.5
concentrations in Cleveland in 2021,
and then modeled any potential
increases of precursors for the same year
to determine the impact of the growth
of precursors to the areas
concentrations. To help determine a
theoretical growth scenario as a result of
major source expansion (new or
modified), OEPA first prepared
inventories for VOC and NH3 for 2008
to 2014 for the entire State from Ohio’s
annual emissions reporting program.
OEPA used inventories for the entire
State in order to determine what types
of major sources/source categories are
likely to expand (new or modified)
within the Cleveland area and at what
magnitude (tons per year) those
expansions are likely to occur.
Consistent with EPA’s regulation and
draft guidance, OEPA and LADCO have
performed sensitivity analyses of
potential increases in emissions through
a model simulation that evaluates the
effect on PM2.5 concentrations in the
nonattainment area (including
unmonitored areas) resulting from a
given set of hypothetical NH3 or VOC
precursor emission increases from
modified major stationary sources of the
respective precursors in the
nonattainment area.
For the NH3 analysis, OEPA assumed
emissions increases at three existing
locations of NH3 in the area, as these
would be the most likely future areas of
growth in the Cleveland area. EPA
believes that the use of the historical
inventories to predict growth is
reflective of the future potential
increases specific to the Cleveland area
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
given the current types of facilities and
their respective locations, the urban
density and ability to expand or build,
as well as the types of state regulation
or other federal requirements (such as
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants) on facility
types and controls required for other
pollutants. EPA believes that this is an
acceptable approach to estimating
potential future growth.
In addition to the modeled emissions
increases based on historical growth at
sources, LADCO and OEPA performed
an additional NH3 modeling analysis
(submitted July 18, 2017) based on a 100
tons per year (TPY) emissions increase
(to represent major sources) in each
modeled grid cell in the nonattainment
area. EPA believes that this is a
sufficiently conservative analysis that
exceeds the level of actual potential NH3
emissions growth likely to occur in the
area. Thus, this analysis serves as a
reasonable evaluation of the sensitivity
of PM2.5 concentrations to a large
emissions increase across the spatial
area. Both of these approaches are
consistent with suggested modeling in
EPA’s draft guidance.
For the VOC analysis, OEPA added
1,486 TPY of VOC emissions at 3
existing source locations where VOC
emissions increases potentially could
occur in the nonattainment area.
Compared to the 2011 inventory, this
represents a 75% increase in VOC
emissions from existing stationary
sources (Electric Generating Units (EGU)
and non-EGU). Compared to the 2021
projected inventory, this represents an
80% increase in stationary source
emissions. For the NH3 analysis, OEPA
added 325 TPY of NH3 emissions
(scenario 1) to 3 existing source
locations where NH3 emissions
increases potentially could occur in the
nonattainment area. Compared to the
2011 inventory, this represents a 447%
increase in NH3 emissions from existing
stationary sources. Compared to the
2021 projected inventory, this
represents a 449% increase in NH3 from
stationary sources. The additional NH3
analysis (scenario 2) had a total
emissions increase of 1,700 TPY, which
is over 500% higher growth than the
historical NH3 growth (scenario 1).
OEPA found that the addition of the
NH3 emissions (approximately 350 TPY)
into the model based on historical
growth (scenario 1) would result in a
peak impact of 0.08 micrograms per
cubic meter (mg/m3), and the addition of
the above VOC emissions would result
in a peak impact of 0.02 mg/m3. The
modeled impacts are well below the
recommended significance contribution
threshold of 0.2 mg/m3; for VOC it is an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
order of magnitude difference, and for
NH3 the maximum value is less than
half the recommended significant
contribution threshold level. The results
of NH3 modeling for scenario 2 indicate
that, even with a conservatively large
NH3 increase, the maximum impact was
0.24 mg/m3, which is only slightly above
the recommended contribution
threshold of 0.2 ug/m3.
While the increase is slightly above
the recommended contribution
threshold, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to conclude that NH3
emissions from major stationary sources
(in the context of a NNSR precursor
demonstration) do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 concentrations in
the nonattainment area for the following
reasons: Historical growth of NH3
sources in the area are significantly less
than what was modeled for scenario 2;
the only likely future increases of NH3
emissions from major sources in the
area are from the increased use of NH3
for EGU NOX control (ammonia slip)
and would likely occur at existing EGUs
(as modeled in scenario 1); the area
continues to trend downward in both
monitored PM2.5 concentrations and
PM2.5 (direct and precursor) emissions;
and current preliminary monitoring data
shows the area is attaining the standard.
This small amount of additional
ambient PM2.5 concentration, based on
the modeling analysis, would therefore
not interfere with the area’s ability to
attain the standard given that the
current preliminary design value for
2015–2017 is 11.3 mg/m3, and the
additional modeled increase of 0.24 mg/
m3 would not impact the areas ability to
attain or maintain the NAAQS.
Based on the results of the modeling
demonstration and the additional
factors described in this section, EPA is
proposing to determine that emissions
increases of either VOC or NH3 from
new and modified major stationary
sources would not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Cleveland
nonattainment area. Accordingly, we are
proposing to approve Ohio’s submitted
revisions to its PM2.5 SIP, and new or
modified major sources of VOC and NH3
may be exempted from the state’s NNSR
program requirements for PM2.5 in the
Cleveland PM2.5 nonattainment area.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing approval of the SIP
revision submittal. Ohio’s SIP revisions
comply with regulations EPA designed
to address the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA finds
that these revisions implement the
NNSR rules by defining precursors for
PM2.5, as required by EPA’s regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13459
EPA is proposing approval of
revisions to OAC 3745–31–01,
specifically subparagraph (LLL)(6),
paragraph (NNN), paragraph (WWWW),
paragraph (NNNNN), paragraph
(VVVVV), and subparagraph
(LLLLLL)(2)(ee). EPA finds that the
revisions are consistent with Federal
requirements.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
revisions to Ohio Administrative Code
3745–31–01 including subparagraph
(LLL)(6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph
(WWWW), paragraph (NNNNN),
paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph
(LLLLLL)(2)(ee), effective on March 20,
2017 . EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally
available through www.regulations.gov,
and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA 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 CAA. 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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
13460
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 20, 2018.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018–06368 Filed 3–28–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
40 CFR Part 79
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0131; FRL–9975–89–
OAR]
Registration of Isobutanol as a
Gasoline Additive: Opportunity for
Public Comment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) is
seeking public comment on any aspect
of the use of isobutanol in gasoline.
Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC
(‘‘Butamax’’), a manufacturer of
isobutanol, has submitted an
application pursuant to the regulations
titled ‘‘Registration of Fuels and Fuel
Additives’’ for the registration of
isobutanol as a gasoline additive at up
to 16 volume percent. Butamax has
submitted information that would likely
satisfy the applicable registration
requirements. The Clean Air Act
requires the EPA to register a fuel or fuel
additive once all the applicable
registration requirements have been met
by the manufacturer. Due to the
potential for the widespread
introduction of isobutanol into
commerce, we are taking steps to make
the public aware of the likelihood of
this registration. We are seeking public
comment regarding any issues we
should take into consideration for this
registration and any supplemental
actions we should consider under the
Clean Air Act to further protect public
health and welfare.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 30, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2018–0131, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or withdrawn. 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 in
general 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, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James W. Caldwell, Environmental
Engineer, Compliance Division, Office
of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail
Code 6405A, U.S. Environmental
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
Telephone: (202) 343–9303; Fax: (202)
343–2802; Email address: caldwell.jim@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA
is seeking public comment on any
aspect of the use of isobutanol in
gasoline. Butamax Advanced Biofuels,
LLC (‘‘Butamax’’), a manufacturer of
isobutanol, has submitted an
application pursuant to the regulations
at 40 CFR part 79, Registration of Fuels
and Fuel Additives, for the registration
of isobutanol, an alcohol, as a gasoline
additive at up to 16 volume percent.
Our review of the information Butamax
has submitted leads us to believe that
Butamax would likely satisfy the
applicable registration requirements
under 40 CFR part 79 (discussed in
more detail below). Section 211(b) of the
Clean Air Act (Clean Air Act, CAA or
the Act) requires the EPA to register a
fuel or fuel additive once all the
applicable registration requirements
have been met by the manufacturer.
While the EPA does not have any
specific concerns, due to the potential
for the widespread introduction of
isobutanol into commerce, we are taking
steps to make the public aware of the
likelihood of this registration and are
seeking public comment regarding any
issues we should take into consideration
for this registration and/or any potential
supplemental actions we should
consider under the Clean Air Act to
further protect public health and
welfare.
I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
Section 211(a) and (b)—Fuels and Fuel
Additives Designation and Registration
Section 211(a) of the Act authorizes
the Administrator to designate fuels and
fuel additives (F/FAs) by regulations
and, once designated, to register such
F/FAs prior to introduction into
commerce. To date, the Administrator
has designated on-highway motor
vehicle gasoline and gasoline additives
and on-highway motor vehicle diesel
and diesel additives for registration. The
EPA codified the registration
requirements under Sections 211(b) and
211(e) of the Act at 40 CFR part 79.
Registration requirements at 40 CFR part
79 include emissions speciation testing
and a literature search of the associated
emissions (Tier 1 testing) and animal
testing of exposure to emissions for
purposes of determining health effects
(Tier 2 testing). Manufacturers with less
than $50 million in total annual sales
are considered small businesses, as
specified in the regulations at 40 CFR
79.58(d). In certain cases, a small
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13457-13460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06368]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0164; FRL-9976-14--Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Ohio NSR PM2.5 Precursors
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), revisions to Ohio's state
implementation plan (SIP) as requested by the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) on March 10, 2017, and supplemented on July
18, 2017. The revisions to Ohio's SIP implement certain EPA regulations
for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5)
for nonattainment areas by establishing definitions related to
PM2.5 and defining PM2.5 precursors. The
revisions also incorporate the findings of a comprehensive precursor
demonstration performed by OEPA, which determined that volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3) are an insignificant
source of PM2.5 for the purpose of new source review in
nonattainment areas in Ohio.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0164 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. 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, 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. EPA will
generally not consider
[[Page 13458]]
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: Charmagne Ackerman, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0448, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. Review of State Submittals
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On March 10, 2017, OEPA submitted to EPA revisions to Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) chapter 3745-31-01. The revisions were made
to implement the ``Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements.'' Subsequently, on
July 18, 2017, OEPA submitted to EPA a letter clarifying the March 10,
2017 submittal. OEPA clarified that limited portions of OAC 3745-31-01
should be included as a SIP revision. The revisions to OAC 3745-31-01,
specifically, subparagraph (LLL) (6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph
(WWWW), paragraph (NNNNN), paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph (LLLLLL)
(2) (ee) will make the rule consistent with 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR
52.21.
II. Review of State Submittals
On August 24, 2016, EPA published the ``Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan
Requirements'' (PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule)(81 FR 58009) as
a final rule in the Federal Register. These 2016 regulations provide
details on meeting the statutory SIP requirements that apply to areas
designated nonattainment for any PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). As part of the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, EPA has interpreted the requirements of the CAA to
allow the state to provide a ``precursor demonstration'' to the EPA
that supports the determination that one or more PM2.5
precursor need not be subject to control and planning requirements in a
given nonattainment area. EPA has determined that sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, VOC, and NH3 are factual and scientific
precursors to PM, and thus the attainment plan requirements of subpart
4 initially apply equally to emissions of direct PM2.5 and
all of its identified precursors. CAA section 189(e) explicitly
requires the control of major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors, unless there is a demonstration to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that such major stationary sources do not contribute
significantly to PM levels that exceed the standards in the area. The
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule became effective on October 16,
2016.
OEPA provided a modeling analysis for both VOC and NH3
intended to show that increases in emissions of these precursors that
may result from new or modified sources would not make a significant
contribution to PM2.5 concentrations in the area. This
demonstration justifies the state's determination that major stationary
sources of these precursors do not need to be regulated under the NNSR
program for the area. For NNSR permitting purposes, CAA section 189(e),
as interpreted by the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, provides
an option for the state to provide a precursor demonstration intended
to show that increases in emissions from potential new and existing
major stationary sources of a particular precursor would not contribute
significantly to levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
a particular nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(3).
In particular, EPA's regulations provide that a state choosing to
submit an NNSR precursor demonstration should evaluate the sensitivity
of PM2.5 levels in the nonattainment area to an increase in
emissions of the precursor. If the state demonstrates that the
estimated air quality changes determined through such an analysis are
not significant, based on the facts and circumstances of the area, the
state may use this information to identify new major stationary sources
and major modifications of a precursor that will not be considered to
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
standard in the nonattainment area under CAA section 189(e). Id.
51.1006(a)(3)(i). If EPA approves the state's NNSR precursor
demonstration for a nonattainment area, major sources of the relevant
precursor can be exempted from the NNSR major source permitting
requirements for PM2.5 with respect to that precursor. Id.
51.1006(a)(3)(ii).
For NNSR permitting purposes, OEPA conducted sensitivity analyses
to examine potential increases in emissions through a model simulation
that evaluates the effect on PM2.5 concentrations in the
area resulting from a given set of precursor emission increases from
one or more new or modified stationary sources. On October 14, 2016,
OEPA submitted its non-significance finding, including the precursor
demonstration, as part of OEPA's attainment demonstration for the 2012
PM2.5 annual standard. The attainment demonstration for the
PM2.5 annual standard will be addressed in a separate
action.
OEPA and the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) used
the 2011 and 2021 comprehensive modeling inventories and platforms for
this analysis. OEPA and LADCO initially ran a baseline model to predict
the PM2.5 concentrations in Cleveland in 2021, and then
modeled any potential increases of precursors for the same year to
determine the impact of the growth of precursors to the areas
concentrations. To help determine a theoretical growth scenario as a
result of major source expansion (new or modified), OEPA first prepared
inventories for VOC and NH3 for 2008 to 2014 for the entire
State from Ohio's annual emissions reporting program. OEPA used
inventories for the entire State in order to determine what types of
major sources/source categories are likely to expand (new or modified)
within the Cleveland area and at what magnitude (tons per year) those
expansions are likely to occur.
Consistent with EPA's regulation and draft guidance, OEPA and LADCO
have performed sensitivity analyses of potential increases in emissions
through a model simulation that evaluates the effect on
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area (including
unmonitored areas) resulting from a given set of hypothetical
NH3 or VOC precursor emission increases from modified major
stationary sources of the respective precursors in the nonattainment
area.
For the NH3 analysis, OEPA assumed emissions increases
at three existing locations of NH3 in the area, as these
would be the most likely future areas of growth in the Cleveland area.
EPA believes that the use of the historical inventories to predict
growth is reflective of the future potential increases specific to the
Cleveland area
[[Page 13459]]
given the current types of facilities and their respective locations,
the urban density and ability to expand or build, as well as the types
of state regulation or other federal requirements (such as National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) on facility types and
controls required for other pollutants. EPA believes that this is an
acceptable approach to estimating potential future growth.
In addition to the modeled emissions increases based on historical
growth at sources, LADCO and OEPA performed an additional
NH3 modeling analysis (submitted July 18, 2017) based on a
100 tons per year (TPY) emissions increase (to represent major sources)
in each modeled grid cell in the nonattainment area. EPA believes that
this is a sufficiently conservative analysis that exceeds the level of
actual potential NH3 emissions growth likely to occur in the
area. Thus, this analysis serves as a reasonable evaluation of the
sensitivity of PM2.5 concentrations to a large emissions
increase across the spatial area. Both of these approaches are
consistent with suggested modeling in EPA's draft guidance.
For the VOC analysis, OEPA added 1,486 TPY of VOC emissions at 3
existing source locations where VOC emissions increases potentially
could occur in the nonattainment area. Compared to the 2011 inventory,
this represents a 75% increase in VOC emissions from existing
stationary sources (Electric Generating Units (EGU) and non-EGU).
Compared to the 2021 projected inventory, this represents an 80%
increase in stationary source emissions. For the NH3
analysis, OEPA added 325 TPY of NH3 emissions (scenario 1)
to 3 existing source locations where NH3 emissions increases
potentially could occur in the nonattainment area. Compared to the 2011
inventory, this represents a 447% increase in NH3 emissions
from existing stationary sources. Compared to the 2021 projected
inventory, this represents a 449% increase in NH3 from
stationary sources. The additional NH3 analysis (scenario 2)
had a total emissions increase of 1,700 TPY, which is over 500% higher
growth than the historical NH3 growth (scenario 1).
OEPA found that the addition of the NH3 emissions
(approximately 350 TPY) into the model based on historical growth
(scenario 1) would result in a peak impact of 0.08 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\), and the addition of the above VOC emissions would
result in a peak impact of 0.02 [mu]g/m\3\. The modeled impacts are
well below the recommended significance contribution threshold of 0.2
[mu]g/m\3\; for VOC it is an order of magnitude difference, and for
NH3 the maximum value is less than half the recommended
significant contribution threshold level. The results of NH3
modeling for scenario 2 indicate that, even with a conservatively large
NH3 increase, the maximum impact was 0.24 [mu]g/m\3\, which
is only slightly above the recommended contribution threshold of 0.2
ug/m\3\.
While the increase is slightly above the recommended contribution
threshold, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude that
NH3 emissions from major stationary sources (in the context
of a NNSR precursor demonstration) do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area for the
following reasons: Historical growth of NH3 sources in the
area are significantly less than what was modeled for scenario 2; the
only likely future increases of NH3 emissions from major
sources in the area are from the increased use of NH3 for
EGU NOX control (ammonia slip) and would likely occur at
existing EGUs (as modeled in scenario 1); the area continues to trend
downward in both monitored PM2.5 concentrations and
PM2.5 (direct and precursor) emissions; and current
preliminary monitoring data shows the area is attaining the standard.
This small amount of additional ambient PM2.5 concentration,
based on the modeling analysis, would therefore not interfere with the
area's ability to attain the standard given that the current
preliminary design value for 2015-2017 is 11.3 [mu]g/m\3\, and the
additional modeled increase of 0.24 [mu]g/m\3\ would not impact the
areas ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
Based on the results of the modeling demonstration and the
additional factors described in this section, EPA is proposing to
determine that emissions increases of either VOC or NH3 from
new and modified major stationary sources would not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Cleveland nonattainment area.
Accordingly, we are proposing to approve Ohio's submitted revisions to
its PM2.5 SIP, and new or modified major sources of VOC and
NH3 may be exempted from the state's NNSR program
requirements for PM2.5 in the Cleveland PM2.5
nonattainment area.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revision submittal. Ohio's SIP
revisions comply with regulations EPA designed to address the
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA finds that these revisions implement the
NNSR rules by defining precursors for PM2.5, as required by
EPA's regulations.
EPA is proposing approval of revisions to OAC 3745-31-01,
specifically subparagraph (LLL)(6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph (WWWW),
paragraph (NNNNN), paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph (LLLLLL)(2)(ee).
EPA finds that the revisions are consistent with Federal requirements.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to Ohio Administrative Code 3745-31-01 including
subparagraph (LLL)(6), paragraph (NNN), paragraph (WWWW), paragraph
(NNNNN), paragraph (VVVVV), and subparagraph (LLLLLL)(2)(ee), effective
on March 20, 2017 . EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the
EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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
[[Page 13460]]
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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 20, 2018.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-06368 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
