Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Mecklenburg Emission Control Standards and Nitrogen Oxides, 60339-60341 [2024-16251]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules disclosure of which could compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 (Executive Order on Modernizing Regulatory Review) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at www.regulations.gov. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). This proposed rule would exempt certain personnel evaluations from disclosure under certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. The Privacy Act primarily affects individuals and not entities and the proposed rule would impose no duties or obligations on small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Jul 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and Tribal governments, or on the private sector. 60339 disclosure of which could compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2024–16275 Filed 7–24–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320–01–P Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 1 Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records, Government employees, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures. Signing Authority Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved and signed this document on July 18, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0264; FRL–8980–01– R4] Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Mecklenburg Emission Control Standards and Nitrogen Oxides Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the Mecklenburg County portion of the North Carolina SIP, hereinafter referred to as the Mecklenburg Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The revision was submitted Jeffrey M. Martin, Assistant Director, Office of Regulation Policy by the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Division of Air & Management, Office of General Counsel, Quality (NCDAQ), on behalf of Department of Veterans Affairs. Mecklenburg County Air Quality For the reasons stated in the (MCAQ) via a letter dated April 24, preamble, the Department of Veterans 2020. The revision includes updates to Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part various emission control standards 1 as set forth below: contained in the Mecklenburg County Air Pollution Control Ordinance PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS (MCAPCO) incorporated into the LIP. EPA is proposing to approve these ■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 changes pursuant to the Clean Air Act continues to read as follows: (CAA or Act). Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5101, and as noted DATES : Comments must be received on in specific sections. or before August 26, 2024. ■ 2. Amend § 1.582 by adding paragraph ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, (f) to read as follows: identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– § 1.582 Exemptions. OAR–2021–0264 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online * * * * * instructions for submitting comments. (f) Exemption of Law Enforcement Officer Evaluation Records. VA provides Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. limited access to Law Enforcement EPA may publish any comment received Officer Evaluations (LEO Evals)—VA to its public docket. Do not submit (216VA10). electronically any information you (1) Records contained in this system of records are exempted pursuant to the consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6) from 5 whose disclosure is restricted by statute. U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d)(1) through (4), Multimedia submissions (audio, video, (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I), and (f). etc.) must be accompanied by a written (2) These exemptions apply to the extent that information in this system of comment. The written comment is records is subject to exemption pursuant considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6) because they relate to testing or examination material you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment used solely to determine individual contents located outside of the primary qualifications for appointment or submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or promotion in the Federal service, the PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM 25JYP1 60340 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josue Ortiz Borrero, 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. The telephone number is (404) 562– 8085. Mr. Ortiz Borrero can also be reached via electronic mail at ortizborrero.josue@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cement Plants; 2.0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries; 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes; and 2.0533, Stack Height.3 EPA is proposing to incorporate these rules into the Mecklenburg LIP. I. Background The original Mecklenburg County LIP was submitted to EPA on June 14, 1990, and EPA approved the plan on May 2, 1991. See 56 FR 20140. Mecklenburg County prepared three submittals to modify the LIP for, among other things, general consistency with the North Carolina SIP.1 The three submittals were submitted as follows: NCDAQ transmitted the October 25, 2017, submittal to EPA but later withdrew it from review through a letter dated February 15, 2019. On April 24, 2020, NCDAQ resubmitted the October 25, 2017, update to EPA and also submitted the January 21, 2016, and January 14, 2019, updates. Due to an inconsistency with public notice at the local level, these submittals were withdrawn from EPA through a letter dated February 15, 2019. Mecklenburg County corrected this error, and NCDAQ submitted the updates to EPA in a submittal dated April 24, 2020.2 2. Rule 2.0507, ‘‘Particulates From Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants’’ The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants, to more closely align the rule with the SIPapproved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants. Rule 2.0507 is revised to convert the text emission rates from the current version of the LIP-approved rule into equations for readability, along with a nonsubstantive phrasing change. EPA is proposing to approve Rule 2.0507 because it better aligns the LIP with the SIP and will not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 II. What action is EPA taking? The April 24, 2020, submittal includes changes and updates to the following rules to align them more closely with their analogous SIPapproved North Carolina regulations: MCAPCO Rules 2.0502, Purpose; 2.0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants; 2.0508, Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills; 2.0513, Particulates from Portland 1 The Mecklenburg County, North Carolina revision that is dated April 24, 2020, and received by EPA on June 19, 2020, is comprised of three previous submittals—one dated January 21, 2016; one dated October 25, 2017; and one dated January 14, 2019. 2 EPA notes that the April 24, 2020, submission was received by EPA on June 19, 2020. For clarity, throughout this notice EPA will refer to the June 19, 2020, submission by its cover letter date of April 24, 2020. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Jul 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 1. Rule 2.0502, ‘‘Purpose’’ The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0502, Purpose, under Article 2.0000, Air Pollution and Control Regulations and Procedures, to more closely align the rule with the SIPapproved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0502, Purpose. The April 24, 2020, revision corrects a typographical error, removing the ‘‘s’’ from the word ‘‘Section.’’ EPA is proposing to approve Rule 2.0502 because it better aligns the LIP with the SIP and will not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements. 3. Rule 2.0508, ‘‘Particulates From Pulp and Paper Mills’’ The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0508, which is currently entitled Control of Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills in the Mecklenburg LIP. The update renames the rule Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills and increases the stringency of the opacity standards in Paragraph (b) of the rule. The update also includes non-substantive formatting changes. These changes more closely aligns the rule with the SIPapproved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0508, Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills. Rule 2.0508 differs from its State counterpart by starting the second sentence under Paragraph (b) with ‘‘However,’’ and changing the capital ‘‘S’’ in ‘‘Six’’ to lower-case. EPA is proposing to approve Rule 2.0508 3 EPA has previously taken action on portions of the April 24, 2020, submittal. The April 24, 2020, submittal contains changes to other Mecklenburg LIP-approved rules that are not addressed in this document. EPA will be acting on those rules in separate actions. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 because it better aligns the LIP with the SIP and will not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements. 4. Rule 2.0513, ‘‘Particulates From Portland Cement Plants’’ The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0513, which is currently entitled Control of Particulates from Portland Cement Plants in the Mecklenburg LIP. The update names the rule Particulates from Portland Cement Plants and includes non-substantive wording and formatting changes. These changes more closely align the rule with the SIPapproved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0513, Particulates from Portland Cement Plants. EPA is proposing to approve Rule 2.0513 because it better aligns the LIP with the SIP and will not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements. 5. Rule 2.0514, ‘‘Particulates From Ferrous Jobbing Foundries’’ The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0514, which is currently entitled Control of Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries in the Mecklenburg LIP. The update renames the rule Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries and includes formatting and wording changes. The revised rule also updates the cross-reference to Regulation 2.0515 such that it now refers to Regulation 2.0515(a). These changes more closely align the rule with the SIP-approved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries. EPA is proposing to approve Rule 2.0514 because it better aligns the LIP with the SIP and will not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements. 6. Rule 2.0515, ‘‘Particulates From Miscellaneous Industrial Processes’’ The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes, to more closely aligns the rule with the SIP-approved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes. The changes to Rule 2.0515 include changes such as converting the text emission rates in Paragraph (a) of the current version of the LIP-approved rule into equations for readability and updating the phrase ‘‘process weight’’ such that it now says ‘‘process rate.’’ EPA is proposing to approve Rule 2.0515 because it better aligns the LIP with the SIP and will not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements. 7. Rule 2.0533, ‘‘Stack Height’’ The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0533, Stack Height, to more E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM 25JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules closely aligns the rule with the SIPapproved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0533, Stack Height. The revised rule reorders certain provisions, such as the definitions (which are now alphabetical). The revised rule also updates certain cross-references within the rule and includes minor wording changes, such as updating the phrase ‘‘reasonable time’’ to now say ‘‘time that is normally required.’’ III. Incorporation by Reference In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and II of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following revised MCAPCO Rules, with a local effective date of December 15, 2015, into the Mecklenburg LIP: 2.0502, Purpose; 2.0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants; 2.0508, Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills; 2.0513, Particulates from Portland Cement Plants; 2.0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries; 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes; and 2.0533, Stack Height. EPA has made and will continue to make these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ section of this preamble for more information). ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 IV. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the above-described SIP revision by incorporating the following MCAPCO Rules, with a local effective date of December 15, 2015, into the Mecklenburg LIP: 2.0502, Purpose; 2.0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants; 2.0508, Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills; 2.0513, Particulates from Portland Cement Plants; 2.0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries; 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes; and 2.0533, Stack Height. EPA is proposing to approve these rules into the Mecklenburg LIP because they are consistent with the CAA and its implementing regulations, and because these revisions would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Jul 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 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. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023); • 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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program; • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and • 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. In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rulemaking does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 60341 February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address ‘‘disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects’’ of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.’’ NCDAQ did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the nature of the action being proposed here, this proposed action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this proposed action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 18, 2024. Jeaneanne Gettle, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2024–16251 Filed 7–24–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM 25JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60339-60341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16251]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0264; FRL-8980-01-R4]


Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Mecklenburg Emission Control 
Standards and Nitrogen Oxides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the Mecklenburg 
County portion of the North Carolina SIP, hereinafter referred to as 
the Mecklenburg Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The revision was 
submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina 
Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), on behalf of Mecklenburg County Air 
Quality (MCAQ) via a letter dated April 24, 2020. The revision includes 
updates to various emission control standards contained in the 
Mecklenburg County Air Pollution Control Ordinance (MCAPCO) 
incorporated into the LIP. EPA is proposing to approve these changes 
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2021-0264 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to 
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or

[[Page 60340]]

other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josue Ortiz Borrero, 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. The telephone number is 
(404) 562-8085. Mr. Ortiz Borrero can also be reached via electronic 
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The original Mecklenburg County LIP was submitted to EPA on June 
14, 1990, and EPA approved the plan on May 2, 1991. See 56 FR 20140. 
Mecklenburg County prepared three submittals to modify the LIP for, 
among other things, general consistency with the North Carolina SIP.\1\ 
The three submittals were submitted as follows: NCDAQ transmitted the 
October 25, 2017, submittal to EPA but later withdrew it from review 
through a letter dated February 15, 2019. On April 24, 2020, NCDAQ 
resubmitted the October 25, 2017, update to EPA and also submitted the 
January 21, 2016, and January 14, 2019, updates. Due to an 
inconsistency with public notice at the local level, these submittals 
were withdrawn from EPA through a letter dated February 15, 2019. 
Mecklenburg County corrected this error, and NCDAQ submitted the 
updates to EPA in a submittal dated April 24, 2020.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Mecklenburg County, North Carolina revision that is 
dated April 24, 2020, and received by EPA on June 19, 2020, is 
comprised of three previous submittals--one dated January 21, 2016; 
one dated October 25, 2017; and one dated January 14, 2019.
    \2\ EPA notes that the April 24, 2020, submission was received 
by EPA on June 19, 2020. For clarity, throughout this notice EPA 
will refer to the June 19, 2020, submission by its cover letter date 
of April 24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What action is EPA taking?

    The April 24, 2020, submittal includes changes and updates to the 
following rules to align them more closely with their analogous SIP-
approved North Carolina regulations: MCAPCO Rules 2.0502, Purpose; 
2.0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants; 
2.0508, Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills; 2.0513, Particulates 
from Portland Cement Plants; 2.0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing 
Foundries; 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial 
Processes; and 2.0533, Stack Height.\3\ EPA is proposing to incorporate 
these rules into the Mecklenburg LIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA has previously taken action on portions of the April 24, 
2020, submittal. The April 24, 2020, submittal contains changes to 
other Mecklenburg LIP-approved rules that are not addressed in this 
document. EPA will be acting on those rules in separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Rule 2.0502, ``Purpose''

    The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0502, Purpose, under 
Article 2.0000, Air Pollution and Control Regulations and Procedures, 
to more closely align the rule with the SIP-approved State rule at 15A 
NCAC 02D .0502, Purpose. The April 24, 2020, revision corrects a 
typographical error, removing the ``s'' from the word ``Section.'' EPA 
is proposing to approve Rule 2.0502 because it better aligns the LIP 
with the SIP and will not interfere with any applicable CAA 
requirements.

2. Rule 2.0507, ``Particulates From Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing 
Plants''

    The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0507, Particulates from 
Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants, to more closely align the 
rule with the SIP-approved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0507, 
Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants. Rule 2.0507 
is revised to convert the text emission rates from the current version 
of the LIP-approved rule into equations for readability, along with a 
non-substantive phrasing change. EPA is proposing to approve Rule 
2.0507 because it better aligns the LIP with the SIP and will not 
interfere with any applicable CAA requirements.

3. Rule 2.0508, ``Particulates From Pulp and Paper Mills''

    The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0508, which is 
currently entitled Control of Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills in 
the Mecklenburg LIP. The update renames the rule Particulates from Pulp 
and Paper Mills and increases the stringency of the opacity standards 
in Paragraph (b) of the rule. The update also includes non-substantive 
formatting changes. These changes more closely aligns the rule with the 
SIP-approved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0508, Particulates from Pulp 
and Paper Mills. Rule 2.0508 differs from its State counterpart by 
starting the second sentence under Paragraph (b) with ``However,'' and 
changing the capital ``S'' in ``Six'' to lower-case. EPA is proposing 
to approve Rule 2.0508 because it better aligns the LIP with the SIP 
and will not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements.

4. Rule 2.0513, ``Particulates From Portland Cement Plants''

    The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0513, which is 
currently entitled Control of Particulates from Portland Cement Plants 
in the Mecklenburg LIP. The update names the rule Particulates from 
Portland Cement Plants and includes non-substantive wording and 
formatting changes. These changes more closely align the rule with the 
SIP-approved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0513, Particulates from 
Portland Cement Plants. EPA is proposing to approve Rule 2.0513 because 
it better aligns the LIP with the SIP and will not interfere with any 
applicable CAA requirements.

5. Rule 2.0514, ``Particulates From Ferrous Jobbing Foundries''

    The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0514, which is 
currently entitled Control of Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing 
Foundries in the Mecklenburg LIP. The update renames the rule 
Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries and includes formatting and 
wording changes. The revised rule also updates the cross-reference to 
Regulation 2.0515 such that it now refers to Regulation 2.0515(a). 
These changes more closely align the rule with the SIP-approved State 
rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing 
Foundries. EPA is proposing to approve Rule 2.0514 because it better 
aligns the LIP with the SIP and will not interfere with any applicable 
CAA requirements.

6. Rule 2.0515, ``Particulates From Miscellaneous Industrial 
Processes''

    The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0515, Particulates from 
Miscellaneous Industrial Processes, to more closely aligns the rule 
with the SIP-approved State rule at 15A NCAC 02D .0515, Particulates 
from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes. The changes to Rule 2.0515 
include changes such as converting the text emission rates in Paragraph 
(a) of the current version of the LIP-approved rule into equations for 
readability and updating the phrase ``process weight'' such that it now 
says ``process rate.'' EPA is proposing to approve Rule 2.0515 because 
it better aligns the LIP with the SIP and will not interfere with any 
applicable CAA requirements.

7. Rule 2.0533, ``Stack Height''

    The April 24, 2020, revision updates Rule 2.0533, Stack Height, to 
more

[[Page 60341]]

closely aligns the rule with the SIP-approved State rule at 15A NCAC 
02D .0533, Stack Height. The revised rule re-orders certain provisions, 
such as the definitions (which are now alphabetical). The revised rule 
also updates certain cross-references within the rule and includes 
minor wording changes, such as updating the phrase ``reasonable time'' 
to now say ``time that is normally required.''

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and II 
of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the 
following revised MCAPCO Rules, with a local effective date of December 
15, 2015, into the Mecklenburg LIP: 2.0502, Purpose; 2.0507, 
Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants; 2.0508, 
Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills; 2.0513, Particulates from 
Portland Cement Plants; 2.0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing 
Foundries; 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial 
Processes; and 2.0533, Stack Height. EPA has made and will continue to 
make these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov 
and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in 
the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for 
more information).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the above-described SIP revision by 
incorporating the following MCAPCO Rules, with a local effective date 
of December 15, 2015, into the Mecklenburg LIP: 2.0502, Purpose; 
2.0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants; 
2.0508, Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills; 2.0513, Particulates 
from Portland Cement Plants; 2.0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing 
Foundries; 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial 
Processes; and 2.0533, Stack Height. EPA is proposing to approve these 
rules into the Mecklenburg LIP because they are consistent with the CAA 
and its implementing regulations, and because these revisions would not 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and 
reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other 
applicable requirement of the Act.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 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. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has 
demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rulemaking does not have Tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that 
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    NCDAQ did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 
analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the 
nature of the action being proposed here, this proposed action is 
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the 
affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this 
proposed action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent 
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, 
low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 18, 2024.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2024-16251 Filed 7-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.