Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone Standard, 44932-44936 [2017-20598]

Download as PDF 44932 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations (3) Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event. (d) Informational broadcasts. The Captain of the Port Honolulu will establish enforcement dates and times with a Notice of Enforcement. If circumstances render enforcement of the regulated area unnecessary for the entirety of these periods, the Captain of the Port or his designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners that the regulated area is no longer being enforced. The harbor will remain closed until the Coast Guard issues an ‘‘All Clear’’ for the harbor after the race has concluded and the harbor is deemed safe for normal operations. (e) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule may be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1233. Dated: September 21, 2017. M.C. Long, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu. [FR Doc. 2017–20664 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0408; FRL–9968–20– Region 3] Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone Standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a portion of 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 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 downwind state. Delaware has submitted a SIP revision that addresses the interstate transport requirements, among other things, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA has determined that Delaware’s SIP has adequate provisions to prohibit the state from significantly contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA is approving Delaware’s SIP revision submittal in regards to the good neighbor interstate transport provision in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. DATES: This rule is effective on December 26, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 27, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– OAR–2013–0408 at https:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to stahl.cynthia@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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 other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i), of the CAA as it relates to 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 direct final action addresses the first two prongs, which are also collectively known as the good neighbor provision. According to the CAA’s good neighbor provision located within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 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 ‘‘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). II. Summary of SIP Revision On March 27, 2013, the State of Delaware through DNREC provided a SIP revision submittal to satisfy 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 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. 2 On April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644), EPA approved portions of Delaware’s March 27, 2013 submittal for E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM 27SER1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES In order 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 SIPapproved regulations that reduce VOCs 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-byunit basis at a cost of $1,300 to $11,000 per ton of NOX reduced.3 To 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 nonEGU 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 efficient 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 air 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 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. 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 VOCs, and because further reductions beyond the State’s current SIP measures for NOX and VOCs are not economically feasible. III. EPA Analysis A. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule The CAA gives EPA a backstop role to issue federal implementation plans (FIPs), 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 good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504. This CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets for certain affected EGUs in the May-September ozone season to reduce the interstate transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and thereby help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5 The CSAPR Update, which specifically focuses on reducing EGU NOX emissions, includes technical information and related analysis to assist states with meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 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. The CSAPR framework establishes the following four-step process to address the requirements of the good neighbor provision: (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 6 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 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 today’s rulemaking action regarding Delaware. 6 In this rulemaking action, the terms ‘‘link,’’ ‘‘linked,’’ or ‘‘linkage’’ indicate an association or relationship between two entities and should not be construed as there being any type of physical connection. PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 44933 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 in a FIP or SIP.This four-step framework is informed by cost-effectiveness and feasibility of controls, emissions, meteorology, and air quality factors. In the CSAPR Update, EPA used this fourstep framework to determine each linked upwind state’s significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of downwind air quality. B. EPA’s Assessment of Delaware While EPA’s CSAPR Update analysis included an assessment of Delaware, the State was not included in the final CSAPR Update FIPs. In the CSAPR Update, EPA found that steps 1 and 2 of the CSAPR framework linked Delaware to a downwind maintenance receptor in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. EPA applied step 3 of the CSAPR framework to establish EGU NOX emission budgets that reflect NOX reductions necessary to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.7 For this analysis, EPA applied a multi-factor evaluation of cost, NOX reductions, and air quality improvements. As part of this analysis, EPA explicitly evaluated whether the budget quantified for each state would result in over-control,8 as required by precedents of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit.9 Specifically, EPA evaluated whether at each level of NOX emission budget, the identified downwind ozone problems (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance problems) are resolved or the upwind contribution from any linked state dropped below the 1% screening threshold used to link the state. This multi-factor evaluation of cost, NOX reductions, and air quality improvements (including consideration 7 Due to the State’s sources already being equivalently controlled, EPA’s assessment shows no cost effective EGU NOX reduction potential available in Delaware by the 2017 ozone season, the implementation date for the CSAPR Update. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). 8 In this rulemaking action, the term ‘‘overcontrol’’ describes the possibility that a state might be compelled to reduce emissions beyond the point at which every affected downwind state is in attainment. 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). 9 Id. E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM 27SER1 44934 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations of potential over-control) resulted in EPA’s quantification of upwind emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind.10 C. Air Quality Assessment Tool The emission reductions under the various levels of emission budgets analyzed by EPA can 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. In examining emissions contribution to nonattainment and maintenance receptors for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA used the Air Quality Assessment 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 solved,11 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 emission budget level, 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. D. Conclusion asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES EPA examined emission budget levels of: $0 per ton; $800 per ton; $1,400 per ton; $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; and $6,400 per ton.12 13 This analysis 10 CSAPR Update final rule. 81 FR 74504, 74519 (October 26, 2016). 11 When the average and maximum design values of a receptor decreases to values below 76 parts per billion (ppb) or (0.076 ppm), the nonattainment and maintenance issues of the receptor would be considered solved. 12 Due to the close timing of Pennsylvania finalizing its May 2016 regulation ‘‘Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs,’’ also known as RACT II, to the publication of the CSAPR Update, EPA was not able to factor expected emission limits from RACT II directly into the previously concluded modeling for CSAPR Update when all of the other relevant in-place state and national rules were incorporated. EPA therefore conducted a separate analysis in order to incorporate the impacts of the new PA RACT emission limits in addition to the already incorporated national and state rules. The total results were incorporated into the Agency’s assessment at each emission budget level (e.g. $0/ ton through $6,400/ton) and at each stage of the rulemaking analysis. See ‘‘Pennsylvania RACT Memo to the Docket,’’ Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2015–0500 for a more detailed discussion. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 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. 81 FR at 74553 (EPA’s assessment of EGU NOX reduction potential shows no cost effective reductions available in Delaware in 2017 at any evaluated cost threshold because they are already equivalently controlled). Further, EPA estimated that implementation of the CSAPR Update along with NOX controls in Delaware’s approved SIP are anticipated to resolve the lone downwind maintenance receptor to which Delaware is linked.14 EPA evaluated EGU NOX reduction potential under the CSAPR Update and the assessment showed that there was no cost effective EGU NOX reduction potential within Delaware at any evaluated cost threshold because the Delaware EGUs are already equivalently controlled.15 In Delaware’s March 27, 2013 submittal, in addition to EGUs, Delaware 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. 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 16 and existing NOX controls in place in Delaware. EPA finds Delaware has no cost effective EGU NOX emissions reduction 13 Pennsylvania’s RACT II provisions are part of Pennsylvania’s strategy to meet its RACT obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet taken rulemaking action on Pennsylvania’s RACT II. 14 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). 15 See 81 FR at 74553. 16 EPA notes that the preliminary 2014–2016 design value for the identified CSAPR Update Philadelphia maintenance site does not reflect the air quality results as a result of the CSAPR Update implementation because sources began compliance with the rule in May 1, 2017. PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 potential, beyond what is already required in Delaware’s SIP, at or below a $6,400 per ton threshold used in the CSAPR Update determinations by 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds that Delaware’s non-EGU sources are also wellcontrolled and that there is limited VOC and NOX emissions reduction potential, beyond what it already required in the State’s SIP, at and below the $5,000 per ton 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 we are 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. 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) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of the CAA 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 our prior SIP approval action, published on April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644). EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this issue of the Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on December 26, 2017 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 27, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM 27SER1 44935 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 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); • 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 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES Name of non-regulatory SIP revision * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. * VerDate Sep<11>2014 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. 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 November 27, 2017. 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 Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date * * Statewide .................... * 18:16 Sep 26, 2017 3/27/13 * Jkt 241001 PO 00000 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: September 11, 2017. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart I—Delaware 2. In § 52.420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a second entry for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, immediately after the first entry titled ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS’’ to read as follows: ■ § 52.420 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * EPA approval date Fmt 4700 * This action addresses 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). * Sfmt 4700 * Additional explanation * * 9/27/17, [insert Federal Register citation]. * Frm 00057 shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this issue of the Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking 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).) E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM * 27SER1 * CAA element * 44936 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations * * * * * [FR Doc. 2017–20598 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0878; FRL–9966–67] Fluazifop-P-Butyl; Pesticide Tolerances Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of fluazifop-pbutyl in or multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective September 27, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 27, 2017, 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–2014–0878, 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 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: Michael Goodis, 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: asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES SUMMARY: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 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 EPA’s tolerance regulations at 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. How 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–2014–0878 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 before November 27, 2017. 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– 2014–0878, 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. PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 • 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. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance In the Federal Register of April 6, 2015 (80 FR 18327) (FRL–9924–00), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4E8328) by IR–4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide fluazifop-pbutyl in or on the raw agricultural commodities lettuce, head and leaf at 5.0 parts per million (ppm); strawberry at 3.0 ppm; onion, green at 1.5 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13–07A at 0.05 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13–07B at 0.3 ppm; tuberous and corm vegetables (except for potato) subgroup 1D at 1.5 ppm; small fruit vine climbing, except for fuzzy kiwifruit subgroup 13–07F at 0.03 ppm; and onion, bulb subgroup 3– 07A at 0.5 ppm as well as tolerances with regional registration for grass hay at 15 ppm; and grass forage at 4.0 ppm. Upon the approval of the aforementioned tolerances, IR–4 requested removal of the existing tolerances for grape at 0.01 ppm; onion, bulb at 0.5 ppm; and sweet potato, roots at 0.05 ppm; and also requested amend the existing tolerance for rhubarb from 0.5 ppm to 0.4 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for some commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM 27SER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44932-44936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20598]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0408; FRL-9968-20-Region 3]


Air Plan Approval; Delaware; State Implementation Plan for 
Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct 
final action to approve a portion of 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 has submitted a SIP revision that 
addresses the interstate transport requirements, among other things, 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA has determined that Delaware's SIP has 
adequate provisions to prohibit the state from significantly 
contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA is approving Delaware's SIP 
revision submittal in regards to the good neighbor interstate transport 
provision in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 26, 2017 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 27, 
2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform 
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2013-0408 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
stahl.cynthia@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, 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 other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by 
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.

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), of the 
CAA as it relates to 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 direct final action 
addresses the first two prongs, which are also collectively known as 
the good neighbor provision. According to the CAA's good neighbor 
provision located within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 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 
``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On March 27, 2013, the State of Delaware through DNREC provided a 
SIP revision submittal to satisfy 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.

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

[[Page 44933]]

    In order 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 VOCs 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 a cost of $1,300 to $11,000 per ton of 
NOX reduced.\3\ To 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 efficient 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 air 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Analysis

A. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

    The CAA gives EPA a backstop role to issue federal implementation 
plans (FIPs), 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 good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 
74504. This CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets 
for certain affected EGUs in the May-September ozone season to reduce 
the interstate transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United 
States, and thereby help downwind states and communities meet and 
maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\5\ The CSAPR Update, which specifically 
focuses on reducing EGU NOX emissions, includes technical 
information and related analysis to assist states with meeting the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. 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. The CSAPR 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 
today's 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 \6\ them to the downwind air 
quality problems;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In this rulemaking action, the terms ``link,'' ``linked,'' 
or ``linkage'' indicate an association or relationship between two 
entities and should not be construed as there being any type of 
physical connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 in a FIP or SIP.This four-step 
framework is informed by cost-effectiveness and feasibility of 
controls, emissions, meteorology, and air quality factors. In the CSAPR 
Update, EPA used this four-step framework to determine each linked 
upwind state's significant contribution to nonattainment or 
interference with maintenance of downwind air quality.

B. EPA's Assessment of Delaware

    While EPA's CSAPR Update analysis included an assessment of 
Delaware, the State was not included in the final CSAPR Update FIPs. In 
the CSAPR Update, EPA found that steps 1 and 2 of the CSAPR framework 
linked Delaware to a downwind maintenance receptor in Philadelphia 
County, Pennsylvania. EPA applied step 3 of the CSAPR framework to 
establish EGU NOX emission budgets that reflect 
NOX reductions necessary to reduce interstate ozone 
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Due to the State's sources already being equivalently 
controlled, EPA's assessment shows no cost effective EGU 
NOX reduction potential available in Delaware by the 2017 
ozone season, the implementation date for the CSAPR Update. 81 FR 
74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this analysis, EPA applied a multi-factor evaluation of cost, 
NOX reductions, and air quality improvements. As part of 
this analysis, EPA explicitly evaluated whether the budget quantified 
for each state would result in over-control,\8\ as required by 
precedents of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit.\9\ Specifically, EPA 
evaluated whether at each level of NOX emission budget, the 
identified downwind ozone problems (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance 
problems) are resolved or the upwind contribution from any linked state 
dropped below the 1% screening threshold used to link the state. This 
multi-factor evaluation of cost, NOX reductions, and air 
quality improvements (including consideration

