Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate Transport, 3-7 [2019-27543]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
recordkeeping requirements of the rule
with respect to any QFC entered into by
WFCS with a clearing organization for
the purpose of facilitating the clearance
or settlement of any QFC subject to the
exemption discussed above. As used in
the exemption, the term ‘‘clearing
organization’’ includes, among other
things, clearing agencies registered with
the SEC and derivatives clearing
organizations registered with the
CFTC.16
Treasury has determined not to
exempt (i) QFCs with clients that are not
customers under SIPA with respect to
any transactions or accounts they have
with WFCS and FiNet or (ii) WFCS’s or
FiNet’s QFCs with third parties that are
not customers, such as transactions with
other broker-dealers entered into to
fulfill obligations to customers or to
hedge risk, other than the guarantees
and the QFCs with clearing
organizations discussed above. The
exemption would not include any
guarantees WFCS may enter into for the
benefit of a futures commission
merchant in connection with WFCS’
introduction of customer trades to such
futures commission merchant. Because
the FDIC would retain discretion as to
whether to transfer or retain QFCs with
clients that are not customers under
SIPA, and in consideration of the size of
the QFCs with non-customer third
parties and the risks they impose, the
FDIC would need the detailed records
required by the rule to make a transfer
determination with respect to such
transactions of WFCS and FiNet. To the
extent the transactions excluded from
this exemption qualify for the
exemptions previously granted by
Treasury with respect to cash market
transactions and overnight transactions,
WFCS or FiNet would only be required
to maintain limited records with respect
to such transactions.17
Conditions of the Exemption
The exemption granted below is based
on the factual representations made by
Wells Fargo on behalf of WFCS and
FiNet to Treasury, the FDIC, the SEC,
and the CFTC in its submissions.
Treasury reserves the right to request an
updated submission from WFCS and
FiNet as to their business, and to
rescind or modify the exemption, at any
time. Further, Treasury intends to
reassess the exemption in five years. At
that time, Treasury, in consultation with
the FDIC and the primary financial
regulatory agencies, would evaluate any
16 The exemption cross-references the definition
from section 402 of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, 12 U.S.C.
4402.
17 See 83 FR 65509 (Dec. 21, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:41 Dec 31, 2019
Jkt 250001
3
material changes in the nature of WFCS’
and FiNet’s businesses as well as any
relevant changes to market structure or
applicable law or other relevant factors
that might affect the reasons for granting
the exemptions. Treasury expects that it
would provide notice to WFCS and
FiNet prior to any modification or
rescission of the exemption and that, in
the event of a rescission or modification,
Treasury would grant a limited period
of time in which to come into
compliance with the applicable
recordkeeping requirements of the rule.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Terms and Conditions of the Exemption
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of
South Carolina’s June 18, 2018, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
pertaining to the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The good neighbor provision
requires each state’s implementation
plan to address the interstate transport
of air pollution in amounts that
contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other
state. In this action, EPA is finalizing
the determination that South Carolina’s
SIP contains adequate provisions to
prohibit emissions within the State from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: This rule is effective February 3,
2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2018–0666. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information may not be publicly
available, i.e., 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
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Regulatory Management Section,
Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air and Radiation Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that
if at all possible, you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office’s
official hours of business are Monday
Each of WFCS and FiNet (each a
‘‘records entity’’) is hereby granted an
exemption from the requirements of 31
CFR 148.3 and 148.4 for the following:
(i) Any QFC entered into by the records
entity with or on behalf of any customer
of the records entity that is booked and
carried in accounts at the records entity
maintained for the benefit of such
customer and (ii) any guarantee of such
an exempt QFC if the guarantor (x) is an
affiliate of the customer whose
obligations are guaranteed, (y) is itself a
customer of the records entity, or (z)
does not have any other QFCs with the
records entity. In addition, WFCS is
hereby granted an exemption from the
requirements of 31 CFR 148.3 and 148.4
for QFCs entered into by WFCS with a
clearing organization in order to
facilitate the clearance or settlement of
any QFC referenced in clause (i) of the
preceding sentence. For purposes of the
exemption, ‘‘customer’’ means a person
who is a customer as defined in 15
U.S.C. 78lll(2) with respect to any
transactions or accounts it has with the
records entity, and ‘‘clearing
organization’’ has the meaning provided
in 12 U.S.C. 4402.
The exemption is subject to
modification or revocation at any time
the Secretary determines that such
action is necessary or appropriate in
order to assist the FDIC as receiver for
a covered financial company in being
able to exercise its rights and fulfill its
obligations under sections 210(c)(8), (9),
or (10) of the Act. The exemption
extends only to WFCS and FiNet and to
no other entities.
Dated: December 13, 2019.
Peter Phelan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Capital
Markets.
[FR Doc. 2019–27801 Filed 12–31–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–25–P
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0666; FRL–10003–
56–Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; South Carolina;
2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate
Transport
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02JAR1.SGM
02JAR1
4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Evan Adams, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
Mr. Adams can also be reached via
telephone at (404) 562–9009 and via
electronic mail at adams.evan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
I. Background
On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436),
EPA published an ozone NAAQS that
revised the levels of the primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone standards from
0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075
ppm. Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1),
within three years after promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if
EPA prescribes), states must submit SIPs
that meet the applicable requirements of
section 110(a)(2). EPA has historically
referred to these SIP submissions made
for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
submissions. One of the structural
requirements of section 110(a)(2) is
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally
requires SIPs to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit in-state emissions
activities from having certain adverse
air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of air
pollution. There are four sub-elements,
or ‘‘prongs,’’ within section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the
‘‘good neighbor’’ provision, requires
SIPs to include provisions prohibiting
any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from emitting any
air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another
state. The two provisions of this section
are referred to as prong 1 (significant
contribution to nonattainment) and
prong 2 (interference with
maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requires SIPs to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions that
will interfere with measures required to
be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other state
under part C to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or
to protect visibility (prong 4).
On June 18, 2018, the South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC)
provided a SIP submittal containing a
certification that South Carolina’s SIP
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:41 Dec 31, 2019
Jkt 250001
meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. South Carolina’s
certification is based on available
emissions data, air quality monitoring
and modeling data, and SIP-approved 1
regulations controlling emissions of
ozone precursors within the State. In a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
published on May 28, 2019 (84 FR
24420), EPA proposed to approve South
Carolina’s SIP submission
demonstrating that South Carolina’s SIP
is sufficient to address the CAA
requirements of prongs 1 and 2 for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.2 In that
NPRM, EPA discussed the final
determination made in the update to the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
ozone season program that addresses
good neighbor obligations for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS (known as the
‘‘CSAPR Update’’) 3 that emissions
activities within South Carolina will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of that NAAQS in any
other state. In the NPRM, EPA stated
that it was not reopening for comment
final determinations made in the CSAPR
Update or the modeling conducted to
support that rulemaking. The NPRM
provides additional detail regarding the
background and rationale for EPA’s
action. Comments on the NPRM were
due on or before June 27, 2019.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received two sets of comments
on its May 28, 2019, NPRM. One set of
comments is adverse but do not raise
issues that would alter the action
proposed in EPA’s May 28, 2019,
NPRM. EPA has summarized these
1 South Carolina also identified state provisions
regulating ozone precursors that are not in the SIP,
but EPA is not relying on those regulations for
purposes of this rulemaking.
2 This action addresses only prongs 1 and 2 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other infrastructure SIP
elements for South Carolina for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS were addressed in separate
rulemakings. See 83 FR 48237 (September 24,
2018); 81 FR 56512 (August 22, 2016); 80 FR 48255
(August 12, 2015); 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015);
and 80 FR 11136 (March 2, 2015).
3 See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The CSAPR
Update establishes statewide nitrogen oxide (NOX)
budgets for certain affected electricity generating
units in 22 eastern states for the May–September
ozone season to reduce the interstate transport of
ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and
thereby help downwind states and communities
meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The rule also determined that emissions from 14
states (including South Carolina) will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in downwind states. Accordingly, EPA
determined that it need not require further emission
reductions from sources in those states to address
the good neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
comments below and provided its
responses. The second set of comments
are not relevant to EPA’s May 28, 2019,
NPRM because they are focused on
greenhouse gases. Accordingly, the EPA
is not required to respond to the second
set of comments in finalizing this
action. Both sets of comments are
provided in the docket for this final
action.
Comment 1: The Commenter asserts
that EPA cannot rely on a Federal
implementation program (FIP) in this
action, stating that ‘‘the agency and the
state can’t rely on federal
implementation programs to meet
requirements of plans required under
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) because
the language in the act requires all plans
to include provisions in the state’s
plan.’’
Response 1: EPA believes this
comment inaccurately characterizes
South Carolina’s transport obligation
status because neither EPA nor the State
is relying on a FIP to meet the interstate
transport requirements for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS. Although the
Commenter does not indicate which
FIPs it believes EPA has inappropriately
relied on, EPA is providing the
following discussion to clarify the
history involving South Carolina and
CSAPR FIPs.
In 2015, EPA issued findings of
failure to submit to 24 states, including
South Carolina, for failure to submit
complete SIP revisions to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
related to the interstate transport of
pollution as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
See 80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015)
(effective August 12, 2015). The CSAPR
Update was developed to address EPA’s
obligation under CAA section 110(c) to
promulgate FIPs addressing this
statutory requirement on behalf of the
states for which the findings were made.
EPA’s modeling in the CSAPR Update
showed that emissions from South
Carolina would not impact downwind
air quality problems at or above the air
quality screening threshold used to
evaluate good neighbor obligations, and
EPA therefore determined that South
Carolina would not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance for any other
state with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA concluded
that it need not require further
emissions reductions from sources in
South Carolina and therefore did not
promulgate a FIP to address the good
neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Thus, there is no CSAPR FIP
currently in place for South Carolina
sources with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and there is no obligation for
E:\FR\FM\02JAR1.SGM
02JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
South Carolina to implement further
emissions reductions from sources in
the State to address that obligation. The
approval of South Carolina’s SIP here
merely implements the final
determination regarding the State’s good
neighbor obligation with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS already made in the
CSAPR Update.
EPA notes that South Carolina is also
not subject to any other FIPs under the
good neighbor provision. Although
South Carolina was originally subject to
a CSAPR FIP to address the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the FIP was subsequently
removed.4 Similarly, the State was
originally subject to CSAPR FIPs for the
1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS regulating annual
emissions of NOX and sulfur dioxide
emissions, but the State has since
adopted those requirements into its SIP.
See 82 FR 47936 (October 13, 2017)
Comment 2: The Commenter
questions EPA’s modeling for the
CSAPR Update and the use of that
modeling for this action, stating that
EPA ‘‘cannot approve South Carolina’s
action since it is based on EPA’s faulty
CSAPR Update modeling analysis
which uses illegal attainment years to
base the state’s contribution.’’
Additionally, the Commenter questions
the accuracy of EPA’s modeling. The
Commenter goes on to suggest that EPA
should compare the ‘‘modeling results
for 2017 and 2018 and 2019 to see how
accurate the agency’s model performs.’’
Response 2: EPA stated in the NPRM
that it was not taking comment on the
final determinations made in the CSAPR
Update or the modeling conducted to
support that rulemaking. The
Commenter had the opportunity to raise
concerns about the model year and
accuracy in the CSAPR Update
rulemaking.5 Issues related to the final
determinations made in the CSAPR
Update or the modeling conducted to
support that rulemaking are thus
outside the scope of this rule.
Nonetheless, the EPA is providing the
following explanation.
The Commenter does not explain why
it believes that the analytic year that
EPA used in the CSAPR Update
modeling is inappropriate. As explained
in that action, the 2017 analytic year
aligned with the July 2018 Moderate
area attainment date, which was the
next applicable attainment date at the
time that rulemaking was conducted.
The Commenter also does not explain
why it believes the 2017 air quality
modeling is inaccurate or unreliable
such that modeling of additional years
is necessary.
To the extent the commenter was
concerned about EPA verification of the
accuracy of the model’s performance, in
2016 EPA performed an extensive
model performance evaluation that
5
compared the 2011 base year model
predictions to the corresponding
measured data.6 This approach is
consistent with recommendations in
EPA’s air quality modeling guidance.7
This evaluation found that the
predictions from the 2011 modeling
platform correspond closely to observed
concentrations in terms of the
magnitude, temporal fluctuations, and
geographic differences for 8-hour daily
maximum ozone. Thus, the model
performance results demonstrate the
scientific credibility of our 2011
modeling platform. These results
provide confidence in the ability of the
modeling platform to provide a
reasonable projection of expected future
year ozone concentrations and
contributions.
In addition, EPA has identified all
monitoring sites outside of South
Carolina that have predicted 2017
contributions from South Carolina that
are at or above the 1 percent of the
NAAQS threshold used by EPA as a
screening threshold in evaluation
contributions with respect to the 2008
NAAQS. The outcome of this analysis
reveals that there are no monitors
currently measuring violations to which
South Carolina contributes at or above
the 1 percent threshold. The data to
support this finding are provided in
Table 1.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
TABLE 1—2018 DESIGN VALUES AND PREDICTED 2017 CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ALL MONITORING SITES TO WHICH SOUTH
CAROLINA CONTRIBUTES AT OR ABOVE THE 1 PERCENT THRESHOLD
2016–2018
design value
(ppb)
Site ID
State
County
10499991 ...............
10690004 ...............
120030002 .............
120230002 .............
120310077 .............
120310106 .............
120730012 .............
121275002 .............
130510021 .............
130550001 .............
130590002 .............
130670003 .............
130730001 .............
130850001 .............
130890002 .............
130970004 .............
131210055 .............
Alabama ..................................................
Alabama ..................................................
Florida ......................................................
Florida ......................................................
Florida ......................................................
Florida ......................................................
Florida ......................................................
Florida ......................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
DeKalb .....................................................
Houston ...................................................
Baker .......................................................
Columbia .................................................
Duval .......................................................
Duval .......................................................
Leon .........................................................
Volusia .....................................................
Chatham ..................................................
Chattooga ................................................
Clarke ......................................................
Cobb ........................................................
Columbia .................................................
Dawson ....................................................
DeKalb .....................................................
Douglas ...................................................
Fulton .......................................................
4 EPA removed the FIP requiring South Carolina
to participate in the CSAPR ozone season NOX
trading program because the updated modeling
showed that the State was not linked to any
identified downwind air quality problems for either
the 2008 ozone NAAQS or 1997 ozone NAAQS. See
81 FR 74504 at 74524 (containing additional
explanation on EPA’s removal of South Carolina
from the CSAPR ozone season NOX trading
program); EME Homer City Generation, L.P., v. EPA,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:41 Dec 31, 2019
Jkt 250001
795 F.3d 118, 129–30, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(remanding South Carolina’s CSAPR FIP for the
1997 ozone NAAQS for reconsideration).
5 EPA notes that it already addressed comments
raised in the CSAPR Update rulemaking regarding
the use of 2017 as the model year and the accuracy
of the modeling.
6 See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Final Cross State Air Pollution
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
62
58
61
62
58
61
61
61
57
60
65
66
60
65
69
67
73
2017 Contribution
from
South Carolina
(ppb)
0.86
1.13
1.16
1.10
0.97
1.01
0.89
0.92
3.53
0.98
1.10
1.06
6.19
1.60
1.33
1.61
1.45
Rule Update,’’ August 2016, available at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/
documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_
update.pdf.
7 See ‘‘Draft Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5,
and Regional Haze,’’ December 3, 2014, available at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/
Draft-O3-PM-RH-Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\02JAR1.SGM
02JAR1
6
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—2018 DESIGN VALUES AND PREDICTED 2017 CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ALL MONITORING SITES TO WHICH SOUTH
CAROLINA CONTRIBUTES AT OR ABOVE THE 1 PERCENT THRESHOLD—Continued
Site ID
131270006
131350002
131510002
132130003
132150008
132450091
370210030
370270003
370330001
370650099
370670022
370670030
370671008
370810013
370870008
370870036
371090004
371190041
371570099
371590021
371730002
371790003
371830014
470259991
470651011
470890002
470930021
471632002
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
County
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
Georgia ....................................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
North Carolina .........................................
Tennessee ...............................................
Tennessee ...............................................
Tennessee ...............................................
Tennessee ...............................................
Tennessee ...............................................
Glynn .......................................................
Gwinnett ..................................................
Henry .......................................................
Murray .....................................................
Muscogee ................................................
Richmond ................................................
Buncombe ...............................................
Caldwell ...................................................
Caswell ....................................................
Edgecombe .............................................
Forsyth .....................................................
Forsyth .....................................................
Forsyth .....................................................
Guilford ....................................................
Haywood ..................................................
Haywood ..................................................
Lincoln .....................................................
Mecklenburg ............................................
Rockingham .............................................
Rowan .....................................................
Swain .......................................................
Union .......................................................
Wake .......................................................
Claiborne .................................................
Hamilton ..................................................
Jefferson ..................................................
Knox ........................................................
Sullivan ....................................................
III. Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve
South Carolina’s June 18, 2018, SIP
submission demonstrating that South
Carolina’s SIP is sufficient to address
the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and
2 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
taking final action to approve the SIP
submission because it is consistent with
section 110 of the CAA.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2016–2018
design value
(ppb)
State
15:41 Dec 31, 2019
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57
69
71
65
60
62
61
64
62
62
66
67
66
66
61
64
65
68
65
62
60
68
66
63
64
66
65
66
2017 Contribution
from
South Carolina
(ppb)
3.17
1.74
1.02
0.82
1.65
6.78
1.33
1.38
1.85
1.37
2.23
2.05
1.98
1.30
1.48
0.82
1.16
4.53
0.90
1.64
0.94
4.79
0.87
0.89
1.59
1.16
1.07
0.79
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Because this final action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law, this final action
for the State of South Carolina does not
have Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). Therefore, this
action will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation
(CIN) Reservation is located within the
boundary of York County, South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba
Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code
Ann. 27–16–120 (Settlement Act), ‘‘all
state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian
Nation] and Reservation and are fully
enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.’’ The CIN
also retains authority to impose
E:\FR\FM\02JAR1.SGM
02JAR1
7
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
regulations applying higher
environmental standards to the
Reservation than those imposed by state
law or local governing bodies, in
accordance with the Settlement Act.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this 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).
*
*
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Parts 402, 403, 411, 412, 422,
423, 460, 483, 488, and 493
[CMS–6076–RCN]
RIN 0991–AC07
Medicare and Medicaid Programs;
Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties
for Inflation; Continuation of
Effectiveness and Extension of
Timeline for Publication of the Final
Rule
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Continuation of effectiveness
and extension of timeline for
publication of the final rule.
AGENCY:
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
*
6/18/2018
[FR Doc. 2019–27543 Filed 12–31–19; 8:45 am]
This document announces the
continuation of, effectiveness of, and the
extension of the timeline for publication
of a final rule. We are issuing this
document in accordance with the Social
SUMMARY:
15:41 Dec 31, 2019
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
State effective
date
Provision
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by March 2, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
Jkt 250001
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart PP—South Carolina
2. Section 52.2120(e), is amended by
adding an entry for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS’’ at the end of
the table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2120
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
EPA approval date
*
1/2/2020 [Insert citation of publication].
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Explanation
*
*
Addressing prongs 1 and 2 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only.
Security Act (the Act), which allows an
interim final rule to remain in effect
after the expiration of the timeline
specified in the Act if the Secretary
publishes a notice of continuation
explaining why the regular timeline was
not complied with.
DATES: Effective December 31, 2019, the
Medicare provisions adopted in the
interim final rule published on
September 6, 2016 (81 FR 61538)
continue in effect and the regular
timeline for publication of the final rule
is extended for an additional year, until
September 6, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Forry (410) 786–1564 or Jaqueline
Cipa (410) 786–3259.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
1871(a) of the Social Security Act (the
Act) sets forth certain procedures for
promulgating regulations necessary to
carry out the administration of the
insurance programs under Title XVIII of
the Act. Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Act
requires the Secretary, in consultation
with the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), to
establish a regular timeline for the
publication of final regulations based on
the previous publication of a proposed
rule or an interim final rule. In
accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of
PO 00000
Dated: December 10, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
*
the Act, such timeline may vary among
different rules, based on the complexity
of the rule, the number and scope of the
comments received, and other relevant
factors. However, the timeline for
publishing the final rule, cannot exceed
3 years from the date of publication of
the proposed or interim final rule,
unless there are exceptional
circumstances. After consultation with
the Director of OMB, the Secretary
published a notice, which appeared in
the December 30, 2004 Federal Register
on (69 FR 78442), establishing a general
3-year timeline for publishing Medicare
final rules after the publication of a
proposed or interim final rule.
