Finding of Failure To Submit a State Implementation Plan; Maryland; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 47040-47042 [2016-17057]
Download as PDF
47040
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marilyn Powers, (215) 814–2308, or by
email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2016–16941 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0270; FRL–9949–34–
Region 3]
Finding of Failure To Submit a State
Implementation Plan; Maryland;
Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2008 8-Hour National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action
finding that Maryland has failed to
submit an infrastructure state
implementation plan (SIP) to satisfy
certain interstate transport requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect
to the 2008 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
Specifically, these requirements pertain
to the obligation to prohibit emissions
which significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in other states. This finding of
failure to submit establishes a 2-year
deadline for EPA to promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) to
address the interstate transport SIP
requirements pertaining to significant
contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in other states
unless, prior to EPA promulgating a FIP,
the state submits, and EPA approves, a
SIP that meets these requirements.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
August 19, 2016.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0270. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the electronic docket,
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 through www.regulations.gov
or may be viewed during normal
business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:53 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
Notice and Comment Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an
agency for good cause finds that notice
and public procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest, the agency may issue a rule
without providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment. EPA
has determined that there is good cause
for making this final agency action
without prior proposal and opportunity
for comment because no significant EPA
judgment is involved in making a
finding of failure to submit SIPs, or
elements of SIPs, required by the CAA,
where states have made no submissions,
or incomplete submissions, to meet the
requirement. Thus, notice and public
procedures are unnecessary. EPA finds
that this constitutes good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
I. Background and Overview
A. Interstate Transport SIPs
CAA section 110(a) imposes an
obligation upon states to submit SIPs
that provide for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of a new
or revised NAAQS within 3 years
following the promulgation of that
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
requirements that states must meet in
these SIP submissions, as applicable.
EPA refers to this type of SIP
submission as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP
because it ensures that states can
implement, maintain and enforce the air
standards. Within these requirements,
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains
requirements to address interstate
transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP
revision submitted for this sub-section
is referred to as an ‘‘interstate transport
SIP.’’ In turn, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requires that such a plan contain
adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions from the state that will
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state (prong 1) or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state (prong 2). Interstate transport
prongs 1 and 2, also called the ‘‘good
neighbor’’ provisions, are the
requirements relevant to this findings
document.
Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B),
EPA must determine no later than 6
months after the date by which a state
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
is required to submit a SIP whether a
state has made a submission that meets
the minimum completeness criteria
established per section 110(k)(1)(A).
EPA refers to the determination that a
state has not submitted a SIP that meets
the minimum completeness criteria as a
‘‘finding of failure to submit.’’ If EPA
finds a state has failed to submit a SIP
to meet its statutory obligation to
address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), pursuant to
section 110(c)(1) EPA has not only the
authority, but the obligation, to
promulgate a FIP within 2 years to
address the CAA requirement. This
finding therefore starts a 2-year clock for
promulgation by EPA of a FIP, in
accordance with CAA section 110(c)(1),
unless prior to such promulgation the
state submits, and EPA approves, a
submittal from the state to meet the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA notes this action
does not start a mandatory sanctions
clock pursuant to CAA section 179
because this finding of failure to submit
does not pertain to a part D plan for
nonattainment areas required under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).
B. Finding of Failure To Submit for
States That Did Not Submit a SIP
On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened
the NAAQS for ozone. EPA revised the
8-hour primary ozone standard from
0.08 parts per millions (ppm) to 0.075
ppm. EPA also revised the secondary 8hour standard to the level of 0.075 ppm
making it identical to the revised
primary standard. Infrastructure SIPs
addressing the revised standard,
including the interstate transport
requirements, were due March 12, 2011.
On December 27, 2012, Maryland
submitted an infrastructure SIP for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA determined
the December 27, 2012 SIP submittal as
complete on January 2, 2013. On May 2,
2014, EPA proposed approval of
Maryland’s infrastructure SIP submittal
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, but did not
propose to take action on the portion of
the submittal related to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), stating that EPA would
take separate action on this part of the
submittal. See 79 FR 25054.
On July 13, 2015, EPA published a
rule finding that 24 states failed to
submit complete SIPs that addressed the
‘‘good neighbor’’ provision for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July
13, 2015).1 The finding action triggered
a 2-year clock for the EPA to issue FIPs
to address the ‘‘good neighbor’’
1 This finding is included in the docket for this
action and available online at www.regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
requirements for those states by August
12, 2017. Prior to issuance of the finding
action, Maryland made a submission
addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on
December 27, 2012, therefore, the state
was not included in EPA’s July 2015
finding notice. Following Maryland’s
submittal of its infrastructure SIP and
EPA’s July 2015 finding notice, EPA
proposed a rule on November 16, 2015 2
to address the ‘‘good neighbor’’
requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The rule proposed to
promulgate FIPs in 23 eastern states,
including Maryland, to reduce interstate
ozone transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA proposed to issue FIPs
only for those states that either failed to
submit a SIP or for which the EPA
disapproved the state’s SIP addressing
the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision by the
date the rule was finalized. EPA expects
to finalize the rule and respective FIPs,
as applicable, later this year.
On April 20, 2016, EPA received a
letter, dated April 12, 2016,3 from the
Maryland Department of the
Environment acknowledging that the
transport component of the December
27, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal
needed to be updated with additional
control measures and withdrawing from
EPA’s consideration the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Maryland’s
infrastructure SIP submittal dated
December 27, 2012. The letter also states
that Maryland plans to submit to EPA
an updated good neighbor SIP in the
future.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Final Action
With the withdrawal of the good
neighbor portion of the December 27,
2012 infrastructure SIP submittal,
Maryland has not submitted to EPA a
SIP to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA is therefore finding that
Maryland has failed to submit a
complete good neighbor SIP to meet the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. This finding starts a 2-year
clock for promulgation by EPA of a FIP
after the effective date of this final rule,
in accordance with section 110(c)(1),
unless prior to such promulgation that
Maryland submits, and EPA approves, a
submittal that meets the requirements of
2 See ‘‘Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS; Proposed Rules,’’ 80 FR
75706 (December 3, 2015).
3 Maryland’s April 12, 2012 letter inadvertently
referred to an incorrect submittal date of December
31, 2012. The only infrastructure SIP submission
from Maryland addressing section 110(a)(2) for the
2008 ozone NAAQS is the December 27, 2012
submittal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:53 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This
finding of failure to submit does not
impose sanctions, and does not set
deadlines for imposing sanctions as
described in section 179, because it does
not pertain to the elements of a CAA
title I, part D plan for nonattainment
areas as required under section
110(a)(2)(I), and because this action is
not a SIP call pursuant to section
110(k)(5).
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This final
rule does not establish any new
information collection requirement
apart from what is already required by
law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
This action is not subject to the RFA.
The RFA applies only to rules subject to
notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or
any other statute. This rule is not
subject to notice and comment
requirements because the agency has
invoked the APA ‘‘good cause’’
exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action implements
mandates specifically and explicitly set
forth in the CAA under section 110(a)
without the exercise of any policy
discretion by the EPA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47041
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. This rule responds to the
requirement in the CAA for states to
submit SIPs under section 110(a) to
address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. No tribe is
subject to the requirement to submit an
implementation plan under section
110(a) within 3 years of promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
EPA will submit a rule report to each
House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
K. 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 September 19, 2016. 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.
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
47042
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
This action finding that Maryland has
failed to submit a CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(I)(I) SIP 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone.
Dated: July 8, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2016–17057 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
I. General Information
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0149; FRL–9948–64]
2-Propenoic Acid, Butyl Ester, Polymer
With Ethenyl Acetate and Sodium
Ethenesulfonate; Tolerance Exemption
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic
acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl
acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate
(CAS Reg. No. 66573–43–1) when used
as an inert ingredient in a pesticide
chemical formulation. Celanese Ltd
submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), requesting an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl
ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and
sodium ethenesulfonate on food or feed
commodities.
DATES: This regulation is effective July
20, 2016. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
September 19, 2016, and must be filed
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0149, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:53 Jul 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s e-CFR site at https://
www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
C. Can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2016–0149 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
before September 19, 2016. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2016–0149, by one of the following
methods.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of April 25,
2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL–9944–86),
EPA issued a document pursuant to
FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the receipt of a pesticide
petition (PP IN–10900) filed by Celanese
Ltd, 222 W Las Colinas Blvd., Suite
900N, Irving, TX 75039. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be
amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl
ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and
sodium ethenesulfonate (CAS No.
66573–43–1). That document included a
summary of the petition prepared by the
petitioner and solicited comments on
the petitioner’s request. The Agency did
not receive any comments.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish an exemption
from the requirement for a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM
20JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47040-47042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17057]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0270; FRL-9949-34-Region 3]
Finding of Failure To Submit a State Implementation Plan;
Maryland; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action finding that Maryland has failed to submit an infrastructure
state implementation plan (SIP) to satisfy certain interstate transport
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect to the 2008 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically,
these requirements pertain to the obligation to prohibit emissions
which significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. This
finding of failure to submit establishes a 2-year deadline for EPA to
promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to address the
interstate transport SIP requirements pertaining to significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in other states unless, prior to EPA promulgating a
FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that meets these
requirements.
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 19, 2016.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0270. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, 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 through www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by
email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when
an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the
agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making
this final agency action without prior proposal and opportunity for
comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a
finding of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the
CAA, where states have made no submissions, or incomplete submissions,
to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedures are
unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).
I. Background and Overview
A. Interstate Transport SIPs
CAA section 110(a) imposes an obligation upon states to submit SIPs
that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a
new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of that
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states must
meet in these SIP submissions, as applicable. EPA refers to this type
of SIP submission as the ``infrastructure'' SIP because it ensures that
states can implement, maintain and enforce the air standards. Within
these requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains requirements to
address interstate transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP revision
submitted for this sub-section is referred to as an ``interstate
transport SIP.'' In turn, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that such
a plan contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from the state
that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state (prong 1) or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any
other state (prong 2). Interstate transport prongs 1 and 2, also called
the ``good neighbor'' provisions, are the requirements relevant to this
findings document.
Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), EPA must determine no later
than 6 months after the date by which a state is required to submit a
SIP whether a state has made a submission that meets the minimum
completeness criteria established per section 110(k)(1)(A). EPA refers
to the determination that a state has not submitted a SIP that meets
the minimum completeness criteria as a ``finding of failure to
submit.'' If EPA finds a state has failed to submit a SIP to meet its
statutory obligation to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), pursuant to section
110(c)(1) EPA has not only the authority, but the obligation, to
promulgate a FIP within 2 years to address the CAA requirement. This
finding therefore starts a 2-year clock for promulgation by EPA of a
FIP, in accordance with CAA section 110(c)(1), unless prior to such
promulgation the state submits, and EPA approves, a submittal from the
state to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA notes this action does not start a
mandatory sanctions clock pursuant to CAA section 179 because this
finding of failure to submit does not pertain to a part D plan for
nonattainment areas required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP
call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).
B. Finding of Failure To Submit for States That Did Not Submit a SIP
On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ozone. EPA
revised the 8-hour primary ozone standard from 0.08 parts per millions
(ppm) to 0.075 ppm. EPA also revised the secondary 8-hour standard to
the level of 0.075 ppm making it identical to the revised primary
standard. Infrastructure SIPs addressing the revised standard,
including the interstate transport requirements, were due March 12,
2011.
On December 27, 2012, Maryland submitted an infrastructure SIP for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA determined the December 27, 2012 SIP
submittal as complete on January 2, 2013. On May 2, 2014, EPA proposed
approval of Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, but did not propose to take action on the portion of the
submittal related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), stating that EPA would
take separate action on this part of the submittal. See 79 FR 25054.
On July 13, 2015, EPA published a rule finding that 24 states
failed to submit complete SIPs that addressed the ``good neighbor''
provision for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015).\1\
The finding action triggered a 2-year clock for the EPA to issue FIPs
to address the ``good neighbor''
[[Page 47041]]
requirements for those states by August 12, 2017. Prior to issuance of
the finding action, Maryland made a submission addressing the ``good
neighbor'' provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 27, 2012,
therefore, the state was not included in EPA's July 2015 finding
notice. Following Maryland's submittal of its infrastructure SIP and
EPA's July 2015 finding notice, EPA proposed a rule on November 16,
2015 \2\ to address the ``good neighbor'' requirements for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The rule proposed to promulgate FIPs in 23 eastern states,
including Maryland, to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. EPA proposed to issue FIPs only for those states that
either failed to submit a SIP or for which the EPA disapproved the
state's SIP addressing the ``good neighbor'' provision by the date the
rule was finalized. EPA expects to finalize the rule and respective
FIPs, as applicable, later this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This finding is included in the docket for this action and
available online at www.regulations.gov.
\2\ See ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS; Proposed Rules,'' 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2016, EPA received a letter, dated April 12, 2016,\3\
from the Maryland Department of the Environment acknowledging that the
transport component of the December 27, 2012 infrastructure SIP
submittal needed to be updated with additional control measures and
withdrawing from EPA's consideration the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
portion of Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal dated December 27,
2012. The letter also states that Maryland plans to submit to EPA an
updated good neighbor SIP in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Maryland's April 12, 2012 letter inadvertently referred to
an incorrect submittal date of December 31, 2012. The only
infrastructure SIP submission from Maryland addressing section
110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is the December 27, 2012
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Final Action
With the withdrawal of the good neighbor portion of the December
27, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal, Maryland has not submitted to
EPA a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA is therefore finding that Maryland has failed to submit a
complete good neighbor SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This finding starts a 2-
year clock for promulgation by EPA of a FIP after the effective date of
this final rule, in accordance with section 110(c)(1), unless prior to
such promulgation that Maryland submits, and EPA approves, a submittal
that meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This
finding of failure to submit does not impose sanctions, and does not
set deadlines for imposing sanctions as described in section 179,
because it does not pertain to the elements of a CAA title I, part D
plan for nonattainment areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I),
and because this action is not a SIP call pursuant to section
110(k)(5).
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This final rule does not establish any new information collection
requirement apart from what is already required by law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to
rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute.
This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the
agency has invoked the APA ``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C.
553(b).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and
explicitly set forth in the CAA under section 110(a) without the
exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule responds to the requirement in the CAA
for states to submit SIPs under section 110(a) to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the
requirement to submit an implementation plan under section 110(a)
within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
K. 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 September 19, 2016. 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.
[[Page 47042]]
This action finding that Maryland has failed to submit a CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(I)(I) SIP 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone.
Dated: July 8, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2016-17057 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P