[[Page 44934]]

of potential over-control) resulted in EPA's quantification of upwind 
emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 
in attainment. 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).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ CSAPR Update final rule. 81 FR 74504, 74519 (October 26, 
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Air Quality Assessment Tool

    The emission reductions under the various levels of emission 
budgets analyzed by EPA can 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. In examining emissions contribution to nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA used the Air 
Quality Assessment 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 solved,\11\ 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 
emission budget level, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ When the average and maximum design values of a receptor 
decreases to values below 76 parts per billion (ppb) or (0.076 ppm), 
the nonattainment and maintenance issues of the receptor would be 
considered solved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Conclusion

    EPA examined emission budget levels of: $0 per ton; $800 per ton; 
$1,400 per ton; $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; and $6,400 per ton.\12\ 
\13\ 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. 81 FR at 74553 (EPA's assessment of 
EGU NOX reduction potential shows no cost effective 
reductions available in Delaware in 2017 at any evaluated cost 
threshold because they are already equivalently controlled). Further, 
EPA estimated that implementation of the CSAPR Update along with 
NOX controls in Delaware's approved SIP are anticipated to 
resolve the lone downwind maintenance receptor to which Delaware is 
linked.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Due to the close timing of Pennsylvania finalizing its May 
2016 regulation ``Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of 
NOX and VOCs,'' also known as RACT II, to the publication 
of the CSAPR Update, EPA was not able to factor expected emission 
limits from RACT II directly into the previously concluded modeling 
for CSAPR Update when all of the other relevant in-place state and 
national rules were incorporated. EPA therefore conducted a separate 
analysis in order to incorporate the impacts of the new PA RACT 
emission limits in addition to the already incorporated national and 
state rules. The total results were incorporated into the Agency's 
assessment at each emission budget level (e.g. $0/ton through 
$6,400/ton) and at each stage of the rulemaking analysis. See 
``Pennsylvania RACT Memo to the Docket,'' Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0500 for a more detailed discussion.
    \13\ Pennsylvania's RACT II provisions are part of 
Pennsylvania's strategy to meet its RACT obligations for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet taken rulemaking action on 
Pennsylvania's RACT II.
    \14\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA evaluated EGU NOX reduction potential under the 
CSAPR Update and the assessment showed that there was no cost effective 
EGU NOX reduction potential within Delaware at any evaluated 
cost threshold because the Delaware EGUs are already equivalently 
controlled.\15\ In Delaware's March 27, 2013 submittal, in addition to 
EGUs, Delaware 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 81 FR at 74553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \16\ 
and existing NOX controls in place in Delaware. EPA finds 
Delaware has no cost effective EGU NOX emissions reduction 
potential, beyond what is already required in Delaware's SIP, at or 
below a $6,400 per ton threshold used in the CSAPR Update 
determinations by 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 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 the 
$5,000 per ton 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 we are 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA notes that the preliminary 2014-2016 design value for 
the identified CSAPR Update Philadelphia maintenance site does not 
reflect the air quality results as a result of the CSAPR Update 
implementation because sources began compliance with the rule in May 
1, 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) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 
accordance with section 110 of the CAA 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 our prior SIP approval action, published on April 3, 
2014 (79 FR 18644).
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA 
views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse 
comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this issue of 
the Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments 
are filed. This rule will be effective on December 26, 2017 without 
further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 27, 2017. 
If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal 
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not 
take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final 
rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting 
must do so at this time.

[[Page 44935]]

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);
     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. 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 November 27, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are 
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of 
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules 
section of this issue of the Federal Register, rather than file an 
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so 
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in 
the proposed rulemaking 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: September 11, 2017.
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 a 
second entry for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 
2008 Ozone NAAQS, immediately after the first entry titled ``Section 
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable geographic or nonattainment       State
  Name of non-regulatory SIP revision                    area                   submittal date      EPA approval date          Additional explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure        Statewide.............................         3/27/13  9/27/17, [insert Federal   This action addresses CAA
 Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.                                                          Register citation].        element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 44936]]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2017-20598 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.