Section 1871(a)(3)(C) of the Act states
that upon expiration of the regular
timeline for the publication of a final
regulation after opportunity for public
comment, a Medicare interim final rule
shall not continue in effect unless the
Secretary publishes notification of
continuation of the regulation that
includes an explanation of why the
regular timeline was not met. Upon
publication of such notification, the
regular timeline for publication of the
final regulation is treated as having been
extended for 1 additional year.
On September 6, 2016 Federal
Register (81 FR 61538), the Department
E:\FR\FM\02JAR1.SGM
02JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3-7]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27543]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0666; FRL-10003-56-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate
Transport
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of South Carolina's June 18, 2018, State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires
each state's implementation plan to address the interstate transport of
air pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other
state. In this action, EPA is finalizing the determination that South
Carolina's SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions
within the State from contributing significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any
other state.
DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0666. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday
[[Page 4]]
through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can also be reached
via telephone at (404) 562-9009 and via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA published an ozone NAAQS that
revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards
from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. Pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(1), within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes), states must submit SIPs that
meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2). EPA has
historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. One of the structural requirements
of section 110(a)(2) is section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally
requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on
neighboring states due to interstate transport of air pollution. There
are four sub-elements, or ``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the CAA. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good
neighbor'' provision, requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this section are referred
to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires
SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will
interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other state under part C to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect
visibility (prong 4).
On June 18, 2018, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) provided a SIP submittal containing a
certification that South Carolina's SIP meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. South
Carolina's certification is based on available emissions data, air
quality monitoring and modeling data, and SIP-approved \1\ regulations
controlling emissions of ozone precursors within the State. In a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 28, 2019 (84 FR 24420),
EPA proposed to approve South Carolina's SIP submission demonstrating
that South Carolina's SIP is sufficient to address the CAA requirements
of prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ In that NPRM, EPA
discussed the final determination made in the update to the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses good
neighbor obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (known as the
``CSAPR Update'') \3\ that emissions activities within South Carolina
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of that NAAQS in any other state. In the NPRM, EPA stated
that it was not reopening for comment final determinations made in the
CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to support that rulemaking. The
NPRM provides additional detail regarding the background and rationale
for EPA's action. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before June 27,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ South Carolina also identified state provisions regulating
ozone precursors that are not in the SIP, but EPA is not relying on
those regulations for purposes of this rulemaking.
\2\ This action addresses only prongs 1 and 2 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other infrastructure SIP elements for South
Carolina for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed in separate
rulemakings. See 83 FR 48237 (September 24, 2018); 81 FR 56512
(August 22, 2016); 80 FR 48255 (August 12, 2015); 80 FR 14019 (March
18, 2015); and 80 FR 11136 (March 2, 2015).
\3\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The CSAPR Update
establishes statewide nitrogen oxide (NOX) budgets for
certain affected electricity generating units in 22 eastern states
for the May-September ozone season to reduce the interstate
transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and
thereby help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rule also determined that emissions
from 14 states (including South Carolina) will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. Accordingly, EPA determined
that it need not require further emission reductions from sources in
those states to address the good neighbor provision as to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Response to Comments
EPA received two sets of comments on its May 28, 2019, NPRM. One
set of comments is adverse but do not raise issues that would alter the
action proposed in EPA's May 28, 2019, NPRM. EPA has summarized these
comments below and provided its responses. The second set of comments
are not relevant to EPA's May 28, 2019, NPRM because they are focused
on greenhouse gases. Accordingly, the EPA is not required to respond to
the second set of comments in finalizing this action. Both sets of
comments are provided in the docket for this final action.
Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that EPA cannot rely on a Federal
implementation program (FIP) in this action, stating that ``the agency
and the state can't rely on federal implementation programs to meet
requirements of plans required under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)
because the language in the act requires all plans to include
provisions in the state's plan.''
Response 1: EPA believes this comment inaccurately characterizes
South Carolina's transport obligation status because neither EPA nor
the State is relying on a FIP to meet the interstate transport
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although the Commenter
does not indicate which FIPs it believes EPA has inappropriately relied
on, EPA is providing the following discussion to clarify the history
involving South Carolina and CSAPR FIPs.
In 2015, EPA issued findings of failure to submit to 24 states,
including South Carolina, for failure to submit complete SIP revisions
to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to
the interstate transport of pollution as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See
80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015) (effective August 12, 2015). The CSAPR
Update was developed to address EPA's obligation under CAA section
110(c) to promulgate FIPs addressing this statutory requirement on
behalf of the states for which the findings were made. EPA's modeling
in the CSAPR Update showed that emissions from South Carolina would not
impact downwind air quality problems at or above the air quality
screening threshold used to evaluate good neighbor obligations, and EPA
therefore determined that South Carolina would not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance for any
other state with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA
concluded that it need not require further emissions reductions from
sources in South Carolina and therefore did not promulgate a FIP to
address the good neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus,
there is no CSAPR FIP currently in place for South Carolina sources
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and there is no obligation for
[[Page 5]]
South Carolina to implement further emissions reductions from sources
in the State to address that obligation. The approval of South
Carolina's SIP here merely implements the final determination regarding
the State's good neighbor obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS already made in the CSAPR Update.
EPA notes that South Carolina is also not subject to any other FIPs
under the good neighbor provision. Although South Carolina was
originally subject to a CSAPR FIP to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the
FIP was subsequently removed.\4\ Similarly, the State was originally
subject to CSAPR FIPs for the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS regulating annual emissions of NOX
and sulfur dioxide emissions, but the State has since adopted those
requirements into its SIP. See 82 FR 47936 (October 13, 2017)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA removed the FIP requiring South Carolina to participate
in the CSAPR ozone season NOX trading program because the
updated modeling showed that the State was not linked to any
identified downwind air quality problems for either the 2008 ozone
NAAQS or 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504 at 74524 (containing
additional explanation on EPA's removal of South Carolina from the
CSAPR ozone season NOX trading program); EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 129-30, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(remanding South Carolina's CSAPR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for
reconsideration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: The Commenter questions EPA's modeling for the CSAPR
Update and the use of that modeling for this action, stating that EPA
``cannot approve South Carolina's action since it is based on EPA's
faulty CSAPR Update modeling analysis which uses illegal attainment
years to base the state's contribution.'' Additionally, the Commenter
questions the accuracy of EPA's modeling. The Commenter goes on to
suggest that EPA should compare the ``modeling results for 2017 and
2018 and 2019 to see how accurate the agency's model performs.''
Response 2: EPA stated in the NPRM that it was not taking comment
on the final determinations made in the CSAPR Update or the modeling
conducted to support that rulemaking. The Commenter had the opportunity
to raise concerns about the model year and accuracy in the CSAPR Update
rulemaking.\5\ Issues related to the final determinations made in the
CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to support that rulemaking are
thus outside the scope of this rule. Nonetheless, the EPA is providing
the following explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA notes that it already addressed comments raised in the
CSAPR Update rulemaking regarding the use of 2017 as the model year
and the accuracy of the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenter does not explain why it believes that the analytic
year that EPA used in the CSAPR Update modeling is inappropriate. As
explained in that action, the 2017 analytic year aligned with the July
2018 Moderate area attainment date, which was the next applicable
attainment date at the time that rulemaking was conducted. The
Commenter also does not explain why it believes the 2017 air quality
modeling is inaccurate or unreliable such that modeling of additional
years is necessary.
To the extent the commenter was concerned about EPA verification of
the accuracy of the model's performance, in 2016 EPA performed an
extensive model performance evaluation that compared the 2011 base year
model predictions to the corresponding measured data.\6\ This approach
is consistent with recommendations in EPA's air quality modeling
guidance.\7\ This evaluation found that the predictions from the 2011
modeling platform correspond closely to observed concentrations in
terms of the magnitude, temporal fluctuations, and geographic
differences for 8-hour daily maximum ozone. Thus, the model performance
results demonstrate the scientific credibility of our 2011 modeling
platform. These results provide confidence in the ability of the
modeling platform to provide a reasonable projection of expected future
year ozone concentrations and contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Final Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' August 2016,
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf.
\7\ See ``Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' December 3,
2014, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft-O3-PM-RH-Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA has identified all monitoring sites outside of
South Carolina that have predicted 2017 contributions from South
Carolina that are at or above the 1 percent of the NAAQS threshold used
by EPA as a screening threshold in evaluation contributions with
respect to the 2008 NAAQS. The outcome of this analysis reveals that
there are no monitors currently measuring violations to which South
Carolina contributes at or above the 1 percent threshold. The data to
support this finding are provided in Table 1.
Table 1--2018 Design Values and Predicted 2017 Contributions for All Monitoring Sites To Which South Carolina
Contributes at or Above the 1 Percent Threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016-2018 2017 Contribution
Site ID State County design value from South
(ppb) Carolina (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10499991......................... Alabama............. DeKalb.............. 62 0.86
10690004......................... Alabama............. Houston............. 58 1.13
120030002........................ Florida............. Baker............... 61 1.16
120230002........................ Florida............. Columbia............ 62 1.10
120310077........................ Florida............. Duval............... 58 0.97
120310106........................ Florida............. Duval............... 61 1.01
120730012........................ Florida............. Leon................ 61 0.89
121275002........................ Florida............. Volusia............. 61 0.92
130510021........................ Georgia............. Chatham............. 57 3.53
130550001........................ Georgia............. Chattooga........... 60 0.98
130590002........................ Georgia............. Clarke.............. 65 1.10
130670003........................ Georgia............. Cobb................ 66 1.06
130730001........................ Georgia............. Columbia............ 60 6.19
130850001........................ Georgia............. Dawson.............. 65 1.60
130890002........................ Georgia............. DeKalb.............. 69 1.33
130970004........................ Georgia............. Douglas............. 67 1.61
131210055........................ Georgia............. Fulton.............. 73 1.45
[[Page 6]]
131270006........................ Georgia............. Glynn............... 57 3.17
131350002........................ Georgia............. Gwinnett............ 69 1.74
131510002........................ Georgia............. Henry............... 71 1.02
132130003........................ Georgia............. Murray.............. 65 0.82
132150008........................ Georgia............. Muscogee............ 60 1.65
132450091........................ Georgia............. Richmond............ 62 6.78
370210030........................ North Carolina...... Buncombe............ 61 1.33
370270003........................ North Carolina...... Caldwell............ 64 1.38
370330001........................ North Carolina...... Caswell............. 62 1.85
370650099........................ North Carolina...... Edgecombe........... 62 1.37
370670022........................ North Carolina...... Forsyth............. 66 2.23
370670030........................ North Carolina...... Forsyth............. 67 2.05
370671008........................ North Carolina...... Forsyth............. 66 1.98
370810013........................ North Carolina...... Guilford............ 66 1.30
370870008........................ North Carolina...... Haywood............. 61 1.48
370870036........................ North Carolina...... Haywood............. 64 0.82
371090004........................ North Carolina...... Lincoln............. 65 1.16
371190041........................ North Carolina...... Mecklenburg......... 68 4.53
371570099........................ North Carolina...... Rockingham.......... 65 0.90
371590021........................ North Carolina...... Rowan............... 62 1.64
371730002........................ North Carolina...... Swain............... 60 0.94
371790003........................ North Carolina...... Union............... 68 4.79
371830014........................ North Carolina...... Wake................ 66 0.87
470259991........................ Tennessee........... Claiborne........... 63 0.89
470651011........................ Tennessee........... Hamilton............ 64 1.59
470890002........................ Tennessee........... Jefferson........... 66 1.16
470930021........................ Tennessee........... Knox................ 65 1.07
471632002........................ Tennessee........... Sullivan............ 66 0.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve South Carolina's June 18,
2018, SIP submission demonstrating that South Carolina's SIP is
sufficient to address the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
taking final action to approve the SIP submission because it is
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described 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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Because this final action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law, this final action for the State of South
Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, this action
will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or
preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation (CIN) Reservation is
located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to
the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120
(Settlement Act), ``all state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and
are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' The CIN also retains authority to impose
[[Page 7]]
regulations applying higher environmental standards to the Reservation
than those imposed by state law or local governing bodies, in
accordance with the Settlement Act.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 2, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 10, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart PP--South Carolina
0
2. Section 52.2120(e), is amended by adding an entry for ``110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS''
at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Provision effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 6/18/2018 1/2/2020 [Insert citation Addressing prongs 1 and 2
Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone of publication]. of section
NAAQS. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-27543 Filed 12-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
