Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma, 37579-37587 [2019-16229]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Coast Guard District, table to § 165.506,
section (a), row (16), specifies the
location of the regulated area as all
waters of the Delaware River adjacent to
Penn’s Landing, Philadelphia, PA,
within 500 yards of a fireworks launch
site at approximate position latitude
39°56′49″ N, longitude 075°08′11″ W. As
reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may
not enter, remain in, or transit through
the safety zone during the enforcement
period unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port or designated Coast Guard
patrol personnel on scene.
In addition to this notice of
enforcement in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide notification of
the enforcement periods via broadcast
notice to mariners.
Dated: July 29, 2019.
Scott E. Anderson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2019–16444 Filed 7–31–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0145; FRL–9996–93–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Oklahoma
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
Oklahoma as proposed on March 22,
2018, and October 5, 2018. The
revisions submitted by Oklahoma were
contained in annual SIP updates for
2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, and
incorporate the latest changes to the
EPA regulations. The overall intended
outcome of this rulemaking is to make
the approved Oklahoma SIP consistent
with current Federal and State
requirements. We are taking this action
in accordance with the federal Clean Air
Act (CAA, the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on
September 3, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0145. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
or other information whose disclosure is
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm
Street, Dallas, Texas 75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Alan Shar, EPA Region 6 Office, SO2
and Regional Haze Section (6ARSH),
1201 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75270, 214–
665–6691, shar.alan@epa.gov. To
inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Mr. Alan
Shar or Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ mean the EPA.
Acronyms and Abbreviations. A
number of acronyms and abbreviations
are used in this preamble. While this
may not be an exhaustive list, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the following terms
and acronyms are defined:
ACI Air Curtain Incinerator
AQAC Air Quality Advisory Committee
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
NAAQSvNational Ambient Air Quality
Standards
OAC Oklahoma Administrative Code
ODEQ Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
SIP State Implementation Plan
SNPR Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
TSD Technical Support Document
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Public Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The background for this action is
discussed in detail in the March 22,
2018 (83 FR 12514) Proposal.1 After the
close of the comment period, the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) submitted additional
information by letter dated July 31, 2018
(hereinafter ‘‘ODEQ’s July 31, 2018
Letter’’),2 concerning the SIP rule
1 See the Proposal, document ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2017–0145–0001 at Regulations.gov.
2 ODEQ letter dated July 31, 2018 to EPA
concerning March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12514) Proposal,
document ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0145–0026
at Regulations.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37579
revisions addressed in the March 22,
2018 Proposal. The information
submitted by ODEQ was intended to
clarify the rule revisions and their
applicability as well as to further
demonstrate how the revisions improve
the Oklahoma SIP. On October 5, 2018,
we published a Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR) 3 at 83 FR
50312. The October 5, 2018 SNPR
reopened the comment period based on
the information submitted by Oklahoma
and our analysis of it. We also withdrew
the proposed action concerning
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units because the State did
not submit it for approval as a SIP
revision. The Proposal, the SNPR, the
Technical Support Document (TSD),4
and Supplement 3 to the TSD 5 provide
a detailed description and rationale for
EPA’s proposal to approve into the
Oklahoma SIP certain revisions to
Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC)
Title 252 Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ), Chapter 100 Air
Pollution Control (OAC:252:100) that
Oklahoma submitted to the EPA on
February 14, 2017. Specifically, the
Proposal and the SNPR concern
revisions to OAC:252:100 Subchapters
13 Open Burning, 17 Incinerators, 25
Visible Emissions and Particulates, 31
Control of Emission of Sulfur
Compounds, Appendix E Primary
Ambient Air Quality Standards, and
Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air
Quality Standards. The criteria used to
evaluate these SIP revisions are found
primarily in section 110 of the Act.
II. Public Comments
We received 19 comments on the
March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12514) Proposal
during the comment period that closed
on April 23, 2018, and all comments are
available in docket for this action.
Eighteen of the 19 comments were
submitted anonymously and did not
provide information relevant or specific
to the provisions proposed for approval
into the Oklahoma SIP. Upon review,
the EPA determined that the 18
anonymous comments merit no further
response or discussion.6 The remaining
comment, submitted by the Sierra Club
and the Center for Biological Diversity
(commenters), included relevant
comments on the March 22, 2018 (83 FR
3 See the SNPR, document ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2017–0145–0023 at Regulations.gov.
4 See the TSD, document ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–
2017–0145–0002 at Regulations.gov.
5 See Supplement 3 to the TSD, document ID No.
EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0145–0024 at
Regulations.gov.
6 See the EPA Response to Comments,
Memorandum document ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–
2017–0145–0025 at Regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
37580
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
12514) Proposal.7 Primarily, the
commenters assert that sections 110(l)
and 193 of the Act have not been
satisfied, and that revisions to
OAC:252:100 Subchapters 13, 17, 25,
and 31 of the Oklahoma SIP should not
be approved. A summary of those
comments and our responses are found
below. We did not receive comments on
the October 5, 2018 (83 FR 50312) SNPR
during the additional comment period
that closed on November 5, 2018.
Comment 1: OAC 252:100,
Subchapter 13—Open Burning. The
commenters note that the revisions
would exempt hydrocarbon waste
flaring and the use of air curtain
incinerators from the open burning time
limitations in OAC 252:100:13–9(4) of
the existing SIP. Commenters claim that
these revisions allow flaring operations
and air curtain incinerators to operate
an average of 18 more hours per day
than allowed under the existing SIP and
thus allow dramatically increased
emissions of particulate matter,
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxides, and possibly sulfur
compounds, including sulfur dioxide.
Commenters maintain that the revision
constitutes a SIP relaxation requiring a
CAA section 110(l) analysis (subject to
public notice and opportunity for public
comment) of the impacts of the revision
on the NAAQS and PSD increments,
and a determination that the SIP
relaxation will not interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS and PSD increments. Finally,
commenters note that the EPA must
ensure that the requirements in CAA
section 193 (relating to equivalent
emission reductions) are being met.
Response: The February 14, 2017
submittal included revisions to OAC
252:100–9(4) that exempt open burning
allowed under OAC 252:100–13–7(6)(B)
(concerning hydrocarbon waste flaring)
and OAC 252:100–13–8 (concerning air
curtain incinerators) from the time
restrictions otherwise applicable to
open burning. As noted in ODEQ’s July
31, 2018 Letter, the rule only requires
that initial burning begin in the time
frame of 3 hours after sunrise to 3 hours
before sunset. Open burning is allowed
outside of this timeframe so long as no
additional fuel is added.
The revisions to OAC 252:100–9(4)
exempt hydrocarbon waste flaring under
OAC 252:100–13–7(6)(B) from the time
restrictions associated with open
burning. Pages 1–2 of ODEQ’s July 31,
2018 Letter read:
As discussed in the Air Quality Advisory
Council (AQAC) transcripts included in the
7 See document ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2017–
0145–0022 at Regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
SIP submittal, DEQ recognized the need to
correct the omission of the exemption for
hydrocarbon flaring, and a new version of
Subchapter 13 with the exemption was taken
to the AQAC in 2003 and 2004, and approved
by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in
2004. There are many continuous processes
that use flares as a control device, and for
those processes that cannot be turned off, the
flare must be used continuously. If the flare
is turned off, it could cause an air quality
issue or a safety hazard. Many of these flares
are also included in facility permits with the
requirement to be operated continuously to
reduce emissions. Many of these same flares
are also subject to regulation under federal
New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs)
or National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), which
require them to operate continuously. DEQ
never intended hydrocarbon flaring to be
subject to the operational time limitations in
Subchapter 13, and enforcement of such
limitations would conflict with the state and
federal requirements discussed above. In
addition, the proposed revision to
Subchapter 13 would not result in any
increase in emissions and would not interfere
with any NAAQS or PSD increment.
We agree with ODEQ’s conclusion
that time limits on the operation of
hydrocarbon flares are inappropriate
and, if actually implemented, could
cause a life or safety hazard and result
in an increase in emissions of
hydrocarbons while the flare is not in
use. As such, the removal of the
operating time restriction would reduce
emissions of VOCs, if one assumes the
restrictions had been enforced.
However, as ODEQ notes, the restriction
on hydrocarbon flaring could not have
been practically enforced without
introducing life or safety hazards. As
such, the time limits on the operation of
hydrocarbon flares could not have been
implemented and, in fact, have never
been implemented because they are
inconsistent with several state and
federal requirements, as noted above.
Removing the time restriction is not
expected to result in any actual change
in emissions, and, therefore, its removal
will not increase emissions or interfere
with attainment or PSD increments.
The other exemption from the open
burning time restriction included in the
proposed SIP revision of OAC 252:100–
13–9(4) concerns the use of air curtain
incinerators (ACIs) under OAC 252:100–
13–8. As noted in ODEQ’s July 31, 2018
Letter, the use of ACIs under OAC
252:100–13–8 is limited to ‘‘combustible
material or refuse that is allowed to be
burned under this Chapter (emphasis
added).’’ In addition, ODEQ’s July 31,
2018 Letter at page 2 notes:
DEQ exempted open burning using an ACI
from the time limitation because an ACI is a
control device that reduces the pollution
created by open burning. ACIs are also a safer
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
means of reducing waste by lowering the risk
of escaped fires and embers. As compared to
open burning without ACIs, an ACI reduces
air pollution by about 90%, and specifically
particulate matter by 97%, greatly reducing
the probability of creating an air quality
hazard or nuisance. One of the reasons DEQ
eliminated the time restriction on the use of
an ACI was to remove a barrier for anyone
who could, to use an ACI. Please note the use
of an ACI for any day where an Ozone or PM
watch has been declared in a Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) or county is
prohibited in OAC 252:100–13–9(5). It is also
very important to note that the volume of
materials being burned would not change
based on this rule revision. However, the use
of an ACI to burn that same volume,
regardless of the time of day, would result in
fewer emissions released to the environment.
As such, the proposed revision to Subchapter
13 promotes a better pollution control
measure which would neither result in any
increase in emissions nor interfere with any
NAAQS or PSD increment.
The EPA finds ODEQ’s conclusion
that the volume of material being
burned would not change based on this
rule revision is reasonable. In
considering the allowed open burning
activities listed in OAC 252:100–13–7,
there is no reason to believe that
removal of barriers to air curtain
incinerators will result in more material
being burned. For example, the EPA
sees no reason, and the commenter
provided no reason to expect, that more
land would need clearing—an activity
for which open burning is allowed
under OAC 252:100–13–7(4)—due to
the lifting of the time restrictions
otherwise applicable to open burning
for this activity. Instead, it is expected
that if more air curtain incinerators are
used relative to open burning, the air
curtains would provide more efficient
combustion and, as a result, less
pollution. We also note that open
burning of refuse and other combustible
material may occur only if the burning
is conducted so that the contaminants
do not adversely affect the ambient air
quality of a city or town. See OAC
252:100–13–9 (3). Open burning of
refuse and other combustible material
may occur only if no public nuisance is
or will be created, and the burning is
controlled so that a visibility hazard is
not created on any roadway, rail track
or air field as a result of the air
contaminants being emitted. See OAC
252:100–13–9(1) and (2), respectively.
Also, use of an ACI is prohibited for any
day where an Ozone or PM watch has
been declared by ODEQ in a
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or
county. See OAC 252:100–13–9(5).
Furthermore, persons who conduct
open burning in accordance with the
provisions of Subchapter 13 are not
exempt or excused from the
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
consequences, damages, or injuries that
may result from such conduct, nor are
they exempt or excused from complying
with all applicable laws, ordinances,
rules, and orders. See OAC 252:100–13–
11.
Finally, we note that the requirements
of CAA section 193 are inapplicable to
the proposed revision to the Oklahoma
SIP discussed above. In confirmation of
the statement in ODEQ’s July 31, 2018
Letter that ‘‘Oklahoma has never relied
upon Subchapter 13 as a control
measure for any nonattainment plans
adopted before November 15, 1990,’’ we
searched the EPA’s Greenbook site for
the Designated Area Design Values for
NAAQS of 1987 PM10, 1971 SO2, 1978
Pb, 1971 CO, and 1971 NO2, and did not
find information concerning any preNovember 15, 1990 nonattainment plan
in place for these criteria pollutants in
Oklahoma. See the chart 8 on page 5 of
Supplement 3 to TSD. We believe that
the additional information provided in
ODEQ’s July 31, 2018 Letter and
presented above supports approval of
the revisions to OAC 252:100–13–9(4)
and that such revisions would not
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or
any other applicable requirement of the
Clean Air Act.
With respect to commenters concern
regarding the opportunity for public
comment on our analysis, we note that
ODEQ’s July 31, 2018 Letter was made
available to the public as part of the
October 5, 2018 SNPR. See document ID
Nos. EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0145–0026
and EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0145–0023,
respectively, at www.regulations.gov.
The public was provided an opportunity
to comment on the contents of ODEQ’s
letter and our analysis of it.
Additionally, our Supplement 3 to TSD,
prepared in conjunction with our
publication of the supplemental notice,
was also made available in the docket
on October 5, 2018. See document ID.
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0145–0024.
In the SNPR, the EPA notes that it is
‘‘reopening the comment period based
on information submitted by Oklahoma
in a letter dated July 31, 2018, and our
analysis of it.’’ (83 FR 50312, October 5,
2018). Thus, through the supplemental
notice, the EPA provided a fulsome
opportunity for public comment on the
additional information relevant to EPA’s
CAA section 110(l) analysis. The EPA
did not receive comments on its October
5, 2018 supplemental notice action. For
the reasons explained above, no changes
have been made to the proposed
8 https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/
ndtc.html (URL dated May 15, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
approval of this rule revision as a result
of this comment.
Comment 2: OAC 252:100–17—
Incinerators. Commenters note that the
revisions would exclude New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart
AAAA 9 and subpart CCCC 10 sources
from the incinerator requirements in
OAC 252:100–17 (Subchapter 17) of the
existing SIP. Commenters assert that
neither the EPA nor Oklahoma provided
any analysis to show that the NSPS
requirements are as stringent as the
Oklahoma Subchapter 17 requirements.
Commenters note that Subchapter 17
imposes particulate matter limits that do
not include any exemptions for startup
and shutdown, while the emission
limits in NSPS subpart AAAA do not
apply during startup, shutdown or
malfunction (40 CFR 60.1220).
Commenters claim this SIP revision
requires a CAA section 110(l) analysis to
ensure any emission increases resulting
from the revision would not adversely
impact compliance with the NAAQS or
PSD increments. The commenter also
asserts that the EPA has not compared
the emission limits in NSPS subparts
AAAA and CCCC to Subchapter 17 to
ensure that the SIP revision will not
result in relaxing emission limits that
apply to these sources under the current
SIP, including the particulate matter
requirements for fuel-burning units
pursuant to OAC 252:100–17–1.3 and
252:100–19 of the existing SIP that
apply to incinerators that also generate
useful heat energy.
Response: As the commenters
correctly note, the February 14, 2017
submittal includes a revision to OAC
252:100–17–2 which adds NSPS subpart
AAAA and NSPS subpart CCCC to the
list of sources exempt from the
requirements applicable to general
purpose incinerators. As stated on page
2 of ODEQ’s July 31, 2018 Letter,
It has always been DEQ’s intention that
Part 3 of Subchapter 17 apply to general
purpose incinerators that are not otherwise
covered by a more specific and applicable
state or federal regulation. The addition of
NSPS Subpart AAAA and CCCC to the list of
exemptions is intended to ensure that small
municipal waste combustion units and
commercial and industrial solid waste
incinerators are appropriately required to
follow the NSPS specific to that type of unit,
rather than the generic opacity and
9 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAAA—Standards of
Performance for Small Municipal Waste
Combustion Units for Which Construction is
Commenced After August 30, 1999 or for Which
Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced
After June 6, 2001.
10 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC—Standards of
Performance for Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration Units.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37581
particulate matter regulations in OAC
252:100–17–3 and 100–17–4.
As an initial matter, the EPA believes
it is reasonable for Oklahoma make
efforts to remove requirements that
overlap with Federal requirements
when consistent with the Act. Further,
as noted on page 3 of ODEQ’s July 31,
2018 Letter,
Oklahoma currently has no incinerators
subject to the small municipal waste
combustion rule of NSPS Subpart AAAA.
The facilities subject to NSPS Subpart CCCC
in Oklahoma are subject due to the presence
of an ACI and are required to have a Title V
permit. Emission inventories are required
annually per OAC 252:100–5 and include
state rule OAC 252:100–9 emission reporting.
There is no regulatory or emissions reporting
gap created by exempting these units from
Subchapter 17.
So, with regard to incinerators subject
to NSPS subpart AAAA, there will be no
increase in emissions due to exempting
sources subject to this standard, as there
are no known sources currently subject
to NSPS subpart AAAA in Oklahoma. In
addition, and as discussed below, any
increase in emissions due to exempting
subpart CCCC sources will be de
minimus.
An inquiry for sources subject to
NSPS subpart CCCC requirements in
Oklahoma reveals that such sources
have an estimated or reported total
annual PM10 emissions of 2.337 tons
(based on 2017 emission inventory data
and permitted rate). To the extent that
revisions to OAC 252:100–17 might
have resulted in any increased
emissions from this source category
when compared to the total state-wide
national emission inventory of
10,693.06 tons of PM10, the resulting
ratio is so small (2.337/10,693.06 =
0.000219, or less than three-one
hundredth of one percent) that it is
reasonable to conclude that such a de
minimus amount would not interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of
the NAAQS, PSD increment, or any
other applicable requirement of the Act
relating to SIPs.11 The commenter also
specifically noted that emissions during
startup and shutdown are exempt under
NSPS subpart AAAA, but since there
are no NSPS subpart AAAA sources in
Oklahoma, this is not a concern with
respect to CAA section 110(l).
NSPS subpart AAAA and CCCC
sources previously subject to the
General Purpose requirements of OAC
252:100–17, Part 3 would be subject to
the emission requirements in the
applicable federal NSPS rather than the
11 All air quality control regions in Oklahoma are
currently designated as unclassifiable/attainment
for PM2.5. See 40 CFR 81.337.
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
37582
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
particulate matter emission limits
provided by OAC 252:100, Appendix
A.12 Comparatively, the type of
pollutants and the control requirements
in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AAAA and
CCCC are more robust and provide for
better air quality protection than the out
of date empirical formula found in
Appendix A of the 1972 Oklahoma SIP.
We believe it is reasonable for
Oklahoma to remove old and
duplicative requirements. Finally,
according to the 2016 State’s Air Data
Report, Oklahoma has better ambient air
quality than required under the PM2.5
NAAQS, for both the primary and
secondary, and the PM10 NAAQS. See
the charts on page 5 of Supplement 3 to
TSD.13
We note that under the Oklahoma SIP,
should a source become subject to NSPS
subpart AAAA or subpart CCCC in the
future, new source review (NSR)
permitting requirements would be
triggered which require emission
limitations for all periods of normal
operation, including periods of startup
and shutdown. In addition, 40 CFR
60.2145(a)(1) of NSPS subpart CCCC
states that the emission standards and
operating requirements set forth in this
subpart apply at all times. Furthermore,
affected sources subject to NSPS
subparts AAAA or CCCC in the future
would trigger Oklahoma NSR SIP and
Title V requirements that ensure
emissions from such sources do not
interfere with attainment or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
Stationary sources subject to NSPS
subparts AAAA or CCCC must obtain an
air permit that includes operational
conditions and limitations necessary to
assure compliance with all applicable
requirements, including the NAAQS.
See OAC 252:100–8–3 and OAC
252:100–8–6(a) of the Oklahoma SIP.
See also OAC 252:100–4 of the
Oklahoma SIP. The federal NSPS
requirements in combination with the
NSR SIP requirements will ensure that
any emission increases due to
exempting NSPS subpart AAAA and
CCCC sources from the requirements of
OAC 252:100–17, Part 3 will be de
minimus and will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment or any other applicable
requirement of the Act.
In addition, we are only approving
into the SIP, the revision to OAC 252–
12 Appendix A in the Oklahoma SIP is part of an
arcane Regulation 5 which uses a process weight
formula to calculate a corresponding particulate
emission rate based on its capacity.
13 See https://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/
airreport2016/PM25.html (URL dated May 1, 2018)
and https://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/
airreport2016/PM10.html (URL dated May 1, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
100–17–2 discussed above. We have not
proposed action related to the
provisions of OAC 252:100–17, Part 9
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units—specifically OAC
252:100–17–60 thru 17–76—as
discussed in the March 22, 2018 (83 FR
12515) notice and the SNPR. These
provisions were not submitted to the
EPA for SIP approval as part of the
February 14, 2017 SIP submittal and
include provisions that pertain to CAA
sections 111(d) and 129, instead, which
will be acted upon separately in the
future.14 Therefore, no changes have
been made to the proposed approval of
the rule revision as a result of this
comment.
Comment 3: OAC 252:100– 25—
Visible Emissions and Particulates. The
commenters state that the EPA is
proposing to remove the requirement for
the EPA and ODEQ to jointly approve
alternative monitoring requirements and
instead allow only ODEQ to make such
determinations on a case-by-case basis,
thereby essentially allowing changes to
the opacity monitoring requirements of
the SIP without going through the SIP
revision process. The commenters claim
that the provision in the currently
existing SIP, requiring both EPA and
ODEQ approval, ensures that EPA
would evaluate the alternative opacity
monitoring requirements to make
certain that the alternative monitoring
does not represent a relaxation of the
SIP limits. Citing to 40 CFR 51.212(c),
the commenters note that the SIP
requirements for source testing provide
that a state may use test methods in
Appendix M of 40 CFR part 51 or
Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60; or the
state may use an alternative opacity
monitoring method that is not identified
in those two Appendices following
review and approval of that method by
the EPA. Commenters conclude that to
the extent ODEQ uses an alternative
monitoring method not identified in the
above-referenced Appendices, it must
obtain EPA’s approval.
Response: OAC 252:100–25–5
imposes continuous opacity monitoring
requirements on sources subject to 40
14 OAC 252:100–17–60 thru 17–76 are not
directly related to CAA section 110 (State
implementation Plans for NAAQS) and pertain to
CAA sections 111(d) (Standards of performance for
existing sources; remaining useful life of source)
and 129 (Solid waste combustion) standards. These
Subchapter 17 revisions were submitted by the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality to
EPA, by letter dated September 15, 2017, as an
update to Oklahoma’s Air Quality State Plan for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators
(CISWI) units, under CAA sections 111(d) and 129.
Pursuant to those statutory provisions and EPA’s
implementing regulations related thereto, EPA will
be evaluating and acting upon the September 15,
2017 Submittal in a separate action.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
CFR part 51, appendix P and is,
therefore, governed by the requirements
in appendix P. The February 14, 2017
submittal includes a revision to OAC
252:100–25–5(c) which eliminates the
words ‘‘and EPA’’ from the rule’s
requirement concerning the case-by-case
approval of alternative monitoring
requirements different from the
provisions of parts 1 through 5 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix P if continuous
monitoring cannot be implemented by a
source due to physical plant limitations
or extreme economic reasons. Thus,
OAC 252:100–25–5(c) concerns the
installation and operation of emission
monitoring systems as required by 40
CFR 51.214 and not the requirements
related to enforceable test methods or
alternative test methods as provided in
40 CFR 51.212 and cited to by the
commenters. More specifically, 40 CFR
51.214(c) requires that the type of
sources set forth in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix P meet the applicable
requirements therein. In turn, appendix
P states that SIPs may include
provisions that provide for approval, on
a case-by-case basis, of alternative
monitoring requirements if the
installation of a continuous monitoring
system cannot be implemented by a
source due to physical limitations or
extreme economic reasons. See 40 CFR
part 51, appendix P, part 6.0, Special
Consideration. Importantly, there is no
requirement that the state obtain EPA’s
approval when making such
determinations. The state rulemaking
record for the changes to OAC 252:100–
25–5(c) support ODEQ’s position that
the provisions therein are based on the
special consideration language of part 6
of 40 CFR part 51, appendix P, which
describes the powers and duties of the
state and alternatives to monitoring for
sources with certain conditions. See
pages 16–17 of the Transcript of
Proceedings of the Air Quality Council
Meeting, dated November 14, 2014,
included in the February 14, 2017
submittal.15 Based upon Oklahoma’s
statements as well as the discussion
above, no changes are made to the
proposed approval of this rule revision
as a result of this comment, and we are
approving the submitted revision to
OAC 252:100–25 into the Oklahoma
SIP.
Comment 4: OAC 252:100–31—
Control of Emission of Sulfur
Compounds. The commenter notes that
the revisions would eliminate the SO2
ambient standards (exposure limits) in
the existing SIP at OAC 252:100–31–12
(renumbered OAC 252:100–31–7). The
15 See document ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2017–
0145–0003 at Regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
commenters claim that, contrary to
ODEQ’s assertion, the removed
standards can still be considered
protective of the current (2010) SO2
NAAQS. More specifically, the
commenters note that the averaging
times and calculation methodologies
underlying the existing SO2 SIP ambient
(exposure) standards are significantly
different than the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
averaging times and methodologies. Due
to the form of the SO2 standards in the
existing SIP being significantly different
(5-minute) than the form of the 2010 (1hour) SO2 NAAQS and the its
application to existing equipment, the
commenters assert that OAC 252:100–
31–12 in the existing SIP may provide
protections in addition to those
provided by the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The
commenters questioned the CAA
section 110(l) noninterference
demonstration submitted by ODEQ as
well as the EPA’s proposed finding that
the CAA section 110(l) requirements
have been met. In addition, the
commenters assert that removal of the
SO2 standards from the SIP could lead
to increased emissions and relaxation of
limits previously taken by some sources
in order to meet these SIP requirements.
The commenters note that such
emission increases would need to be
evaluated under CAA section 110(l) and
determined not to adversely impact the
NAAQS or PSD increments. In addition,
they assert that the EPA must determine
that other requirements in 40 CFR
51.166(a) and 40 U.S.C. 7410 and 7471
have been met. Finally, the commenters
assert that record should include an
analysis demonstrating that the
requirements of CAA section 193 and 40
CFR 51.165(a)(2) have been met.
Response: As the commenters note,
the February 14, 2017 submittal
includes a revision to OAC 252:100–31
which removes SO2 ambient standards
(exposure limits) in the existing SIP at
OAC 252:100–31–12 (renumbered OAC
252:100–31–7).16 Oklahoma’s SIP
submittal also includes a CAA section
110(l) Noninterference Demonstration.
The purpose of a CAA section 110(l)
demonstration is to ensure that the
proposed SIP revision does not interfere
with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment of the NAAQS or
any other applicable requirement of the
CAA. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). The
revision which must be evaluated under
CAA section 110(l) (to determine if it
interferes with attainment or
16 As
noted in Supplement 3 to the TSD included
in the docket for this action, the replaced SO2
standards are state standards (i.e., not required by
the EPA SIP regulations) that have been approved
into the Oklahoma SIP. See document ID No. EPA–
R06–OAR–2017–0145–0002 at Regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
maintenance of the NAAQS or any other
CAA requirement) is the removal of the
SO2 state standards in the existing SIP
at OAC 252:100–31–12 (renumbered
OAC 252:100–31–7).
As noted on pages 3–4 of ODEQ’s July
31, 2018 Letter:
‘‘Because the state standards have been
replaced with the national standards,
provisions are in place to prevent Oklahoma
sources’ emissions from interfering with the
2010 1-hour NAAQS. . . . And, if one of the
permits, due to the removal of these [state]
standards, had resulted in significant
increases in emissions from a major
stationary source, the permit would have
required a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) review. Additionally, the
Data Requirements Rule (DRR) in 40 CFR part
51 has resulted in additional SO2 monitors
and modeling in Oklahoma. This modeling
shows the areas around the DRR sources to
be in attainment of the 2010 SO2 1-hour
NAAQS. Ambient air monitoring is ongoing,
but data collected to date indicate that
monitored areas are attaining the SO2
NAAQS. These factors support DEQ’s 110(1)
demonstration that there has been no
deterioration of air quality in Oklahoma due
to the removal of these state standards.’’
As stated above, Oklahoma opted to
revise its state law to remove the
outmoded SO2 standards in OAC
252:100–31–12 (renumbered to OAC
252:100–31–7), in light of the EPA’s
2010 SO2 NAAQS and its incorporation
into OAC 252:100, Appendix E. It now
asks the EPA to approve this revision
into the SIP. Since the removal of OAC
252:100–31–12 from the SIP cannot
interfere with the attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, the Oklahoma SIP
contains provisions to ensure that SO2
sources do not interfere with the current
SO2 NAAQS as discussed below.
In response to commenters concern
that existing sources may seek
modifications to remove or change SO2
emission limits previously taken in air
permits in order to meet the replaced
state SO2 standard, ODEQ notes
provisions are in place to prevent
Oklahoma sources from interfering with
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Such provisions
are found in Oklahoma’s major and
minor NSR SIP programs. For example,
under OAC 252:100–7 (permits for
minor facilities), which has been
approved into the Oklahoma SIP,
construction and operating permits
must contain provisions that prohibit
exceedances of ambient air quality
standards contained in OAC 252:100–3,
including the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See
OAC 252:100–7–15(d) and 7–18(f). In
addition, as noted in ODEQ’s July 13,
2018 Letter and under OAC 252:100–8
of the EPA-approved Oklahoma SIP,
permits for Part 70 sources (including
PSD sources) must include operational
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37583
conditions and limitations necessary to
assure compliance with all applicable
requirements, including the 2010 SO2
NAAQS and other SIP requirements.
See OAC 252:100–8–6(a) and OAC
252:100–8–2 (definition of applicable
requirement). Therefore, should a
source submit a permit application to
revise an emissions limitation
previously taken to meet the state SO2
standard, ODEQ would need to conduct
an evaluation of the impacts associated
with an increase of emissions on the
NAAQS and PSD increments as well as
ensure that the requirements of 40 CFR
51.166(a) and other applicable
requirements of the CAA have been met,
including those cited by the commenter.
See, e.g., OAC 252:100–8, Part 7 of the
federally-approved Oklahoma SIP; see
also 40 CFR part 52, subpart LL.
Finally, in confirmation of ODEQ’s
July 31, 2018 Letter which states that
‘‘Oklahoma has never relied upon
Subchapter 31 as a control measure for
any nonattainment plans adopted before
November 15, 1990’’ in relation to CAA
section 193, we searched EPA’s
Greenbook site for the Designated Area
Design Values for NAAQS of 1987 PM10,
1971 SO2, 1978 Pb, 1971 CO, and 1971
NO2 and did not find information
concerning any pre-November 15, 1990
nonattainment plan in place for these
criteria pollutants in Oklahoma. See the
chart on page 14 of Supplement 3 to
TSD.17 As such, the requirements of
CAA section 193 are not applicable to
this rulemaking action. Therefore, based
upon Oklahoma’s statements as well as
the analysis presented in the record and
discussed above, the proposed revision
would not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or
any other applicable requirement of the
Act. Therefore, no changes have been
made to the proposed approval of this
rule revision as a result of this
comment.
In addition, from a historical
perspective of SO2 NAAQS review, we
note the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee stated that the Risk and
Exposure Assessment (REA) had
presented a ‘‘convincing rationale’’ for a
one-hour standard, and that ‘‘a 1-hour
standard is the preferred averaging
time’’ and has been ‘‘in agreement with
having a short-term standard and finds
that the REA supports a one-hour
standard as protective of public health.’’
(74 FR 64833, December 8, 2009).18 For
17 See https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/
greenbook/ndtc.html (URL dated May 15, 2018).
18 The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is
designed to provide independent advice to the EPA
Administrator on the technical bases for EPA’s
NAAQS, and the Risk and Exposure Assessment is
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
Continued
01AUR1
37584
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
example, the existing OAC 252:100–31–
12(a), in part, sets forth an ambient air
concentration of sulfur dioxide at 1300
mg/m3 (0.50 ppm) in a five (5) minute
period. In developing the SO2 NAAQS,
EPA wrote,
‘‘When evaluating alternative forms in
conjunction with specific levels, the REA
considered the adequacy of the public health
protection provided by the combination of
level and form to be the foremost
consideration. In addition, the REA
recognized that it is important that the
standard have a form that is reasonably
stable. As just explained in the context of a
five-minute averaging time, a standard set
with a high degree of instability could have
the effect of reducing public health
protection because shifting in and out of
attainment could disrupt an area’s ongoing
implementation plans and associated control
programs (74 FR 64833, December 8, 2009).’’
In addition, as a part of final FR SO2
NAAQS in the 1996 rulemaking 19
regarding a 5-minute standard CASAC
wrote:
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
‘‘3. It was the consensus of CASAC that
any regulatory strategy to ameliorate such
exposures be risk-based-targeted on the most
likely sources of short-term sulfur dioxide
spikes rather than imposing short term
standards on all sources. All of the nine
CASAC Panel members recommended that
Option 1, the establishment of a new 5minutes standard, not be adopted. Reasons
cited for this recommendation included: the
clinical experiences of many ozone experts
which suggest that the effects are short-term,
readily reversible, and typical of response
seen with other stimuli. Further, the
committee viewed such exposures as rare
events which will even become rarer as
sulfur dioxide emissions are further reduced
as the 1990 amendments are implemented. In
addition, the committee pointed out that
enforcement of a short-term NAAQS would
require substantial technical resources.
Furthermore, the committee did not think
that such a standard would be enforceable. 4.
CASAC questioned the enforceability of a 5minute NAAQS or ‘‘target level.’’ Although
the Agency has not proposed an air
monitoring strategy, to ensure that such a
standard or ‘‘target level’’ would not be
exceeded, we infer that potential sources
would have to be surrounded by concentric
circles of monitors. The operation and
maintenance of such monitoring networks
would be extremely resource intensive.
Furthermore, current instrumentation used to
routinely monitor sulfur dioxide does not
respond quickly enough to accurately
characterize 5-minute spikes.’’
Upon inquiry we were informed that
the State did not collect 5-minute (short
term) SO2 monitoring data and such
information does not exist for us to
evaluate or compare the State-only
a planning document EPA develops when
establishing NAAQS for criteria pollutants.
19 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-199605-22/pdf/96-12863.pdf, Page 25579.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
standard with the 2010 1-Hour SO2
NAAQS for CAA section 110(l)
purposes.
To the extent sources were subject to
the 5-minute standard, it would have
arisen during the permitting process if
a modeling demonstration had indicated
more stringent permit limits would be
necessary to protect the five minute
average. As noted by ODEQ above, any
attempt to remove those limitations
would trigger PSD requirements (e.g.,
BACT analysis) had there been a
significant SO2 emissions increase.
No comments pertaining to February
14, 2017 revisions to OAC 252:100
Appendix E—Primary Ambient Air
Quality Standards, and OAC 252:100
Appendix F—Secondary Ambient Air
Quality Standards were received.
Therefore, approval of these two
Appendices as a revision to the
Oklahoma SIP will be finalized as
proposed.
This concludes our response to
relevant comments received. No
changes to the Proposal and the SNPR
have been made as a result of the
comments received; therefore, we are
finalizing proposed revisions noted in
the Proposal and the corresponding
SNPR into the Oklahoma SIP, as
submitted on February 14, 2017.
III. Final Action
We are approving rule revisions to
OAC:252:100 Subchapters 13 Open
Burning, 17 Incinerators, 25 Visible
Emissions and Particulates, 31 Control
of Emission of Sulfur Compounds,
Appendix E Primary Ambient Air
Quality Standards, and Appendix F
Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards as submitted on February 14,
2017. Our approval will incorporate
these changes into the SIP for
Oklahoma.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.4, the EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Oklahoma regulations as
described in the Final Action section
above. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically
through www.regulation.gov, Docket ID.
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0145 and at
the EPA Region 6 office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
SIP, have been incorporated by
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking
of EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.
V. 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, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993); 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
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;
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
37585
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
purposed of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
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 September 30, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: July 25, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart LL—Oklahoma
2. In § 52.1920, the table in paragraph
(c), under the heading entitled ‘‘Chapter
100 (OAC:252:100). Air Pollution
Control,’’ is amended:
■ a. Under Subchapter 13 by:
■ i. Revising the entries for ‘‘252:100–
13–2’’ and ‘‘252:100–13–7’’, under
Subchapter 13;
■ ii. Adding an entry for ‘‘252:100–13–
8’’; and
■
iii. Revising the entry for ‘‘252:100–
13–9’’;
b. Under Subchapter 17 by:
■ i. Revising the heading for Part 3; and
■ ii. Revising the entry for ‘‘252:100–
17–2‘‘;
■ c. Under Subchapter 25 by revising
the entry for ‘‘252:100–25–5’’;
■ d. Under Subchapter 31 by:
■ i. Revising the entries for ‘‘252:100–
31–1’’ and ‘‘252:100–31–2’’;
■ ii. Removing the entry for ‘‘252:100–
31–3’’;
■ iii. Adding a heading entitled ‘‘Part 2.
Ambient Air Concentration Limits or
Impacts for New and existing
Equipment, Sources, or Facilities’’
immediately after the entry for
252:100:31–2;
■ iv. Adding an entry for ‘‘252:100–31–
7’’ under added Part 2;
■ v. Removing the entries for ‘‘252:100–
31–12’’ and ‘‘252:100–31–14’’ under
Part 3;
■ vi. Revising the entries for ‘‘252:100–
31–13’’ and ‘‘252:100–31–15’’ under
Part 3;
■ vii. Adding an entry for ‘‘252:100–31–
16’’ under Part 3;
■ viii. Revising the entries for ‘‘252:100–
31–25’’ and ‘‘252:100–31–26’’ under
Part 5; and
■ f. Under Appendices for OAC 252:
Chapter 110 by revising the entries for
‘‘252:100, Appendix E’’ and ‘‘252:100,
Appendix F’’.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1920
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA APPROVED OKLAHOMA REGULATIONS
State citation
Title/subject
*
*
State effective date
*
EPA approval date
*
*
Explanation
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 100 (OAC:252–100). Air Pollution Control
*
*
*
*
Subchapter 13. Open Burning
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
252:100–13–2 .............
Purpose ........................................
07/01/2013
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
*
252:100–13–7 .............
*
*
Allowed open burning ..................
*
07/01/2013
252:100–13–8 .............
Use of air curtain incinerators .....
07/01/2013
252:100–13–9 .............
General conditions and require- 07/01/2013
ments for allowed open burning.
*
*
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
*
37586
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
EPA APPROVED OKLAHOMA REGULATIONS—Continued
State citation
Title/subject
*
*
State effective date
*
EPA approval date
*
Explanation
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Subchapter 17. Incinerators
*
*
*
*
Part 3. General Purpose Incinerators
*
*
252:100–17–2 .............
*
*
Applicability ..................................
*
*
09/12/2014
*
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
*
*
*
*
*
*
Subchapter 25. Visible Emissions and Particulates
*
*
252:100–25–5 .............
*
*
Continuous emission monitoring
for opacity.
*
*
*
07/01/2013
*
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
*
*
*
*
Subchapter 31. Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds
Part 1. General
Provisions
252:100–31–1 .............
Purpose ........................................
07/01/2012
252:100–31–2 .............
Definitions ....................................
07/01/2012
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
Part 2. Ambient Air Concentration Limits or Impacts for New and existing Equipment, Sources, or Facilities
252:100–31–7 .............
Allowable hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
ambient air concentrations for
new and existing sources.
07/01/2012
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
Part 3. Existing Equipment Standards
*
*
252:100–31–13 ...........
252:100–31–15 ...........
252:100–31–16 ...........
*
*
Requirements for existing sulfuric
acid plants.
Requirements for existing kraft
pulp mills.
Requirements for existing fossil
fuel-fired steam generators.
*
07/01/2012
*
*
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
07/01/2012
07/01/2012
Part 5. New Equipment Standards
252:100–31–25 ...........
252:100–31–26 ...........
Requirements for new fuel-burning equipment.
Requirements for new petroleum
and natural gas processes.
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
*
*
07/01/2013
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
07/01/2012
*
*
*
*
*
Appendices for OAC 252: Chapter 100
*
252:100, Appendix E ...
252:100, Appendix F ...
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
Primary Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
16:12 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
*
09/15/2016
*
*
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
8/1/2019 [Insert Federal Register citation].
09/15/2016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
*
37587
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
EPA APPROVED OKLAHOMA REGULATIONS—Continued
State citation
Title/subject
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
42 CFR Part 81
[Docket Number CDC–2019–0050; NIOSH–
329]
RIN 0920–AA74
Guidelines for Determining the
Probability of Causation Under the
Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of
2000; Technical Amendments
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, HHS.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
AGENCY:
The Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) is revising its
regulations to update references to the
International Classification of Disease
(ICD) codes from ICD–9–CM to ICD–10–
CM, and remove outdated references to
chronic lymphocytic leukemia from
Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program regulations.
These technical amendments have no
effect on the cancer eligibility
requirement under the Program because
all cancer types are eligible to receive a
dose reconstruction from NIOSH. Thus,
no eligible claimant will be adversely
impacted by this rulemaking.
DATES: This rule is effective on August
1, 2019. Comments must be received by
September 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by ‘‘RIN 0920–AA74,’’ by any
of the following methods:
• Internet: Access the Federal erulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments to
docket CDC–2019–0050.
• Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, 1090
Tusculum Avenue, MS C–34,
Cincinnati, OH 45226–1998.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulation Identifier
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
*
EPA approval date
*
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
section of
this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and search for
CDC–2019–0050.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst; 1090
Tusculum Ave., MS: C–48, Cincinnati,
OH 45226; telephone (855) 818–1629
(this is a toll-free number); email
NIOSHregs@cdc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
[FR Doc. 2019–16229 Filed 7–31–19; 8:45 am]
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
State effective date
Table of Contents
I. Public Participation
II. Background
III. Issuance of an Interim Final Rule With
Immediate Effective Date
IV. Technical Review by the Advisory Board
on Radiation and Worker Health
V. Summary of Interim Final Rule
VI. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review)
B. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice)
H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks)
J. Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use)
K. Plain Writing Act of 2010
I. Public Participation
Interested persons or organizations
are invited to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written views,
arguments, recommendations, and data.
Comments are invited on any topic
related to this rulemaking.
All relevant comments submitted will
be available for examination in the
docket for this rulemaking both before
and after the closing date for comments.
All relevant comments will be posted
without change to Docket CDC–2019–
0050 at https://www.regulations.gov
including any personal information
provided.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
*
All relevant communications received
on or before the closing date for
comments will be fully considered by
HHS.
II. Background
The Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of
2000 (EEOICPA) 1 was established to
provide financial compensation and
prospective medical benefits to
employees for illness caused by
exposure to radiation, beryllium, silica,
and toxic substances during their
employment at facilities of the
Department of Energy, its predecessor
agencies, and certain of its contractors
and vendors. It is administered by the
Department of Labor’s Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs
(OWCP) with radiation dose
reconstructions for claims involving
radiogenic cancers provided by CDC’s
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH). For these
radiogenic cancer claims, OWCP is
responsible for developing a claim file
upon receipt of an application for
benefits under EEOICPA from a
claimant. The claim file includes,
among other things, employment history
and an International Classification of
Disease (ICD) diagnosis code(s)
indicating the type and location of a
radiogenic cancer for the claimant. After
a claim file is developed, OWCP then
transmits the claim file to NIOSH,
which uses that information to estimate
the amount of radiation (radiation
‘‘dose’’) the worker might have received
during covered employment. OWCP
then makes determinations regarding
the likelihood that an individual’s
cancer is associated with workplace
radiation exposures using a number of
factors, including the radiation doses
estimated by NIOSH. Existing HHS
regulations in 42 CFR part 81 require
the use of International Classification of
Disease, 9th Revision, Clinical
Modification (ICD–9–CM) codes to
identify specific cancer types used in
making these determinations.
The World Health Organization
(WHO) develops diagnostic codes for
the identification of health conditions;
these ICD codes are periodically
updated to reflect advances in health
and medicine. WHO developed the 10th
1 42
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
U.S.C. 7384n(c).
01AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37579-37587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16229]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145; FRL-9996-93-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Oklahoma as
proposed on March 22, 2018, and October 5, 2018. The revisions
submitted by Oklahoma were contained in annual SIP updates for 2013,
2014, 2015, and 2016, and incorporate the latest changes to the EPA
regulations. The overall intended outcome of this rulemaking is to make
the approved Oklahoma SIP consistent with current Federal and State
requirements. We are taking this action in accordance with the federal
Clean Air Act (CAA, the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on September 3, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas
75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, EPA Region 6 Office,
SO2 and Regional Haze Section (6ARSH), 1201 Elm Street,
Dallas, TX 75270, 214-665-6691, [email protected]. To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Alan Shar or
Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' mean the EPA.
Acronyms and Abbreviations. A number of acronyms and abbreviations
are used in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the
following terms and acronyms are defined:
ACI Air Curtain Incinerator
AQAC Air Quality Advisory Committee
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
NAAQSvNational Ambient Air Quality Standards
OAC Oklahoma Administrative Code
ODEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
SIP State Implementation Plan
SNPR Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TSD Technical Support Document
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Public Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The background for this action is discussed in detail in the March
22, 2018 (83 FR 12514) Proposal.\1\ After the close of the comment
period, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
submitted additional information by letter dated July 31, 2018
(hereinafter ``ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter''),\2\ concerning the SIP
rule revisions addressed in the March 22, 2018 Proposal. The
information submitted by ODEQ was intended to clarify the rule
revisions and their applicability as well as to further demonstrate how
the revisions improve the Oklahoma SIP. On October 5, 2018, we
published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR) \3\ at 83
FR 50312. The October 5, 2018 SNPR reopened the comment period based on
the information submitted by Oklahoma and our analysis of it. We also
withdrew the proposed action concerning Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration Units because the State did not submit it for
approval as a SIP revision. The Proposal, the SNPR, the Technical
Support Document (TSD),\4\ and Supplement 3 to the TSD \5\ provide a
detailed description and rationale for EPA's proposal to approve into
the Oklahoma SIP certain revisions to Oklahoma Administrative Code
(OAC) Title 252 Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), Chapter 100
Air Pollution Control (OAC:252:100) that Oklahoma submitted to the EPA
on February 14, 2017. Specifically, the Proposal and the SNPR concern
revisions to OAC:252:100 Subchapters 13 Open Burning, 17 Incinerators,
25 Visible Emissions and Particulates, 31 Control of Emission of Sulfur
Compounds, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards, and
Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. The criteria used
to evaluate these SIP revisions are found primarily in section 110 of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the Proposal, document ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-0001
at Regulations.gov.
\2\ ODEQ letter dated July 31, 2018 to EPA concerning March 22,
2018 (83 FR 12514) Proposal, document ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-
0026 at Regulations.gov.
\3\ See the SNPR, document ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-0023 at
Regulations.gov.
\4\ See the TSD, document ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-0002 at
Regulations.gov.
\5\ See Supplement 3 to the TSD, document ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0145-0024 at Regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments
We received 19 comments on the March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12514)
Proposal during the comment period that closed on April 23, 2018, and
all comments are available in docket for this action. Eighteen of the
19 comments were submitted anonymously and did not provide information
relevant or specific to the provisions proposed for approval into the
Oklahoma SIP. Upon review, the EPA determined that the 18 anonymous
comments merit no further response or discussion.\6\ The remaining
comment, submitted by the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological
Diversity (commenters), included relevant comments on the March 22,
2018 (83 FR
[[Page 37580]]
12514) Proposal.\7\ Primarily, the commenters assert that sections
110(l) and 193 of the Act have not been satisfied, and that revisions
to OAC:252:100 Subchapters 13, 17, 25, and 31 of the Oklahoma SIP
should not be approved. A summary of those comments and our responses
are found below. We did not receive comments on the October 5, 2018 (83
FR 50312) SNPR during the additional comment period that closed on
November 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the EPA Response to Comments, Memorandum document ID No.
EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-0025 at Regulations.gov.
\7\ See document ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-0022 at
Regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1: OAC 252:100, Subchapter 13--Open Burning. The commenters
note that the revisions would exempt hydrocarbon waste flaring and the
use of air curtain incinerators from the open burning time limitations
in OAC 252:100:13-9(4) of the existing SIP. Commenters claim that these
revisions allow flaring operations and air curtain incinerators to
operate an average of 18 more hours per day than allowed under the
existing SIP and thus allow dramatically increased emissions of
particulate matter, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and
possibly sulfur compounds, including sulfur dioxide. Commenters
maintain that the revision constitutes a SIP relaxation requiring a CAA
section 110(l) analysis (subject to public notice and opportunity for
public comment) of the impacts of the revision on the NAAQS and PSD
increments, and a determination that the SIP relaxation will not
interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS and PSD
increments. Finally, commenters note that the EPA must ensure that the
requirements in CAA section 193 (relating to equivalent emission
reductions) are being met.
Response: The February 14, 2017 submittal included revisions to OAC
252:100-9(4) that exempt open burning allowed under OAC 252:100-13-
7(6)(B) (concerning hydrocarbon waste flaring) and OAC 252:100-13-8
(concerning air curtain incinerators) from the time restrictions
otherwise applicable to open burning. As noted in ODEQ's July 31, 2018
Letter, the rule only requires that initial burning begin in the time
frame of 3 hours after sunrise to 3 hours before sunset. Open burning
is allowed outside of this timeframe so long as no additional fuel is
added.
The revisions to OAC 252:100-9(4) exempt hydrocarbon waste flaring
under OAC 252:100-13-7(6)(B) from the time restrictions associated with
open burning. Pages 1-2 of ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter read:
As discussed in the Air Quality Advisory Council (AQAC)
transcripts included in the SIP submittal, DEQ recognized the need
to correct the omission of the exemption for hydrocarbon flaring,
and a new version of Subchapter 13 with the exemption was taken to
the AQAC in 2003 and 2004, and approved by the Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) in 2004. There are many continuous processes that use
flares as a control device, and for those processes that cannot be
turned off, the flare must be used continuously. If the flare is
turned off, it could cause an air quality issue or a safety hazard.
Many of these flares are also included in facility permits with the
requirement to be operated continuously to reduce emissions. Many of
these same flares are also subject to regulation under federal New
Source Performance Standards (NSPSs) or National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), which require them to
operate continuously. DEQ never intended hydrocarbon flaring to be
subject to the operational time limitations in Subchapter 13, and
enforcement of such limitations would conflict with the state and
federal requirements discussed above. In addition, the proposed
revision to Subchapter 13 would not result in any increase in
emissions and would not interfere with any NAAQS or PSD increment.
We agree with ODEQ's conclusion that time limits on the operation
of hydrocarbon flares are inappropriate and, if actually implemented,
could cause a life or safety hazard and result in an increase in
emissions of hydrocarbons while the flare is not in use. As such, the
removal of the operating time restriction would reduce emissions of
VOCs, if one assumes the restrictions had been enforced. However, as
ODEQ notes, the restriction on hydrocarbon flaring could not have been
practically enforced without introducing life or safety hazards. As
such, the time limits on the operation of hydrocarbon flares could not
have been implemented and, in fact, have never been implemented because
they are inconsistent with several state and federal requirements, as
noted above. Removing the time restriction is not expected to result in
any actual change in emissions, and, therefore, its removal will not
increase emissions or interfere with attainment or PSD increments.
The other exemption from the open burning time restriction included
in the proposed SIP revision of OAC 252:100-13-9(4) concerns the use of
air curtain incinerators (ACIs) under OAC 252:100-13-8. As noted in
ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter, the use of ACIs under OAC 252:100-13-8 is
limited to ``combustible material or refuse that is allowed to be
burned under this Chapter (emphasis added).'' In addition, ODEQ's July
31, 2018 Letter at page 2 notes:
DEQ exempted open burning using an ACI from the time limitation
because an ACI is a control device that reduces the pollution
created by open burning. ACIs are also a safer means of reducing
waste by lowering the risk of escaped fires and embers. As compared
to open burning without ACIs, an ACI reduces air pollution by about
90%, and specifically particulate matter by 97%, greatly reducing
the probability of creating an air quality hazard or nuisance. One
of the reasons DEQ eliminated the time restriction on the use of an
ACI was to remove a barrier for anyone who could, to use an ACI.
Please note the use of an ACI for any day where an Ozone or PM watch
has been declared in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or county
is prohibited in OAC 252:100-13-9(5). It is also very important to
note that the volume of materials being burned would not change
based on this rule revision. However, the use of an ACI to burn that
same volume, regardless of the time of day, would result in fewer
emissions released to the environment. As such, the proposed
revision to Subchapter 13 promotes a better pollution control
measure which would neither result in any increase in emissions nor
interfere with any NAAQS or PSD increment.
The EPA finds ODEQ's conclusion that the volume of material being
burned would not change based on this rule revision is reasonable. In
considering the allowed open burning activities listed in OAC 252:100-
13-7, there is no reason to believe that removal of barriers to air
curtain incinerators will result in more material being burned. For
example, the EPA sees no reason, and the commenter provided no reason
to expect, that more land would need clearing--an activity for which
open burning is allowed under OAC 252:100-13-7(4)--due to the lifting
of the time restrictions otherwise applicable to open burning for this
activity. Instead, it is expected that if more air curtain incinerators
are used relative to open burning, the air curtains would provide more
efficient combustion and, as a result, less pollution. We also note
that open burning of refuse and other combustible material may occur
only if the burning is conducted so that the contaminants do not
adversely affect the ambient air quality of a city or town. See OAC
252:100-13-9 (3). Open burning of refuse and other combustible material
may occur only if no public nuisance is or will be created, and the
burning is controlled so that a visibility hazard is not created on any
roadway, rail track or air field as a result of the air contaminants
being emitted. See OAC 252:100-13-9(1) and (2), respectively. Also, use
of an ACI is prohibited for any day where an Ozone or PM watch has been
declared by ODEQ in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or county.
See OAC 252:100-13-9(5). Furthermore, persons who conduct open burning
in accordance with the provisions of Subchapter 13 are not exempt or
excused from the
[[Page 37581]]
consequences, damages, or injuries that may result from such conduct,
nor are they exempt or excused from complying with all applicable laws,
ordinances, rules, and orders. See OAC 252:100-13-11.
Finally, we note that the requirements of CAA section 193 are
inapplicable to the proposed revision to the Oklahoma SIP discussed
above. In confirmation of the statement in ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter
that ``Oklahoma has never relied upon Subchapter 13 as a control
measure for any nonattainment plans adopted before November 15, 1990,''
we searched the EPA's Greenbook site for the Designated Area Design
Values for NAAQS of 1987 PM10, 1971 SO2, 1978 Pb,
1971 CO, and 1971 NO2, and did not find information
concerning any pre-November 15, 1990 nonattainment plan in place for
these criteria pollutants in Oklahoma. See the chart \8\ on page 5 of
Supplement 3 to TSD. We believe that the additional information
provided in ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter and presented above supports
approval of the revisions to OAC 252:100-13-9(4) and that such
revisions would not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Clean
Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ndtc.html (URL
dated May 15, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to commenters concern regarding the opportunity for
public comment on our analysis, we note that ODEQ's July 31, 2018
Letter was made available to the public as part of the October 5, 2018
SNPR. See document ID Nos. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-0026 and EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0145-0023, respectively, at www.regulations.gov. The public was
provided an opportunity to comment on the contents of ODEQ's letter and
our analysis of it. Additionally, our Supplement 3 to TSD, prepared in
conjunction with our publication of the supplemental notice, was also
made available in the docket on October 5, 2018. See document ID. No.
EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-0024. In the SNPR, the EPA notes that it is
``reopening the comment period based on information submitted by
Oklahoma in a letter dated July 31, 2018, and our analysis of it.'' (83
FR 50312, October 5, 2018). Thus, through the supplemental notice, the
EPA provided a fulsome opportunity for public comment on the additional
information relevant to EPA's CAA section 110(l) analysis. The EPA did
not receive comments on its October 5, 2018 supplemental notice action.
For the reasons explained above, no changes have been made to the
proposed approval of this rule revision as a result of this comment.
Comment 2: OAC 252:100-17--Incinerators. Commenters note that the
revisions would exclude New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart
AAAA \9\ and subpart CCCC \10\ sources from the incinerator
requirements in OAC 252:100-17 (Subchapter 17) of the existing SIP.
Commenters assert that neither the EPA nor Oklahoma provided any
analysis to show that the NSPS requirements are as stringent as the
Oklahoma Subchapter 17 requirements. Commenters note that Subchapter 17
imposes particulate matter limits that do not include any exemptions
for startup and shutdown, while the emission limits in NSPS subpart
AAAA do not apply during startup, shutdown or malfunction (40 CFR
60.1220). Commenters claim this SIP revision requires a CAA section
110(l) analysis to ensure any emission increases resulting from the
revision would not adversely impact compliance with the NAAQS or PSD
increments. The commenter also asserts that the EPA has not compared
the emission limits in NSPS subparts AAAA and CCCC to Subchapter 17 to
ensure that the SIP revision will not result in relaxing emission
limits that apply to these sources under the current SIP, including the
particulate matter requirements for fuel-burning units pursuant to OAC
252:100-17-1.3 and 252:100-19 of the existing SIP that apply to
incinerators that also generate useful heat energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAAA--Standards of Performance for
Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units for Which Construction is
Commenced After August 30, 1999 or for Which Modification or
Reconstruction is Commenced After June 6, 2001.
\10\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC--Standards of Performance for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: As the commenters correctly note, the February 14, 2017
submittal includes a revision to OAC 252:100-17-2 which adds NSPS
subpart AAAA and NSPS subpart CCCC to the list of sources exempt from
the requirements applicable to general purpose incinerators. As stated
on page 2 of ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter,
It has always been DEQ's intention that Part 3 of Subchapter 17
apply to general purpose incinerators that are not otherwise covered
by a more specific and applicable state or federal regulation. The
addition of NSPS Subpart AAAA and CCCC to the list of exemptions is
intended to ensure that small municipal waste combustion units and
commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators are appropriately
required to follow the NSPS specific to that type of unit, rather
than the generic opacity and particulate matter regulations in OAC
252:100-17-3 and 100-17-4.
As an initial matter, the EPA believes it is reasonable for
Oklahoma make efforts to remove requirements that overlap with Federal
requirements when consistent with the Act. Further, as noted on page 3
of ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter,
Oklahoma currently has no incinerators subject to the small
municipal waste combustion rule of NSPS Subpart AAAA. The facilities
subject to NSPS Subpart CCCC in Oklahoma are subject due to the
presence of an ACI and are required to have a Title V permit.
Emission inventories are required annually per OAC 252:100-5 and
include state rule OAC 252:100-9 emission reporting. There is no
regulatory or emissions reporting gap created by exempting these
units from Subchapter 17.
So, with regard to incinerators subject to NSPS subpart AAAA, there
will be no increase in emissions due to exempting sources subject to
this standard, as there are no known sources currently subject to NSPS
subpart AAAA in Oklahoma. In addition, and as discussed below, any
increase in emissions due to exempting subpart CCCC sources will be de
minimus.
An inquiry for sources subject to NSPS subpart CCCC requirements in
Oklahoma reveals that such sources have an estimated or reported total
annual PM10 emissions of 2.337 tons (based on 2017 emission
inventory data and permitted rate). To the extent that revisions to OAC
252:100-17 might have resulted in any increased emissions from this
source category when compared to the total state-wide national emission
inventory of 10,693.06 tons of PM10, the resulting ratio is
so small (2.337/10,693.06 = 0.000219, or less than three-one hundredth
of one percent) that it is reasonable to conclude that such a de
minimus amount would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS, PSD increment, or any other applicable requirement of the
Act relating to SIPs.\11\ The commenter also specifically noted that
emissions during startup and shutdown are exempt under NSPS subpart
AAAA, but since there are no NSPS subpart AAAA sources in Oklahoma,
this is not a concern with respect to CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ All air quality control regions in Oklahoma are currently
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for PM2.5. See 40
CFR 81.337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSPS subpart AAAA and CCCC sources previously subject to the
General Purpose requirements of OAC 252:100-17, Part 3 would be subject
to the emission requirements in the applicable federal NSPS rather than
the
[[Page 37582]]
particulate matter emission limits provided by OAC 252:100, Appendix
A.\12\ Comparatively, the type of pollutants and the control
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AAAA and CCCC are more robust
and provide for better air quality protection than the out of date
empirical formula found in Appendix A of the 1972 Oklahoma SIP. We
believe it is reasonable for Oklahoma to remove old and duplicative
requirements. Finally, according to the 2016 State's Air Data Report,
Oklahoma has better ambient air quality than required under the
PM2.5 NAAQS, for both the primary and secondary, and the
PM10 NAAQS. See the charts on page 5 of Supplement 3 to
TSD.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Appendix A in the Oklahoma SIP is part of an arcane
Regulation 5 which uses a process weight formula to calculate a
corresponding particulate emission rate based on its capacity.
\13\ See https://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/airreport2016/PM25.html (URL dated May 1, 2018) and https://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/airreport2016/PM10.html (URL dated May 1, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that under the Oklahoma SIP, should a source become subject
to NSPS subpart AAAA or subpart CCCC in the future, new source review
(NSR) permitting requirements would be triggered which require emission
limitations for all periods of normal operation, including periods of
startup and shutdown. In addition, 40 CFR 60.2145(a)(1) of NSPS subpart
CCCC states that the emission standards and operating requirements set
forth in this subpart apply at all times. Furthermore, affected sources
subject to NSPS subparts AAAA or CCCC in the future would trigger
Oklahoma NSR SIP and Title V requirements that ensure emissions from
such sources do not interfere with attainment or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Stationary sources subject to NSPS subparts
AAAA or CCCC must obtain an air permit that includes operational
conditions and limitations necessary to assure compliance with all
applicable requirements, including the NAAQS. See OAC 252:100-8-3 and
OAC 252:100-8-6(a) of the Oklahoma SIP. See also OAC 252:100-4 of the
Oklahoma SIP. The federal NSPS requirements in combination with the NSR
SIP requirements will ensure that any emission increases due to
exempting NSPS subpart AAAA and CCCC sources from the requirements of
OAC 252:100-17, Part 3 will be de minimus and will not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other
applicable requirement of the Act.
In addition, we are only approving into the SIP, the revision to
OAC 252-100-17-2 discussed above. We have not proposed action related
to the provisions of OAC 252:100-17, Part 9 Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration Units--specifically OAC 252:100-17-60 thru 17-
76--as discussed in the March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12515) notice and the
SNPR. These provisions were not submitted to the EPA for SIP approval
as part of the February 14, 2017 SIP submittal and include provisions
that pertain to CAA sections 111(d) and 129, instead, which will be
acted upon separately in the future.\14\ Therefore, no changes have
been made to the proposed approval of the rule revision as a result of
this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ OAC 252:100-17-60 thru 17-76 are not directly related to
CAA section 110 (State implementation Plans for NAAQS) and pertain
to CAA sections 111(d) (Standards of performance for existing
sources; remaining useful life of source) and 129 (Solid waste
combustion) standards. These Subchapter 17 revisions were submitted
by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality to EPA, by
letter dated September 15, 2017, as an update to Oklahoma's Air
Quality State Plan for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incinerators (CISWI) units, under CAA sections 111(d) and 129.
Pursuant to those statutory provisions and EPA's implementing
regulations related thereto, EPA will be evaluating and acting upon
the September 15, 2017 Submittal in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: OAC 252:100- 25--Visible Emissions and Particulates. The
commenters state that the EPA is proposing to remove the requirement
for the EPA and ODEQ to jointly approve alternative monitoring
requirements and instead allow only ODEQ to make such determinations on
a case-by-case basis, thereby essentially allowing changes to the
opacity monitoring requirements of the SIP without going through the
SIP revision process. The commenters claim that the provision in the
currently existing SIP, requiring both EPA and ODEQ approval, ensures
that EPA would evaluate the alternative opacity monitoring requirements
to make certain that the alternative monitoring does not represent a
relaxation of the SIP limits. Citing to 40 CFR 51.212(c), the
commenters note that the SIP requirements for source testing provide
that a state may use test methods in Appendix M of 40 CFR part 51 or
Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60; or the state may use an alternative
opacity monitoring method that is not identified in those two
Appendices following review and approval of that method by the EPA.
Commenters conclude that to the extent ODEQ uses an alternative
monitoring method not identified in the above-referenced Appendices, it
must obtain EPA's approval.
Response: OAC 252:100-25-5 imposes continuous opacity monitoring
requirements on sources subject to 40 CFR part 51, appendix P and is,
therefore, governed by the requirements in appendix P. The February 14,
2017 submittal includes a revision to OAC 252:100-25-5(c) which
eliminates the words ``and EPA'' from the rule's requirement concerning
the case-by-case approval of alternative monitoring requirements
different from the provisions of parts 1 through 5 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix P if continuous monitoring cannot be implemented by a source
due to physical plant limitations or extreme economic reasons. Thus,
OAC 252:100-25-5(c) concerns the installation and operation of emission
monitoring systems as required by 40 CFR 51.214 and not the
requirements related to enforceable test methods or alternative test
methods as provided in 40 CFR 51.212 and cited to by the commenters.
More specifically, 40 CFR 51.214(c) requires that the type of sources
set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix P meet the applicable
requirements therein. In turn, appendix P states that SIPs may include
provisions that provide for approval, on a case-by-case basis, of
alternative monitoring requirements if the installation of a continuous
monitoring system cannot be implemented by a source due to physical
limitations or extreme economic reasons. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix
P, part 6.0, Special Consideration. Importantly, there is no
requirement that the state obtain EPA's approval when making such
determinations. The state rulemaking record for the changes to OAC
252:100-25-5(c) support ODEQ's position that the provisions therein are
based on the special consideration language of part 6 of 40 CFR part
51, appendix P, which describes the powers and duties of the state and
alternatives to monitoring for sources with certain conditions. See
pages 16-17 of the Transcript of Proceedings of the Air Quality Council
Meeting, dated November 14, 2014, included in the February 14, 2017
submittal.\15\ Based upon Oklahoma's statements as well as the
discussion above, no changes are made to the proposed approval of this
rule revision as a result of this comment, and we are approving the
submitted revision to OAC 252:100-25 into the Oklahoma SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See document ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-0003 at
Regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: OAC 252:100-31--Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds.
The commenter notes that the revisions would eliminate the
SO2 ambient standards (exposure limits) in the existing SIP
at OAC 252:100-31-12 (renumbered OAC 252:100-31-7). The
[[Page 37583]]
commenters claim that, contrary to ODEQ's assertion, the removed
standards can still be considered protective of the current (2010)
SO2 NAAQS. More specifically, the commenters note that the
averaging times and calculation methodologies underlying the existing
SO2 SIP ambient (exposure) standards are significantly
different than the 2010 SO2 NAAQS averaging times and
methodologies. Due to the form of the SO2 standards in the
existing SIP being significantly different (5-minute) than the form of
the 2010 (1-hour) SO2 NAAQS and the its application to
existing equipment, the commenters assert that OAC 252:100-31-12 in the
existing SIP may provide protections in addition to those provided by
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The commenters questioned the CAA
section 110(l) noninterference demonstration submitted by ODEQ as well
as the EPA's proposed finding that the CAA section 110(l) requirements
have been met. In addition, the commenters assert that removal of the
SO2 standards from the SIP could lead to increased emissions
and relaxation of limits previously taken by some sources in order to
meet these SIP requirements. The commenters note that such emission
increases would need to be evaluated under CAA section 110(l) and
determined not to adversely impact the NAAQS or PSD increments. In
addition, they assert that the EPA must determine that other
requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(a) and 40 U.S.C. 7410 and 7471 have been
met. Finally, the commenters assert that record should include an
analysis demonstrating that the requirements of CAA section 193 and 40
CFR 51.165(a)(2) have been met.
Response: As the commenters note, the February 14, 2017 submittal
includes a revision to OAC 252:100-31 which removes SO2
ambient standards (exposure limits) in the existing SIP at OAC 252:100-
31-12 (renumbered OAC 252:100-31-7).\16\ Oklahoma's SIP submittal also
includes a CAA section 110(l) Noninterference Demonstration. The
purpose of a CAA section 110(l) demonstration is to ensure that the
proposed SIP revision does not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). The revision which must
be evaluated under CAA section 110(l) (to determine if it interferes
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any other CAA
requirement) is the removal of the SO2 state standards in
the existing SIP at OAC 252:100-31-12 (renumbered OAC 252:100-31-7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ As noted in Supplement 3 to the TSD included in the docket
for this action, the replaced SO2 standards are state
standards (i.e., not required by the EPA SIP regulations) that have
been approved into the Oklahoma SIP. See document ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2017-0145-0002 at Regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted on pages 3-4 of ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter:
``Because the state standards have been replaced with the
national standards, provisions are in place to prevent Oklahoma
sources' emissions from interfering with the 2010 1-hour NAAQS. . .
. And, if one of the permits, due to the removal of these [state]
standards, had resulted in significant increases in emissions from a
major stationary source, the permit would have required a Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review. Additionally, the Data
Requirements Rule (DRR) in 40 CFR part 51 has resulted in additional
SO2 monitors and modeling in Oklahoma. This modeling
shows the areas around the DRR sources to be in attainment of the
2010 SO2 1-hour NAAQS. Ambient air monitoring is ongoing,
but data collected to date indicate that monitored areas are
attaining the SO2 NAAQS. These factors support DEQ's
110(1) demonstration that there has been no deterioration of air
quality in Oklahoma due to the removal of these state standards.''
As stated above, Oklahoma opted to revise its state law to remove
the outmoded SO2 standards in OAC 252:100-31-12 (renumbered
to OAC 252:100-31-7), in light of the EPA's 2010 SO2 NAAQS
and its incorporation into OAC 252:100, Appendix E. It now asks the EPA
to approve this revision into the SIP. Since the removal of OAC
252:100-31-12 from the SIP cannot interfere with the attainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, the Oklahoma SIP contains provisions to
ensure that SO2 sources do not interfere with the current
SO2 NAAQS as discussed below.
In response to commenters concern that existing sources may seek
modifications to remove or change SO2 emission limits
previously taken in air permits in order to meet the replaced state
SO2 standard, ODEQ notes provisions are in place to prevent
Oklahoma sources from interfering with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Such provisions are found in Oklahoma's major and minor NSR SIP
programs. For example, under OAC 252:100-7 (permits for minor
facilities), which has been approved into the Oklahoma SIP,
construction and operating permits must contain provisions that
prohibit exceedances of ambient air quality standards contained in OAC
252:100-3, including the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See OAC 252:100-7-
15(d) and 7-18(f). In addition, as noted in ODEQ's July 13, 2018 Letter
and under OAC 252:100-8 of the EPA-approved Oklahoma SIP, permits for
Part 70 sources (including PSD sources) must include operational
conditions and limitations necessary to assure compliance with all
applicable requirements, including the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and
other SIP requirements. See OAC 252:100-8-6(a) and OAC 252:100-8-2
(definition of applicable requirement). Therefore, should a source
submit a permit application to revise an emissions limitation
previously taken to meet the state SO2 standard, ODEQ would
need to conduct an evaluation of the impacts associated with an
increase of emissions on the NAAQS and PSD increments as well as ensure
that the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(a) and other applicable
requirements of the CAA have been met, including those cited by the
commenter. See, e.g., OAC 252:100-8, Part 7 of the federally-approved
Oklahoma SIP; see also 40 CFR part 52, subpart LL.
Finally, in confirmation of ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter which
states that ``Oklahoma has never relied upon Subchapter 31 as a control
measure for any nonattainment plans adopted before November 15, 1990''
in relation to CAA section 193, we searched EPA's Greenbook site for
the Designated Area Design Values for NAAQS of 1987 PM10,
1971 SO2, 1978 Pb, 1971 CO, and 1971 NO2 and did
not find information concerning any pre-November 15, 1990 nonattainment
plan in place for these criteria pollutants in Oklahoma. See the chart
on page 14 of Supplement 3 to TSD.\17\ As such, the requirements of CAA
section 193 are not applicable to this rulemaking action. Therefore,
based upon Oklahoma's statements as well as the analysis presented in
the record and discussed above, the proposed revision would not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any
other applicable requirement of the Act. Therefore, no changes have
been made to the proposed approval of this rule revision as a result of
this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ndtc.html
(URL dated May 15, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, from a historical perspective of SO2 NAAQS
review, we note the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee stated that
the Risk and Exposure Assessment (REA) had presented a ``convincing
rationale'' for a one-hour standard, and that ``a 1-hour standard is
the preferred averaging time'' and has been ``in agreement with having
a short-term standard and finds that the REA supports a one-hour
standard as protective of public health.'' (74 FR 64833, December 8,
2009).\18\ For
[[Page 37584]]
example, the existing OAC 252:100-31-12(a), in part, sets forth an
ambient air concentration of sulfur dioxide at 1300 [mu]g/m3 (0.50 ppm)
in a five (5) minute period. In developing the SO2 NAAQS,
EPA wrote,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is designed to
provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator on the technical
bases for EPA's NAAQS, and the Risk and Exposure Assessment is a
planning document EPA develops when establishing NAAQS for criteria
pollutants.
``When evaluating alternative forms in conjunction with specific
levels, the REA considered the adequacy of the public health
protection provided by the combination of level and form to be the
foremost consideration. In addition, the REA recognized that it is
important that the standard have a form that is reasonably stable.
As just explained in the context of a five-minute averaging time, a
standard set with a high degree of instability could have the effect
of reducing public health protection because shifting in and out of
attainment could disrupt an area's ongoing implementation plans and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
associated control programs (74 FR 64833, December 8, 2009).''
In addition, as a part of final FR SO2 NAAQS in the 1996
rulemaking \19\ regarding a 5-minute standard CASAC wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-05-22/pdf/96-12863.pdf, Page 25579.
``3. It was the consensus of CASAC that any regulatory strategy
to ameliorate such exposures be risk-based-targeted on the most
likely sources of short-term sulfur dioxide spikes rather than
imposing short term standards on all sources. All of the nine CASAC
Panel members recommended that Option 1, the establishment of a new
5-minutes standard, not be adopted. Reasons cited for this
recommendation included: the clinical experiences of many ozone
experts which suggest that the effects are short-term, readily
reversible, and typical of response seen with other stimuli.
Further, the committee viewed such exposures as rare events which
will even become rarer as sulfur dioxide emissions are further
reduced as the 1990 amendments are implemented. In addition, the
committee pointed out that enforcement of a short-term NAAQS would
require substantial technical resources. Furthermore, the committee
did not think that such a standard would be enforceable. 4. CASAC
questioned the enforceability of a 5-minute NAAQS or ``target
level.'' Although the Agency has not proposed an air monitoring
strategy, to ensure that such a standard or ``target level'' would
not be exceeded, we infer that potential sources would have to be
surrounded by concentric circles of monitors. The operation and
maintenance of such monitoring networks would be extremely resource
intensive. Furthermore, current instrumentation used to routinely
monitor sulfur dioxide does not respond quickly enough to accurately
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
characterize 5-minute spikes.''
Upon inquiry we were informed that the State did not collect 5-
minute (short term) SO2 monitoring data and such information
does not exist for us to evaluate or compare the State-only standard
with the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS for CAA section 110(l)
purposes.
To the extent sources were subject to the 5-minute standard, it
would have arisen during the permitting process if a modeling
demonstration had indicated more stringent permit limits would be
necessary to protect the five minute average. As noted by ODEQ above,
any attempt to remove those limitations would trigger PSD requirements
(e.g., BACT analysis) had there been a significant SO2
emissions increase.
No comments pertaining to February 14, 2017 revisions to OAC
252:100 Appendix E--Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards, and OAC
252:100 Appendix F--Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards were
received. Therefore, approval of these two Appendices as a revision to
the Oklahoma SIP will be finalized as proposed.
This concludes our response to relevant comments received. No
changes to the Proposal and the SNPR have been made as a result of the
comments received; therefore, we are finalizing proposed revisions
noted in the Proposal and the corresponding SNPR into the Oklahoma SIP,
as submitted on February 14, 2017.
III. Final Action
We are approving rule revisions to OAC:252:100 Subchapters 13 Open
Burning, 17 Incinerators, 25 Visible Emissions and Particulates, 31
Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air
Quality Standards, and Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards as submitted on February 14, 2017. Our approval will
incorporate these changes into the SIP for Oklahoma.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.4, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Oklahoma regulations as described in the Final Action
section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulation.gov, Docket ID. No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145 and at the EPA
Region 6 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.
V. 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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 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 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;
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human
[[Page 37585]]
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 September 30, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 25, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Part 52, 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 LL--Oklahoma
0
2. In Sec. 52.1920, the table in paragraph (c), under the heading
entitled ``Chapter 100 (OAC:252:100). Air Pollution Control,'' is
amended:
0
a. Under Subchapter 13 by:
0
i. Revising the entries for ``252:100-13-2'' and ``252:100-13-7'',
under Subchapter 13;
0
ii. Adding an entry for ``252:100-13-8''; and
0
iii. Revising the entry for ``252:100-13-9'';
b. Under Subchapter 17 by:
0
i. Revising the heading for Part 3; and
0
ii. Revising the entry for ``252:100-17-2``;
0
c. Under Subchapter 25 by revising the entry for ``252:100-25-5'';
0
d. Under Subchapter 31 by:
0
i. Revising the entries for ``252:100-31-1'' and ``252:100-31-2'';
0
ii. Removing the entry for ``252:100-31-3'';
0
iii. Adding a heading entitled ``Part 2. Ambient Air Concentration
Limits or Impacts for New and existing Equipment, Sources, or
Facilities'' immediately after the entry for 252:100:31-2;
0
iv. Adding an entry for ``252:100-31-7'' under added Part 2;
0
v. Removing the entries for ``252:100-31-12'' and ``252:100-31-14''
under Part 3;
0
vi. Revising the entries for ``252:100-31-13'' and ``252:100-31-15''
under Part 3;
0
vii. Adding an entry for ``252:100-31-16'' under Part 3;
0
viii. Revising the entries for ``252:100-31-25'' and ``252:100-31-26''
under Part 5; and
0
f. Under Appendices for OAC 252: Chapter 110 by revising the entries
for ``252:100, Appendix E'' and ``252:100, Appendix F''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1920 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA Approved Oklahoma Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 100 (OAC:252-100). Air Pollution Control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter 13. Open Burning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
252:100-13-2....................... Purpose............... 07/01/2013 8/1/2019 [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
252:100-13-7....................... Allowed open burning.. 07/01/2013 8/1/2019 [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
252:100-13-8....................... Use of air curtain 07/01/2013 8/1/2019 [Insert
incinerators. Federal Register
citation].
252:100-13-9....................... General conditions and 07/01/2013 8/1/2019 [Insert
requirements for Federal Register
allowed open burning. citation].
[[Page 37586]]
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter 17. Incinerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 3. General Purpose Incinerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
252:100-17-2....................... Applicability......... 09/12/2014 8/1/2019 [Insert ................................
Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter 25. Visible Emissions and Particulates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
252:100-25-5....................... Continuous emission 07/01/2013 8/1/2019 [Insert
monitoring for Federal Register
opacity. citation].
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter 31. Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1. General Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
252:100-31-1....................... Purpose............... 07/01/2012 8/1/2019 [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
252:100-31-2....................... Definitions........... 07/01/2012 8/1/2019 [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2. Ambient Air Concentration Limits or Impacts for New and existing Equipment, Sources, or Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
252:100-31-7....................... Allowable hydrogen 07/01/2012 8/1/2019 [Insert
sulfide (H2S) ambient Federal Register
air concentrations citation].
for new and existing
sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 3. Existing Equipment Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
252:100-31-13...................... Requirements for 07/01/2012 8/1/2019 [Insert
existing sulfuric Federal Register
acid plants. citation].
252:100-31-15...................... Requirements for 07/01/2012 8/1/2019 [Insert
existing kraft pulp Federal Register
mills. citation].
252:100-31-16...................... Requirements for 07/01/2012 8/1/2019 [Insert
existing fossil fuel- Federal Register
fired steam citation].
generators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 5. New Equipment Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
252:100-31-25...................... Requirements for new 07/01/2013 8/1/2019 [Insert
fuel-burning Federal Register
equipment. citation].
252:100-31-26...................... Requirements for new 07/01/2012 8/1/2019 [Insert
petroleum and natural Federal Register
gas processes. citation].
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendices for OAC 252: Chapter 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
252:100, Appendix E................ Primary Ambient Air 09/15/2016 8/1/2019 [Insert
Quality Standards. Federal Register
citation].
252:100, Appendix F................ Secondary Ambient Air 09/15/2016 8/1/2019 [Insert
Quality Standards. Federal Register
citation].
[[Page 37587]]
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-16229 Filed 7-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
