Environmental Protection Agency December 9, 2016 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter (PM) from large confined animal facilities (LCAFs). We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

Due to the receipt of adverse public comments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the direct final rule published on October 21, 2016, to approve revisions to the Virginia state implementation plan (SIP). The revision serves to remove requirements for installation and operation of vapor recovery equipment (also referred to as Stage II vapor recovery) from subject gasoline stations in areas of Virginia that were formally subject to a Stage II vapor recovery program under the Clean Air Act.

Under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the State of Oklahoma regarding the 2008 Lead (Pb), 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards). The four submittals address how the existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of these four NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). These i-SIPs ensure that the Oklahoma SIP is adequate to meet the State's responsibilities under the CAA, including the CAA requirements for interstate transport of Pb and NO2 emissions.

In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, and Clean Air Council (collectively ``Plaintiffs'') in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. McCarthy, et al. No. 4:16-cv-04092-PJH (N.D. Cal.). On July 21, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') failed to perform certain duties mandated by the CAA in relation to implementation of the 1997 and 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (``NAAQS'') for ozone, respectively. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that EPA failed to make required findings of failure to submit, and to take final action on State Implementation Plan (``SIP'') submittals. On November 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to take certain specified actions related to implementation of the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, respectively.

This document provides the names and affiliations of nominees currently under consideration for appointment to the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) established pursuant to the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The purpose of the SACC is to provide independent advice and expert consultation, at the request of the EPA Administrator, with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches. The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting approximately fourteen members to serve on the Committee. Public comments on the nominees are invited, as these comments will be used to assist the Agency in selecting the new chartered Committee members.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of preliminary lists of units eligible for allocations of emission allowances under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Under the CSAPR federal implementation plans (FIPs), portions of each covered state's annual emissions budgets for each of the CSAPR emissions trading programs are reserved for allocation to electricity generating units that commenced commercial operation on or after a certain date (new units) and certain other units not otherwise obtaining allowance allocations under the FIPs. The quantities of allowances allocated to eligible units from each new unit set-aside (NUSA) under the FIPs are calculated in an annual one- or two-round allocation process. EPA previously completed the first round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods for all the CSAPR trading programs, as well as the second round of allocations for the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, and is now making available preliminary lists of units eligible for allocations in the second round of the NUSA allocation process for the CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 Trading Programs. EPA has posted spreadsheets containing the preliminary lists on EPA's Web site. EPA will consider timely objections to the lists of eligible units contained in the spreadsheets and will promulgate a document responding to any such objections no later than February 15, 2017, the deadline for recording the second- round allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances in sources' compliance accounts. This document may concern CSAPR-affected units in the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

This action proposes amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories. The proposed amendments are in response to two petitions for reconsideration filed by industry stakeholders on the rule revisions to NESHAP for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production source categories that were promulgated on August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50386) (hereafter the ``August 2015 Final Rule''). We are proposing to revise the compliance date by which affected sources must include emissions from oxidation reactors when determining compliance with the total fluoride (TF) emission limits for superphosphoric acid (SPA) process lines. We are also proposing to add a new option, and clarify an existing option, to the monitoring requirements for low- energy absorbers. In addition, we are proposing to revise the compliance date for the monitoring requirements for low-energy absorbers.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the regulations governing regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits to respond to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Environmental Defense Center, et al. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003). In that decision, the court determined that the regulations for providing coverage under small MS4 general permits did not provide for adequate public notice and opportunity to request a hearing. Additionally, the court found that EPA failed to require permitting authority review of the best management practices (BMPs) to be used at a particular MS4 to ensure that the small MS4 permittee reduces pollutants in the discharge from their systems to the ``maximum extent practicable'' (MEP), the standard established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) for such permits. The final rule establishes two alternative approaches a permitting authority can use to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) general permits for small MS4s and meet the requirements of the court remand. The first option is to establish all necessary permit terms and conditions to require the MS4 operator to reduce the discharge of pollutants from its MS4 to the MEP, to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act (``MS4 permit standard'') upfront in one comprehensive permit. The second option allows the permitting authority to establish the necessary permit terms and conditions in two steps: A first step to issue a base general permit that contains terms and conditions applicable to all small MS4s covered by the permit and a second step to establish necessary permit terms and conditions for individual MS4s that are not in the base general permit. Public notice and comment and opportunity to request a hearing would be necessary for both steps of this two-step general permit. This final rule does not establish any new substantive requirements for small MS4 permits.