47040 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1This finding is included in the docket for this 

action and available online at www.regulations.gov. 

[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 

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’’ 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 47041 

2See ‘‘Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS; Proposed Rules,’’ 80 FR 

75706 (December 3, 2015). 

3Maryland’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. 

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. 

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. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 http://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 http://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: 

I. General 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 http://

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 

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: http:// 

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 http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES