39892 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 6, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 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 H—Connecticut 

■ 2. Section 52.377 is amended by 

adding paragraph(s) to read as follows: 

§ 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(s) Approval—An attainment 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard to satisfy requirements 

of section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air 

Act, and a Reasonably Available Control 

Measure (RACM) analysis to satisfy 

requirements of section 172(c)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act for the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island (NYNJ-CT) ozone nonattainment area, 

submitted by the Connecticut 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection. This 

rulemaking addresses the EPA’s 

obligations to act on Connecticut’s 

February 1, 2008 SIP revision for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, as well as the 

attainment demonstration and RACM 

analysis portion of the August 8, 2017 

SIP submittal for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS for the Connecticut portion of 

the NY-NJ-CT area. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17245 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2018–0269; FRL–9981–93– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Maine; 

Infrastructure Requirement for the 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Maine. This 

revision addresses the interstate 

transport requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) with respect to the 2010 

primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This action approves Maine’s 

demonstration that the State is meeting 

its obligations regarding the interstate 

transport of NO2 emissions into other 

states. This action is being taken under 

the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 12, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2018–0269. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 at https://

www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Region 1 Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Bird, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 

100 (Mail Code OEP 05–2), Boston, MA 

01209–3912, tel. (617) 918–1287, email 

bird.patrick@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On May 25, 2018 (83 FR 24264), EPA 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding specific 

Clean Air Act requirements applicable 

to the State of Maine. In particular, the 

NPRM proposed approval of Maine’s 

February 21, 2018, SIP submittal for the 

2010 primary NO2 NAAQS as it pertains 

to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires a 

state’s SIP to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

that will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in another 

state. The two clauses of this section are 

referred to as prong 1 (significant 

contribution to nonattainment) and 

prong 2 (interference with maintenance 

of the NAAQS). 

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to 

approve Maine’s February 21, 2018, 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 

primary NO2 NAAQS, concluding 

Maine’s SIP submittal adequately 

addresses prong 1 and prong 2 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 primary 

NO2 NAAQS. The rationale for EPA’s 

proposed action is explained in the 

NPRM and will not be restated here. 

II. Response to Comments 

In response to the May 25, 2018 

NPRM, we received a number of 

anonymous comments that address 

subjects outside the scope of our 

proposed action, do not explain (or 

provide a legal basis for) how the 

proposed action should differ in any 

way, and make no specific mention of 

the proposed action. Consequently, 

those comments are not germane to this 

rulemaking and require no further 

response. 

EPA received one relevant comment 

that referred specifically to the proposed 

rulemaking on the Maine’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 

primary NO2 NAAQS. 

Comment: The commenter suggests 

that, under the Plain Writing Act of 

2010, EPA should not have used the 

word ‘‘promulgated’’ in the NPRM for 

this action. 

Response: The Plain Writing Act of 

2010 (‘‘PWA’’ or the ‘‘Act’’), Public Law 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39893 

1OMB, Final Guidance on Implementing the 

Plain Writing Act of 2010 (April 13, 2011), available 

at https://plainlanguage.gov/law/. 

111–274, 124 Stat. 2861, requires EPA to 

‘‘use plain writing in every covered 

document of the agency that the agency 

issues or substantially revises.’’ See 

PWA section 4(b). The Act defines 

‘‘plain writing’’ as ‘‘writing that is clear, 

concise, well-organized, and follows 

other best practices appropriate to the 

subject or field and intended audience.’’ 

See PWA section 3(3). The Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) 

published guidance 1 on the Act that 

encourages agencies to follow Federal 

Plain Language Guidelines available at 

www.plainlanguage.gov that 

recommend agencies avoid certain 

words, including ‘‘promulgate.’’ Neither 

the PWA nor the guidelines, however, 

bar its use. 

In the NPRM, EPA used forms of 

‘‘promulgate’’ twice as follows: ‘‘[o]n 

February 9, 2010, EPA promulgated a 

new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at 

a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), 

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 1- 

hour daily maximum concentrations’’ 

and ‘‘states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS’’ (emphasis added). The Clean 

Air Act specifically requires EPA to 

‘‘promulgate’’ NAAQS, CAA section 

109(a)(1)(B), and requires states to 

submit infrastructure SIPs to EPA 

within three years after the 

‘‘promulgation’’ of a NAAQS, CAA 

section 110(a)(1). EPA agrees that it can 

sometimes be clearer to avoid words 

like ‘‘promulgate,’’ but EPA 

appropriately used ‘‘promulgated’’ and 

‘‘promulgation’’ in the NPR to refer 

specifically to these formal CAA 

requirements. In any event, the 

comment does not suggest that the 

commenter misunderstood EPA’s 

proposed action due to the use of these 

words. See PWA section 2. Nor does the 

commenter state that EPA should 

disapprove Maine’s submittal. 

Therefore, we are approving the SIP 

submittal as proposed. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Maine’s February 

21, 2018, SIP revision addressing prongs 

1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2010 primary NO2 NAAQS. EPA 

is taking final action to approve this SIP 

submittal because Maine’s SIP includes 

adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions sources within the State from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of this standard in any 

other state. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 

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); 

• This action is not an Executive 

Order 13771 regulatory action because 

this action is not significant under 

Executive Order 12866. 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 12, 2018. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 6, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39894 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Subpart U—Maine 

■ 2. Section 52.1020(e) is amended by 

adding an entry titled ‘‘Interstate 

Transport SIP to meet Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS’’ at the end of the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) Nonregulatory. 

MAINE NON REGULATORY

Name of non regulatory SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approved date 3 Explanations 

*******

Interstate Transport SIP to meet Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

Statewide ............ 2/21/2018 8/13/2018, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

This approval addresses Prongs 1 

and 2 of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only. 

3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17248 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2012–0013; 

4500030115] 

RIN 1018–BC79 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing the Hyacinth 

Macaw 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, determine threatened 

species status under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, 

for the hyacinth macaw 

(Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), a 

species that occurs almost exclusively 

in Brazil and marginally in Bolivia and 

Paraguay. This rule adds this species to 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. We are also establishing a rule 

pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act to 

further provide for the conservation of 

the hyacinth macaw. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

12, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this rule, are available for public 

inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R9–ES–2012–0013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Morgan, Chief, Division of Delisting and 

Foreign Species, Ecological Services 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES, Falls 

Church, VA 22041; telephone 703–358– 

2444. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Endangered Species Act (Act), a 

species may warrant protection through 

listing if it is found to be an endangered 

or threatened species. Listing a species 

as an endangered or threatened species 

can only be completed by issuing a rule. 

On July 6, 2012, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) published in 

the Federal Register (FR) a 12-month 

finding and proposed rule to list the 

hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus 

hyacinthinus) as an endangered species 

under the Act (77 FR 39965). On 

November 28, 2016, the Service 

published a revised proposed rule to list 

the hyacinth macaw as a threatened 

species (81 FR 85488), which included 

a proposed rule under section 4(d) of 

the Act that defined the prohibitions we 

are extending to the hyacinth macaw 

and the exceptions to those 

prohibitions, as well as provisions that 

are necessary and advisable for the 

species’ conservation. This rule finalizes 

the listing of the hyacinth macaw as a 

threatened species under the Act, and 

establishes a 4(d) rule to further provide 

for the species’ conservation. 

The basis for our action. Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we determine 

that a species is an endangered or 

threatened species based on any of five 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. The primary causes attributed 

to the decline of the hyacinth macaw 

include habitat loss and degradation 

(Factor A), hunting (Factor B), predation 

(Factor C), competition and low 

reproduction rate (Factor E), and climate 

change (Factor E). 

Section 4(d) of the Act authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

extend to threatened species the 

prohibitions provided for endangered 

species under section 9 of the Act. Our 

implementing regulations for threatened 

wildlife, found at title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 17.31 (50 

CFR 17.31), incorporate the section 9 

prohibitions for endangered wildlife, 

except when a species-specific rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act is 

promulgated. For threatened species, 

section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service 

discretion to specify the prohibitions 

and any exceptions to those 

prohibitions that are appropriate for the 

species, as well as include provisions 

that are necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. A rule issued under section 4(d) 

of the Act allows us to include 

provisions that are tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of that 

threatened species and which may be 

more or less restrictive than the general 

provisions at 50 CFR 17.31. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought comments from independent 

specialists to ensure that our analysis is 

based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We invited 

peer reviewers and the public to 

comment on our listing proposals. All 

substantive information from peer 

review and public comments was fully 

considered and incorporated into this 

final rule, where appropriate. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES