Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Negative Declaration for the Oil and Gas Control Techniques Guideline, 13055-13057 [2020-03670]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 45 / Friday, March 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
well as any other materials posted in the
applicable docket pursuant to paragraph
(b) of this section.
(d) The Commission shall arrange for
publication in the Federal Register of
the notice establishing each docket
authorized under this part.
§ 3025.104
Comment deadline(s).
(a) The Commission shall establish a
deadline for comments upon
establishment of the docket that is
consistent with timely submission of
Commission views to the Secretary of
State. The Commission may establish
other deadlines for comments as
appropriate.
(b) The Commission may suspend or
forego solicitation of comments if it
determines that such solicitation is not
consistent with timely submission of
Commission views to the Secretary of
State.
§ 3025.105
Issuance of Commission views.
(a) The Commission will review
timely filed comments responding to a
Commission solicitation pursuant to
§ 3025.103(a) prior to submitting its
views to the Secretary of State.
(b) After Commission views are
developed, the Commission shall post
Commission views in the applicable
docket established pursuant to
§ 3025.103(a) and submit Commission
views to the Secretary of State pursuant
to 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(1).
By the Commission.
Erica A. Barker,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–04038 Filed 3–5–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0552; FRL–10005–
75–Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; District
of Columbia; Negative Declaration for
the Oil and Gas Control Techniques
Guideline
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the District of Columbia.
This revision pertains to a negative
declaration for the October 2016 Oil and
Natural Gas Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG) (2016 Oil and Gas
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:52 Mar 05, 2020
Jkt 250001
CTG). This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on
April 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0552. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) 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 through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the ‘‘For Further
Information Contact’’ section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Schulingkamp, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. The telephone number is (215)
814–2021. Mr. Schulingkamp can also
be reached via electronic mail at
schulingkamp.joseph@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 21, 2019 (84 FR 64244),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the District of
Columbia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
approval of the District’s SIP revision
concerning the negative declaration for
the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. The formal
SIP revision was submitted by the
District on July 17, 2019. For additional
information on the CTG please see the
NPRM.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
In its submittal, the District of
Columbia’s Department of Energy and
Environment (DOEE) conducted a
search of its sources to determine if the
District has any sources that fall within
the applicability of the 2016 Oil and Gas
CTG. DOEE reviewed the following
sources of information: DOEE’s Air
Quality Division’s permitting database
for potential sources subject to the 2016
Oil and Gas CTG, the Energy
Information Administration’s data
regarding natural gas pipelines and
areas of oil and gas development, the
Department of Homeland Security’s
database of critical infrastructure which
includes natural gas compressor
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13055
stations, the District’s Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
database which would include a basic
business license for broad categories of
businesses, and the District’s point and
area source inventory. Within each
database or system reviewed, the
District found no sources subject to the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG. After completing
this search, the District has declared
that no sources subject to the 2016 Oil
and Gas CTG exist within the District.
III. Response to Comments
EPA received five sets of anonymous
comments in response to the NPRM,
two of which were duplicative.
Comment 1: One commenter stated
that approval of the District’s negative
declaration, ‘‘might set a dangerous
precedent for the further regulation and
control of the emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs),’’ and could
cause, ‘‘a much larger issue for the
future control of VOCs.’’
Response 1: EPA understands the
commenter’s concern with regards to
setting a precedent, however, EPA has
historically allowed states to submit a
negative declaration for a particular
CTG category if the state finds that no
sources exist in the state which would
be subject to that CTG. EPA has
addressed the idea of negative
declarations numerous times and for
various national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) including in the
General Preamble to the 1990
Amendments,1 the 2006 RACT Q&A
Memo,2 and the 2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule.3 In each of these
documents, EPA asserted that if no
sources exist in the nonattainment area
for a particular CTG category, the state
would be allowed to submit a negative
declaration SIP revision.
In addition, EPA has approved
negative declarations in the past for this
CTG category in other states as well as
other CTG categories for the District. For
example, EPA has approved negative
declarations for the District for the
following categories with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS: Automotive and
Light-duty Truck Manufacturing;
Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixedroof Tanks; Bulk Gasoline Plants;
Petroleum Refinery Sources; Graphic
1 ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (57 FR 13498 at 13512
(April 16, 1992)).
2 ‘‘RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT): Questions and Answers’’
Memorandum from William T. Harnett, May 18,
2006.
3 ‘‘Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State
Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ (80 FR 12263
at 12278 (March 6, 2015)).
E:\FR\FM\06MRR1.SGM
06MRR1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
13056
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 45 / Friday, March 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Arts Systems; Shipbuilding and Repair;
Wood Furniture Coatings; and more. See
74 FR 28447 (June 16, 2009) and 74 FR
12778 (March 25, 2009). More recently
EPA approved negative declarations for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS for these same
CTG categories. See 84 FR 54507
(October 10, 2019). With respect to the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG, EPA has already
approved negative declarations for
Delaware, Indiana, Vermont, and
California’s El Dorado County and YoloSolano Air Quality Management
Districts.4 Thus, no precedent is being
set by approving the District’s negative
declaration with respect to the 2016 Oil
and Gas CTG.
Comment 2: One commenter stated
that economic effects should be
considered, particularly whether the SIP
revision will, ‘‘harm the economy to
compensate for the environment and if
the benefits of doing so exceed the harm
it will cause.’’
Response 2: EPA disagrees with this
comment. In the case of a negative
declaration, the state is merely
certifying that no sources exist which
would necessitate a regulation being
developed for a CTG category. Because
there are no sources in the District that
could potentially be subject to the 2016
Oil and Gas CTG, the District does not
have to develop and implement a
regulation to meet the RACT
requirements of the CTG, and thus, no
costs will be imposed on sources in the
District.
Comment 3: One commenter
explained that ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate or higher
must implement RACT for each category
of VOC sources covered by a CTG
document issued between November 15,
1990 and the date of attainment; the
commenter suggested that EPA should
update this date to reflect regulations
made in current environmental
conditions.
Response 3: The November 15, 1990
date is established by statute in CAA
section 182(b)(2). EPA cannot through
rulemaking change this date. Changing
this date would require legislation
passed by Congress and signed by the
President into law.
Comment 4: One commenter
suggested EPA should disapprove the
District’s SIP pending review by the
‘‘OSG Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and other
available independent scientific
assessments of risks and impacts.’’ The
commenter claims that EPA is unable to
4 See 84 FR 32624 (July 9, 2019) for Delaware, 84
FR 68050 (December 13, 2019) for Indiana, 84 FR
65009 (November 26, 2019) for Vermont, 83 FR
67696 (December 31, 2018) for El Dorado, and 83
FR 31072 (July 3, 2018) for Yolo-Solano.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:52 Mar 05, 2020
Jkt 250001
predict accurately how these gases will
alter the climate system over the next
century. The commenter also suggested
EPA disapprove the District’s SIP
because nothing in the negative
declaration accounts for future
development in the oil and natural gas
field. The commenter claims that EPA
must require a regulation to ensure
future compliance with the CTG and not
allow the District to increase emissions
of VOCs or greenhouse gases (GHGs)
like methane.
Response 4: First, with respect to
disapproving the District’s SIP pending
external review, EPA disagrees with the
commenter. Nothing in the District’s
negative declaration SIP revision
requires external review with respect to
climate change because the negative
declaration is merely certifying that no
sources in the District are subject to the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG. A review of
climate change, or its impacts, are not
relevant to the District’s SIP revision.
Second, with respect to disapproving
the District’s SIP because the SIP
revision does not account for future
development and does not contain a
regulation to ensure future compliance
with the CTG or restrict emissions of
VOCs and GHGs, EPA disagrees with
the commenter. Nothing in the CAA or
EPA’s implementing rules or guidance
suggests that states must have a SIPapproved regulation for a category of
CTG sources that does not exist in the
state. Should a new source of the type
covered by the existing CTG be
constructed in a state after approval of
a negative declaration, EPA expects the
state to develop a regulation and submit
it to EPA for approval into the SIP in
accordance with the relevant timing
provided for by the CAA. At this time,
because the District does not have any
sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas
CTG, no regulation is required to be
developed and submitted to EPA for SIP
approval.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the District’s SIP
revision concerning the negative
declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas
CTG, which was submitted on July 17,
2019.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
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).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
E:\FR\FM\06MRR1.SGM
06MRR1
13057
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 45 / Friday, March 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
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
Dated: February 12, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
■
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Applicable geographic area
*
*
Negative Declaration for the 2016
Oil and Natural Gas CTG.
*
*
District of Columbia ......................
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2019–0467; FRL–10006–
00-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Second
Limited Maintenance Plans for 1997
Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Michigan. On
July 24, 2019, the state submitted the
1997 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) Limited
Maintenance Plans (LMPs) for the
Benzie County, Flint (Genesee and
Lapeer Counties), Grand Rapids (Ottawa
and Kent Counties), Huron County,
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek (Calhoun,
Kalamazoo, and Van Buren Counties),
Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton, Eaton,
and Ingham Counties), and Mason
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:41 Mar 05, 2020
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 J—District of Columbia
2. Amend § 52.470 in the table in
paragraph (e) by adding an entry for
‘‘Negative Declaration for the 2016 Oil
and Natural Gas CTG’’ at the end of the
table to read as follows:
§ 52.470
*
Name of non-regulatory SIP
revision
[FR Doc. 2020–03670 Filed 3–5–20; 8:45 am]
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
circuit by May 5, 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, approving the
District’s negative declaration for the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG, may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
State
submittal
date
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
*
EPA approval date
*
*
7/17/19 3/6, 2020, [Insert Federal Register citation].
County areas. EPA is approving these
Michigan LMPs because they provide
for the maintenance of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS through the end of the second
10-year portion of the maintenance
period. EPA proposed to approve the
submission on December 4, 2019, and
received two comments. This approval
makes certain commitments related to
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in these areas federally enforceable as
part of the Michigan SIP.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
April 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2019–0467. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) 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 through
www.regulations.gov or at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
PO 00000
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
Sfmt 4700
*
Additional
explanation
*
Docket 2019–0552.
Illinois 60604. We recommend that you
telephone Matt Rau, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886–6524 before
visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt
Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control
Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR–18J), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
I. Background Information
On December 4, 2019 (84 FR 66347),
EPA proposed to approve the 1997
ozone NAAQS LMPs for the Benzie
County, Flint, Grand Rapids, Huron
County, Kalamazoo-Battle Creek,
Lansing-East Lansing, and Mason
County areas, submitted by Michigan on
July 24, 2019. An explanation of the
CAA requirements, a detailed analysis
of the revisions, and EPA’s reasons for
proposing approval were provided in
the notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA
will not reiterate the reasons for
approval in this rule. The public
comment period ended on January 3,
2020. EPA received two comments on
the proposal.
E:\FR\FM\06MRR1.SGM
06MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 45 (Friday, March 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13055-13057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03670]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0552; FRL-10005-75-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Negative Declaration for the Oil and Gas Control
Techniques Guideline
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of
Columbia. This revision pertains to a negative declaration for the
October 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Control Techniques Guideline (CTG)
(2016 Oil and Gas CTG). This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0552. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) 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 through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the ``For Further Information Contact'' section for additional
availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2021. Mr. Schulingkamp can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 21, 2019 (84 FR 64244), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the District of Columbia. In the NPRM,
EPA proposed approval of the District's SIP revision concerning the
negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. The formal SIP
revision was submitted by the District on July 17, 2019. For additional
information on the CTG please see the NPRM.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
In its submittal, the District of Columbia's Department of Energy
and Environment (DOEE) conducted a search of its sources to determine
if the District has any sources that fall within the applicability of
the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. DOEE reviewed the following sources of
information: DOEE's Air Quality Division's permitting database for
potential sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, the Energy
Information Administration's data regarding natural gas pipelines and
areas of oil and gas development, the Department of Homeland Security's
database of critical infrastructure which includes natural gas
compressor stations, the District's Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs database which would include a basic business
license for broad categories of businesses, and the District's point
and area source inventory. Within each database or system reviewed, the
District found no sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. After
completing this search, the District has declared that no sources
subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG exist within the District.
III. Response to Comments
EPA received five sets of anonymous comments in response to the
NPRM, two of which were duplicative.
Comment 1: One commenter stated that approval of the District's
negative declaration, ``might set a dangerous precedent for the further
regulation and control of the emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs),'' and could cause, ``a much larger issue for the future control
of VOCs.''
Response 1: EPA understands the commenter's concern with regards to
setting a precedent, however, EPA has historically allowed states to
submit a negative declaration for a particular CTG category if the
state finds that no sources exist in the state which would be subject
to that CTG. EPA has addressed the idea of negative declarations
numerous times and for various national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) including in the General Preamble to the 1990 Amendments,\1\
the 2006 RACT Q&A Memo,\2\ and the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule.\3\
In each of these documents, EPA asserted that if no sources exist in
the nonattainment area for a particular CTG category, the state would
be allowed to submit a negative declaration SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
(57 FR 13498 at 13512 (April 16, 1992)).
\2\ ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT): Questions and Answers'' Memorandum from William T. Harnett,
May 18, 2006.
\3\ ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements,'' (80
FR 12263 at 12278 (March 6, 2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA has approved negative declarations in the past for
this CTG category in other states as well as other CTG categories for
the District. For example, EPA has approved negative declarations for
the District for the following categories with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS: Automotive and Light-duty Truck Manufacturing; Storage of
Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-roof Tanks; Bulk Gasoline Plants; Petroleum
Refinery Sources; Graphic
[[Page 13056]]
Arts Systems; Shipbuilding and Repair; Wood Furniture Coatings; and
more. See 74 FR 28447 (June 16, 2009) and 74 FR 12778 (March 25, 2009).
More recently EPA approved negative declarations for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for these same CTG categories. See 84 FR 54507 (October 10,
2019). With respect to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, EPA has already
approved negative declarations for Delaware, Indiana, Vermont, and
California's El Dorado County and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
Districts.\4\ Thus, no precedent is being set by approving the
District's negative declaration with respect to the 2016 Oil and Gas
CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 84 FR 32624 (July 9, 2019) for Delaware, 84 FR 68050
(December 13, 2019) for Indiana, 84 FR 65009 (November 26, 2019) for
Vermont, 83 FR 67696 (December 31, 2018) for El Dorado, and 83 FR
31072 (July 3, 2018) for Yolo-Solano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: One commenter stated that economic effects should be
considered, particularly whether the SIP revision will, ``harm the
economy to compensate for the environment and if the benefits of doing
so exceed the harm it will cause.''
Response 2: EPA disagrees with this comment. In the case of a
negative declaration, the state is merely certifying that no sources
exist which would necessitate a regulation being developed for a CTG
category. Because there are no sources in the District that could
potentially be subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, the District does
not have to develop and implement a regulation to meet the RACT
requirements of the CTG, and thus, no costs will be imposed on sources
in the District.
Comment 3: One commenter explained that ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate or higher must implement RACT for each category
of VOC sources covered by a CTG document issued between November 15,
1990 and the date of attainment; the commenter suggested that EPA
should update this date to reflect regulations made in current
environmental conditions.
Response 3: The November 15, 1990 date is established by statute in
CAA section 182(b)(2). EPA cannot through rulemaking change this date.
Changing this date would require legislation passed by Congress and
signed by the President into law.
Comment 4: One commenter suggested EPA should disapprove the
District's SIP pending review by the ``OSG Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and other available independent scientific
assessments of risks and impacts.'' The commenter claims that EPA is
unable to predict accurately how these gases will alter the climate
system over the next century. The commenter also suggested EPA
disapprove the District's SIP because nothing in the negative
declaration accounts for future development in the oil and natural gas
field. The commenter claims that EPA must require a regulation to
ensure future compliance with the CTG and not allow the District to
increase emissions of VOCs or greenhouse gases (GHGs) like methane.
Response 4: First, with respect to disapproving the District's SIP
pending external review, EPA disagrees with the commenter. Nothing in
the District's negative declaration SIP revision requires external
review with respect to climate change because the negative declaration
is merely certifying that no sources in the District are subject to the
2016 Oil and Gas CTG. A review of climate change, or its impacts, are
not relevant to the District's SIP revision.
Second, with respect to disapproving the District's SIP because the
SIP revision does not account for future development and does not
contain a regulation to ensure future compliance with the CTG or
restrict emissions of VOCs and GHGs, EPA disagrees with the commenter.
Nothing in the CAA or EPA's implementing rules or guidance suggests
that states must have a SIP-approved regulation for a category of CTG
sources that does not exist in the state. Should a new source of the
type covered by the existing CTG be constructed in a state after
approval of a negative declaration, EPA expects the state to develop a
regulation and submit it to EPA for approval into the SIP in accordance
with the relevant timing provided for by the CAA. At this time, because
the District does not have any sources subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas
CTG, no regulation is required to be developed and submitted to EPA for
SIP approval.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the District's SIP revision concerning the
negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, which was submitted
on July 17, 2019.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described 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).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small
[[Page 13057]]
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).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
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 May 5, 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, approving the District's negative declaration for
the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 12, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
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 J--District of Columbia
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.470 in the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry
for ``Negative Declaration for the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG'' at
the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable submittal EPA approval date Additional explanation
revision geographic area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Negative Declaration for the District of 7/17/19 3/6, 2020, [Insert Docket 2019-0552.
2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG. Columbia. Federal Register
citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-03670 Filed 3-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
