32316 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance, please call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect 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. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated 

implementing instructions, and 

Environmental Planning COMDTINST 

5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone lasting 30 minutes that would 

prohibit entry within 120 yards of the 

floating platforms. It is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 

1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 

001–01, Rev. 1. A Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1. Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T08–0329 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–0329 Safety Zone; Station Camp 

Creek, Gallatin, TN. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: all navigable waters of 

Station Camp Creek from 36.340966 N, 

¥86.478265 W to 36.344847 N, 

¥86.478330 W. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) in 

the enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) Vessels requiring entry into this 

safety zone must request permission 

from the COTP or a designated 

representative. To seek entry into the 

safety zone, contact the COTP or the 

COTP’s representative by telephone at 

502–779–5422 or on VHF–FM channel 

16. 

(3) Persons and vessels permitted to 

enter this safety zone must transit at 

their slowest safe speed and comply 

with all lawful directions issued by the 

COTP or the designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 9:30 

p.m. on July 3, 2022. 

Dated: May 19, 2022. 

A.M. Beach, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Ohio Valley. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11216 Filed 5–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0443; FRL–9876–01– 

R1] 

Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving most 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Rhode Island. This revision addresses 

the infrastructure requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 

annual fine particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). We are not taking action on 

three elements of this submittal in 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) 

that relate to requirements for the State’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32317 

1PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 

or less in diameter, often referred to as ‘‘fine’’ 

particles. 

2 In particular, EPA noted that Rhode Island’s SIP 

did not yet incorporate: (1) A requirement to 

identify NOX as a precursor to ozone in the 

definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ from EPA’s 

‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; 

Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review 

and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They 

Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and 

Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated 

Gasoline,’’ 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005); and 

(2) definitional changes required under an EPA rule 

entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant 

Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration,’’ 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010); 

see 84 FR 1025 at 1027–28 (February 1, 2019). 

(PSD) program. These will be addressed 

in a separate action. In addition, EPA is 

disapproving the submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(H) (future 

SIP revisions). However, because a 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) has 

been in place for section 110(a)(2)(H) 

since 1973, no further action by EPA or 

the State is required. This action is 

being taken in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 30, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2017–0443. 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., 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 at https://

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

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Region 1 Regional Office, Air and 

Radiation Division, 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 and 

facility closures due to COVID–19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA 

02109—3912, tel. (617) 918–1684, email 

simcox.alison@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 December 6, 2017, Rhode Island 

submitted a SIP submission to address 

the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)— 

including the interstate transport 

requirements—for the 2012 annual 

PM2.5 1 NAAQS. EPA refers to this type 

of SIP submission as an ‘‘infrastructure 

SIP.’’ On February 1, 2019 (84 FR 1025), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to 

approve most elements of the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submission and to 

conditionally approve certain other 

elements of the submission. The 

infrastructure SIP requirements are 

designed to ensure that the structural 

components of each state’s air quality 

management program are adequate to 

meet the state’s responsibilities under 

the CAA for implementation of the 

NAAQS. The rationale for EPA’s 

proposed action is given in the NPRM 

and will not be restated here. 

II. Response to Comments 

During the comment period, EPA 

received one set of germane comments, 

which addressed two issues: (1) EPA’s 

proposed conditional approval of 

certain portions of Rhode Island’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the State’s PSD program and (2) the 

impact on this infrastructure SIP action 

of EPA’s 2015 Startup, Shutdown and 

Malfunction (SSM) SIP Action. In that 

action, EPA found that certain existing 

SIP provisions governing periods of 

SSM in 45 states and local jurisdictions, 

including one such provision in Rhode 

Island’s SIP, were substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA requirements. 

EPA issued a SIP call on June 12, 2015, 

directing those states to submit SIP 

revisions to address the specific 

inadequacies. See 80 FR 33839. 

Regarding the first issue, the 

commenter stated that a conditional 

approval of the PSD-related elements of 

Rhode Island’s December 6, 2017, 

infrastructure SIP submission is ‘‘not 

appropriate,’’ because the State had 

already made a SIP submission to EPA 

in March 2018 purporting to address 

those elements, although EPA had not 

yet acted on that submission. The 

commenter stated that the March 2018 

submittal is not in the docket for this 

action and that this ‘‘prevent[s] the 

public from being able to assess whether 

it does in fact cure the PSD-related 

deficiencies in the December 2 [sic], 

2017, submission [and] prevents the 

public from being able to fully assess 

and comment on EPA’s proposed 

conditional approval.’’ 

As EPA noted in the NPRM, Rhode 

Island’s SIP lacked certain provisions 2

required for EPA to find that the SIP 

contained a complete PSD permitting 

program meeting applicable 

requirements, which is required by CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) 

and which are relevant in the context of 

an infrastructure SIP submission. The 

Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management’s (RIDEM) 

December 2017 infrastructure SIP 

submittal acknowledged these 

deficiencies and indicated that RIDEM 

would amend its regulations to address 

them and submit revised regulations to 

EPA for inclusion in the SIP. As EPA 

also noted, RIDEM submitted a SIP 

revision to EPA on March 26, 2018, that 

included changes to address the PSDrelated deficiencies. We stated in the 

NPRM that we were currently reviewing 

that submittal to verify whether it 

resolved the identified infrastructure 

SIP deficiencies. The NPRM did not 

include any substantive assessment of 

the March 2018 submittal because we 

had not completed a review of that 

submittal. 

In this action, we are not finalizing 

the proposed conditional approvals of 

these PSD-related requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for 

purposes of the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA acknowledges that the 

timing of the proposed conditional 

approvals was confusing and unusual 

given that the State had already made a 

SIP submission purporting to satisfy 

these requirements by the time EPA 

proposed the conditional approvals. 

Therefore, EPA has decided to withdraw 

the proposed conditional approvals. 

EPA will issue a separate proposed rule 

at a future date in which EPA will 

provide an evaluation of whether Rhode 

Island’s March 2018 SIP satisfies these 

PSD-related requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The public 

will have an opportunity to provide 

comments to EPA on this proposed rule. 

Regarding the second issue, the 

commenter stated that it is 

‘‘inappropriate’’ for EPA to rely on the 

‘‘outsider theory’’ in approving Rhode 

Island’s infrastructure SIP submission 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
32318 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

3The 2015 SSM SIP Action referenced in the 

comment addressed how provisions in a number of 

States’ SIPs treat excess emissions during periods 

of SSM. 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). While the 

comment states that Rhode Island must correct SIP 

‘‘provisions,’’ EPA notes that it issued the SIP Call 

to Rhode Island with respect to just one provision. 

Id. at 33959. 

4By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

5For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

6EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

where the state has not yet responded to 

the 2015 SSM SIP Action. In that action, 

EPA found that a provision approved as 

a part of Rhode Island’s existing 

approved SIP (25–4–13 R.I. Code R. 

section 16.2) was substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA requirements 

and issued a SIP call to Rhode Island to 

address the inadequacy. 80 FR 33839 

(June 12, 2015). The commenter stated 

that, until Rhode Island has corrected its 

SIP as directed by EPA in the 2015 SSM 

SIP Action, EPA should either not 

approve the infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS or should condition any 

approval on submission by Rhode 

Island of a revision within 12 months 

that adequately addresses the 2015 SSM 

SIP Action.3

EPA disagrees with the commenter. 

EPA has explained that its review of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

focuses on assuring that a state’s SIP 

meets basic structural requirements for 

the new or revised NAAQS. In this 

context, EPA does not consider it 

appropriate to review a state’s existing 

approved SIP for all potential 

deficiencies in existing provisions, and 

thus has excluded certain types of 

potentially deficient provisions from 

this process. EPA considers this 

approach to infrastructure SIPs 

reasonable based on the specific 

statutory language of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2). The CAA provides other 

avenues and mechanisms to address 

specific substantive deficiencies in 

existing SIPs that allow EPA to take 

appropriately tailored action. EPA has 

used one of these other mechanisms in 

this instance to address the SSM 

deficiency in Rhode Island’s SIP. 

EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP Action included, 

among other things, a finding that 

Rhode Island’s SIP contained an 

insufficiently bounded ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ provision related to 

emissions during periods of SSM. See 

80 FR 33840–33959. However, in the 

NPRM for this infrastructure SIP action, 

we stated that the rulemaking would 

‘‘not cover three substantive areas that 

are not integral to acting on a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission,’’ 

including ‘‘[e]xisting provisions related 

to excess emissions during periods of 

start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at 

sources (‘‘SSM’’ emissions) that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions [and] 

existing provisions related to ‘director’s 

variance’ or ‘director’s discretion’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA.’’ 

In response to the commenter’s 

argument, EPA reiterates its view that it 

generally considers existing provisions 

in these substantive areas to be outside 

the scope of its review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal. The 

commenter did not provide any specific 

argument based on the statutory 

language for its assertion that EPA 

cannot move forward with finalizing 

approval of this infrastructure SIP 

action in light of EPA’s position. 

As EPA explained in the NPRM, see 

84 FR 1026 (citing 79 FR 27241 at 

24242–45), an action on a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission is not the 

appropriate type of action in which to 

address deficiencies in a given state’s 

SIP regarding existing provisions related 

to excess emissions from sources during 

periods of SSM that may be contrary to 

the CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions. EPA may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

deficient provisions and may approve 

the submission even if it is aware of 

such existing provisions.4 As relevant 

here, EPA has separate mechanisms for 

addressing deficient provisions and has 

used one of those mechanisms here by 

issuing a SIP call to Rhode Island for its 

problematic SSM provision. It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

deficient provisions that relate to the 

specific issue just described. 

EPA’s approach to evaluation of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

This approach is appropriate because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring EPA review of 

each and every provision of a state’s 

existing SIP against all requirements in 

the CAA and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. 

These existing provisions, while not 

fully up to date, nevertheless may not 

pose a significant problem for the 

purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. A better approach is for 

states and EPA to focus attention on 

those elements of section 110(a)(2) of 

the CAA most likely to warrant a 

specific SIP revision due to the 

promulgation of the new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. For example, 

EPA’s 2013 Guidance gives simpler 

recommendations with respect to 

carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 

pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

This approach is also a reasonable 

reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) in the context of an 

infrastructure SIP submission because 

the CAA provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow EPA to 

take appropriately tailored action, 

depending upon the nature and severity 

of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 

110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP 

call’’ whenever the Agency determines 

that a state’s SIP is substantially 

inadequate to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, 

or to otherwise comply with the CAA.5

Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to 

correct errors in past actions, such as 

past approvals of SIP submissions.6


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32319 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

7See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) 

(final disapproval of such provisions). 

Significantly, EPA’s determination 

that an action on a state’s infrastructure 

SIP submission is not the appropriate 

time and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 

bases that EPA relies upon in the course 

of addressing such deficiency in a 

subsequent action.7

As noted earlier, EPA has already 

taken steps through the SIP Call 

mechanism to address the deficiency 

identified in Rhode Island’s SIP and has 

taken further steps to ensure that 

separate process is followed as 

envisioned and consistent with legal 

requirements. Under the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action, Rhode Island was required to 

revise its SIP to address the SSM 

provision identified as substantially 

inadequate within 18 months. Rhode 

Island failed to meet that deadline, so 

on January 12, 2022, EPA issued a 

Finding of Failure to Submit (FFS) to 

Rhode Island. See 87 FR 1680. If the 

State has not made the required SIP 

submittal within 18 months of the 

effective date of the FFS, then, pursuant 

to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 

CFR 52.31, the 2-to-1 emission offset 

sanction identified in CAA section 

179(b)(2) will apply in the State for all 

new and modified major sources subject 

to the nonattainment new source review 

program. 

The sanction will not take effect if, 

within 18 months after the effective date 

of the FFS, EPA affirmatively 

determines that the State has made a 

complete SIP submittal addressing the 

deficiency in accordance with the 2015 

SSM Action. Additionally, a finding 

that Rhode Island has failed to submit 

a required SIP submission triggers an 

obligation under CAA section 110(c) for 

EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than 

2 years after issuance of the FFS. If the 

State makes the required SIP submittal 

and EPA takes final action to approve 

the submittal within 2 years of the 

effective date of the FFS, EPA is not 

required to promulgate a FIP. 

Based on the above rationale, we are 

finalizing the action as described above. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving most elements of 

Rhode Island’s December 6, 2017, 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

disapproving Rhode Island’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

section 110(a)(2)(H), for which Federal 

regulations through a FIP are already in 

place. The disapproval with respect to 

section 110(a)(2)(H) does not start a 

sanctions clock because the disapproval 

relates neither to a submission required 

under CAA title I part D nor to one 

required in response to a SIP call under 

CAA section 10(k)(5). No further action 

by EPA or the State is required with 

respect to this disapproval. 

We are finalizing the action as 

proposed, except that, for the reasons 

provided above, we are not finalizing 

our proposal to conditionally approve 

the infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to the PSD-related requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

and 110(a)(2)(J) for the annual 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is withdrawing the 

proposed conditional approvals and 

will address those PSD-related 

requirements in a separate action. 

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); 

• 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
32320 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by August 1, 2022. 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 22, 2022. 

David Cash, 

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 OO—Rhode Island 

■ 2. In § 52.2070(e), amend the table by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

and Transport SIP for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS’’ at the end of the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.2070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

RHODE ISLAND NON REGULATORY

Name of non regulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA 

approved date Explanations 

*******

Infrastructure SIP and 

Transport SIP for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ....... 12/6/2017 May 31, 2022, [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

This submittal is approved with respect to the following 

CAA elements: 110(a)(2) (A); (B); (C); (D) ; (E); (F); 

(G); (J); (K); (L); and (M), except for certain PSD-related requirements in (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). This submittal is disapproved for (H). This approval includes 

the Transport SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which 

shows that Rhode Island does not significantly contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance in any 

other state. 

■ 3. In § 52.2077, add paragraph (b)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2077 Identification of plan— 

conditional approvals and disapprovals. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(7) 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP submitted on 

December 6, 2017, is disapproved for 

Clean Air Act element 110(a)(2)(H). A 

Federal Implantation Plan is already in 

place at § 52.2080. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11456 Filed 5–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Parts 102–117 and 102–118 

[FMR Case 2018–102–5; Docket No. GSA– 

FMR–2018–0014, Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 3090–AJ97 

Federal Management Regulation; 

Technical Amendments 

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide 

Policy (OGP), General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: GSA is issuing a direct final 

rule amending the Federal Management 

Regulation (FMR) to effectuate editorial 

and technical changes including 

updating authorities, agency contact 

information, website and email 

addresses, simplifying requirements, 

and removing provisions that are no 

longer applicable. These changes are 

needed to provide accurate information 

for agencies to properly manage their 

Transportation Management and 

Transportation Payment and Audit 

programs. 

DATES: Effective August 29, 2022 

without further action, unless adverse 

comment is received by June 30, 2022. 

If adverse comment is received, GSA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

rule in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FMR Case 2018–102–5 to 

the Federal eRulemaking portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for ‘‘FMR Case 2018–102–5’’. 

Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘FMR Case 2018– 

102–5’’. Follow the instructions 

provided at the ‘‘Comment Now’’ 

screen. Please include your name, 

company name (if any), and ‘‘FMR Case 

2018–102–5’’ on your attached 

document. If your comment cannot be 

submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

points of contact in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document for alternate instructions. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite ‘‘FMR Case 2018–102–5’’ 

in all correspondence related to this 

case. Comments received generally will 

be posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check https://www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. Ron 

Siegel, Program Analyst, Office of 

Government-wide Policy, at 202–702– 

0840. For information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules, contact 

the Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501– 

4755. Please cite FMR Case 2018–102– 

5. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES