[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12669-12673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05868]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408; FRL-9975-85-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for
Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone Standard
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 State of Delaware.
The Clean Air Act's (CAA) Good Neighbor Provision requires EPA and
states to address the interstate transport of air pollution that
affects the ability of downwind states to attain and maintain the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Specifically, the Good
Neighbor Provision requires each state in its SIP to prohibit emissions
that will significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in a downwind state. Delaware submitted a SIP
revision on March 23, 2013 that addresses the interstate transport
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On September 27, 2017, EPA
published a proposed rule and a direct final rule approving Delaware's
SIP in regard to the Good Neighbor Provision. However, EPA received
adverse comments on its September 27, 2017 proposed rule, and
subsequently withdrew the accompanying direct final rule. After
considering the comments, EPA is approving Delaware's SIP revision
submittal in regard to the Good Neighbor Provision for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 23, 2018.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://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
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 27, 2013, the State of Delaware
through the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control (DNREC) submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), of the
CAA as it relates to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On September 27, 2017, EPA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) (82 FR 44984) and an
accompanying direct final rule (DFR) (82 FR 44932) for the State of
Delaware, approving the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP
revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA received comments on the proposed rulemaking and the Agency
subsequently withdrew the DFR on November 20, 2017 (82 FR 55052). This
action responds to the comments received and finalizes EPA's approval
of the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP revision addressing
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
I. Background
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the levels of the primary and
secondary ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075
ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIP revisions
meeting the applicable elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2).\1\
Several of these applicable elements are delineated within section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 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 prongs within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, while section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This action addresses the
first two prongs, which are also collectively known as the Good
Neighbor Provision. Pursuant to prongs 1 and 2, a state's SIP must
contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that
will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard.'' Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA gives independent significance to
the matter of nonattainment (prong 1) and to that of maintenance (prong
2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the requirements of
section 110(a) of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure
SIPs and the elements under 110(a) are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2013, the State of Delaware through DNREC submitted a
SIP revision intended to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In this rulemaking action, EPA is
approving one portion of Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal--the
portion addressing prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA. EPA previously acted on other portions of Delaware's March 27,
2013 SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644), EPA approved portions of
Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
addressing the following: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). In
that action, EPA stated it would take later action on the portion of
the March 27, 2013 SIP submittal addressing section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To demonstrate that its SIP adequately addresses interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal
identifies measures in its approved SIP that cover stationary, mobile,
and area sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX), both of which are precursors to ozone.
Delaware's submittal identifies SIP-approved regulations that reduce
VOC and NOX emissions from a variety of stationary sources
within the State, including power plants, industrial boilers, and
peaking units. Delaware states in its submittal that its sources are
generally controlled with best available control technology (BACT) or
lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) level controls. Delaware notes
that sources are generally controlled on a unit-by-unit basis at costs
ranging from $1,300 to $11,000 per ton of NOX reduced.\3\ To
[[Page 12670]]
substantiate its control costs and feasibility claims, Delaware
includes an assessment of potential additional control measures on
mobile and stationary sources, including both electric generating unit
(EGU) and non-EGU categories. The assessment evaluates, for each source
or category, the technical and economic feasibility for additional
NOX and VOC reductions. For non-EGUs, Delaware could not
identify any cost-effective controls beyond those already required by
the SIP; estimating that at about $5,000 per ton of pollutant (VOC,
NOX) reduced, only a small amount of additional emission
reductions would be seen.\4\ In its submittal, Delaware identifies the
following Delaware regulations, which are already included in its
approved SIP: 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 (New Source Review); 7 DE Admin.
Code 1112 (NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT)); 7 DE Admin. Code 1124 (VOC RACT); 7 DE Admin. Codes 1126 and
1136 (vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) control measures). In
its submittal, Delaware concludes that it has satisfied the
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008
ozone NAAQS because its sources are already well controlled for
NOX and VOCs, and because further reductions beyond the
State's current SIP measures for NOX and VOCs are not
economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See ``Attachment A,'' State Submittal--Delaware Section
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS,
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408.
\4\ In its March 27, 2013 submittal, Delaware stated that at
about $5,000 per ton, the State could reduce NOX
emissions by about 375 tons per year (tpy) and VOCs by 255 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. EPA Analysis
A. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update
The CAA gives EPA a backstop role, as appropriate, in the event
that states fail to submit approvable SIPs. On September 8, 2016, EPA
took steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to emissions
in 22 eastern states (not including Delaware) by finalizing an update
to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ozone season program that
addresses the obligations of the Good Neighbor Provision for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504. The CSAPR Update established a federal
trading program for affected EGUs to reduce the interstate transport of
ozone pollution in the May-September ozone season in the eastern United
States, and thereby help downwind states and communities meet and
maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\5\ The CSAPR Update uses the same
framework EPA used when developing the original CSAPR, EPA's transport
rule addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. This framework establishes
the following four-step process to address the requirements of the Good
Neighbor Provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ground-level ozone is formed when VOCs and NOX
combine in the presence of sunlight. The rate of ozone production
can be limited by the availability of either VOCs or NOX.
In the case of the eastern states, ozone reduction has shown to be
more effective by reducing NOX which is why reducing
NOX emissions is the focus of both the CSAPR Update and
this rulemaking action regarding Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) identify downwind receptors that are expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the NAAQS;
(2) determine which upwind states contribute to these identified
problems in amounts sufficient to link them to the downwind air quality
problems;
(3) identify and quantify, for states linked to downwind air
quality problems, upwind emissions that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS; and
(4) reduce the identified upwind emissions for states that are
found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by adopting
permanent and enforceable measures through a SIP or by participating in
a federal trading program.
This four-step framework is informed by cost-effectiveness and
feasibility of controls, emissions, meteorology, and air quality
factors. Notably, the determination as to whether a linked state
significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the NAAQS in a downwind state is made at step 3 based on
a multi-factor evaluation of control costs, available NOX
emission reductions, and air quality improvements (including
consideration of potential over-control).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CSAPR Update final rule. 81 FR 74504, 74519 (October 26,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Assessment of Delaware in the CSAPR Update
While EPA's CSAPR Update analysis included an assessment of
Delaware, the State was not included in the final CSAPR Update federal
trading program for EGUs. Nonetheless, the CSAPR Update includes
technical information and related analysis that can assist EPA and
states with evaluating the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In the CSAPR Update, EPA found in
steps 1 and 2 of the four-step framework that Delaware is linked to a
downwind maintenance receptor in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. 81
FR 74538. Accordingly, EPA further evaluated Delaware in step 3 of the
framework to determine whether there were cost-effective NOX
emission reductions available from EGUs in the state.
In the CSAPR Update, EPA examined emission reductions available at
various levels of control stringency, represented by cost-thresholds of
$0 per ton; $800 per ton; $1,400 per ton; $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per
ton; and $6,400 per ton. This analysis accounted for existing limits on
Delaware EGUs in the State's March 27, 2013 SIP submittal. Notably, for
Delaware, EPA's assessment of EGUs' NOX reduction potential
showed no cost-effective reductions available in Delaware within the
allotted short term implementation timeframe (by 2017 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS) at every cost threshold EPA evaluated because the Delaware
EGUs are already equivalently controlled. 81 FR at 74553. In addition,
Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal evaluated sources other than EGUs
and the State could not identify any cost-efficient controls for
reducing VOCs or NOX beyond those already required by the
SIP.
C. Air Quality Assessment Tool
The emission reductions at the various levels of control stringency
analyzed by EPA could result in air quality improvements such that
individual receptors drop below the level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS based
on the cumulative air quality improvement from the states analyzed.
Therefore, in finalizing the CSAPR Update, EPA explicitly evaluated
whether the potential emission budgets evaluated for each state would
result in over-control of upwind state emissions,\7\ as required by
precedents of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit.\8\ Specifically, EPA
evaluated whether at each level of NOX emission budget, the
identified downwind ozone problems (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance
problems) are resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In this rulemaking action, the term ``over-control''
describes the possibility that a state might be compelled to reduce
emissions beyond the point at which every affected downwind state is
projected to attain and maintain the NAAQS. See EPA v. EME Homer
City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 2014; EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 127 (D.C. Cir. July 28, 2015).
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining emissions contribution to nonattainment and
maintenance receptors for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA used the Air
Quality Assessment
[[Page 12671]]
Tool (AQAT) to estimate the air quality impacts of the upwind state EGU
NOX emission budgets on downwind ozone pollution levels for
each of the assessed EGU NOX emission budget levels. EPA
assessed the magnitude of air quality improvement at each receptor at
each level of control, examined whether receptors are considered to be
resolved,\9\ and looked at the individual contributions of emissions
from each state to each of that state's linked receptors. EPA also
examined each state's air quality contributions at each potential level
of control stringency, assessing whether a state maintained at least
one linkage to a receptor that was estimated to continue to have
nonattainment or maintenance problems with the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ When the average and maximum design values of a receptor
decrease to values below 76 parts per billion (ppb) or (0.076 ppm),
the nonattainment and maintenance issues of the receptor would be
considered resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in section VI.D. in the preamble of the final CSAPR
Update and in the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Technical Support
Document (TSD) used to support the final CSAPR Update, EPA's AQAT
assessment indicates that an emissions budget reflecting $800 per ton
of NOX reduced would resolve the maintenance problem at the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania maintenance receptor (monitor ID 4210100124)
to which Delaware was linked. Thus, EPA estimated that implementation
of the CSAPR Update, along with NOX controls in Delaware's
SIP submittal, are anticipated to resolve the lone downwind receptor to
which Delaware is linked.
D. Conclusion
In conclusion, when evaluating all the available information, EPA
finds that Delaware has implemented measures that have reduced
statewide VOC and NOX emissions and that should continue to
reduce emissions within the State. The maintenance receptor that
Delaware is linked to in the CSAPR Update is projected by EPA to have
its maintenance issue resolved with CSAPR Update implementation \10\
and existing NOX controls in place in Delaware. EPA further
finds Delaware has no cost-effective EGU NOX emissions
reduction potential by 2017, beyond what is already required in
Delaware's SIP, at or below the maximum $6,400 per ton cost-threshold
evaluated in the CSAPR Update. Additionally, EPA finds that Delaware's
non-EGU sources are also well-controlled and that there is limited VOC
and NOX emissions reduction potential, beyond what it
already required in the State's SIP, at and below a $5,000 per ton
cost-threshold. Thus, EPA finds Delaware has fully satisfied its
obligation with respect to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and EPA is
approving the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP submittal
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA notes that the preliminary 2014-2016 design value for
the identified CSAPR Update Philadelphia maintenance site does not
reflect the air quality improvements anticipated as a result of the
CSAPR Update implementation because sources began compliance with
the rule in May 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
During the comment period, EPA received several anonymous comments
on the rulemaking. EPA provides responses to two of these comments,
below. All other comments received were not specific to this action and
thus are not addressed here.
Comment #1: The first commenter stated that EPA cannot rely on
federal implementation plans (FIPs) to reduce the downwind contribution
of air pollution to another state and pointed out that section
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that measures addressing interstate
transport must be approved into the State's SIP. The commenter believes
that EPA stated in its DFRN \11\ that Delaware has been shown to
significantly contribute to the Philadelphia receptor, and subsequently
the commenter states that EPA cannot approve Delaware's plan because
the necessary measures to reduce interstate transport of air pollutants
to other states cannot be met without a FIP. Further, the commenter
states that ``the fact that Delaware is included in the Federal plan
means that EPA has already determined that the state's own plan does
not meet the requirement of 110.'' The commenter asks EPA to reconsider
and disapprove Delaware's plan until ``such time as Delaware is able to
implement its own plan and that plan is approved into the SIP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ September 27, 2017 (82 FR 44932).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: As an initial matter, EPA disagrees that FIPs are an
inappropriate tool to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Pursuant to section 110(c), whenever EPA finds that
a state has failed to make a required submission or disapproves a
state's submission, the Agency has an obligation to promulgate a FIP to
address the deficiencies in a state's plan, including the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Since 2005, EPA has relied on federal
trading programs, such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), its
replacement CSAPR, and the CSAPR Update in order to reduce the downwind
contributions of air pollution to another state via the promulgation of
FIPs. In 2014, the United States Supreme Court upheld CSAPR in EPA v.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P., finding that EPA had the authority to
promulgate a FIP upon a determination that a state had failed to make
an adequate submission. 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014). Thus, EPA
disagrees with the commenter's premise that EPA cannot rely on federal
plans to reduce the downwind contribution of air pollution to another
state in addressing section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA.
Nonetheless, whether or not EPA may rely on a FIP to address the
requirements of the Good Neighbor Provision is irrelevant to EPA's
action on Delaware's SIP because its approval is not contingent on a
FIP. EPA did not promulgate a FIP for Delaware in the CSAPR Update (the
federal plan to which the commenter presumably refers). Accordingly,
contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA did not already determine in
that rulemaking that the State's submittal does not meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. Rather, EPA
explicitly stated that it would further evaluate the state's compliance
with the Good Neighbor Provision when it evaluated the State's SIP in a
separate action. See 81 FR at 74553.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that EPA stated
in its September 27, 2017 DFR that Delaware was shown to
``significantly contribute'' to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
receptor. In fact, as EPA stated in its DFR and again in this final
notice, the Agency used a four-step framework to evaluate each state in
order to determine whether the state will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of downwind air quality.
While EPA's analysis did determine that the Philadelphia monitor/
receptor was expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the
2008 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of four-step framework) and that Delaware was
linked to the downwind air of the Philadelphia receptor (step 2 of the
framework), this is not equivalent to a determination that Delaware
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance. Rather, this determination is made at step 3 of the
framework and depends on whether EGUs in the linked state have
available cost-effective NOX
[[Page 12672]]
emission reductions.\12\ As noted above, EPA determined that Delaware's
sources were already being controlled at levels equivalent to the cost-
threshold applied to linked states in the CSAPR Update, and therefore
had no cost-effective emission reductions available from EGUs in the
State. Thus, EPA did not conclude that Delaware significantly
contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance in the
CSAPR Update and did not involve the State in a FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Supreme Court held that it was a permissible
interpretation of the statute to apportion responsibility for states
linked to nonattainment receptors considering ``both the magnitude
of upwind States' contributions and the cost associated with
eliminating them.'' EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.
Ct. at 1606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter that Delaware relies on
any FIP to meet section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and the Agency thus disagrees that it should disapprove
Delaware's plan until ``such time as Delaware is able to implement its
own plan and that plan is approved into the SIP.'' EPA has discussed in
section II of this notice why EPA agrees with Delaware's determination
in its March 27, 2013 SIP revision submittal that the SIP contains the
necessary measures to address prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate
transport requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
Comment: The second commenter stated that EPA did not address a
March 28, 2017 Executive Order regarding the promotion of energy
independence and economic growth. The Executive Order required federal
agencies to review all regulations to ensure they do not impose
unnecessary burdens on the economy.
Response: The March 28, 2017 Executive Order (E.O.) \13\ pertains
to reviewing existing regulations, orders, guidance documents,
policies, and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency
action) that potentially burden the development or use of domestically
produced energy resources, with attention to oil, natural gas, coal,
and nuclear energy. EPA does not believe that EPA's regulatory action
to approve Delaware's SIP submittal is inconsistent with this E.O.
Specifically, EPA is approving Delaware's submission on the grounds
that the controls that it already imposes address interstate transport
of emissions, such that its sources do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state. In any
event, if a SIP submittal from a state meets all the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, including the required emission
limitations, then section 110(k)(3) of the CAA requires that EPA shall
approve the SIP submission. As explained in section II of this action,
the Agency finds that the Delaware SIP meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Thus, under the plain language of section 110(k)(3), EPA must
approve the SIP submission, and cannot disapprove it based on the March
28, 2017 E.O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Based on the comment, EPA assumes the E.O. in question is
E.O. 13738, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,
signed March 28, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the portion of the March 27, 2013 Delaware SIP
revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008
ozone NAAQS for the reasons discussed in this rulemaking.
On April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644), EPA finalized approval of the
following infrastructure elements or portions thereof from the March
27, 2013 submittal: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action
approves the remaining portions of the March 27, 2013 SIP revision,
which address prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA,
also known as the Good Neighbor Provision. EPA did not take action upon
these elements in the Agency's prior SIP approval action, published on
April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644).
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 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.
[[Page 12673]]
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 22, 2018. 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, addressing Delaware's interstate transport for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, 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: March 13, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting 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 I--Delaware
0
2. In Sec. 52.420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS'' after the entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' (with an EPA approval date of
4/3/2014) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of non-regulatory SIP geographic or State submittal EPA approval date Additional
revision nonattainment area date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide.......... 3/27/13 3/23/18 [Insert This action
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone Federal Register addresses CAA
NAAQS. citation]. element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-05868 Filed 3-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P