44932 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1SIP 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. 

2On April 3, 2014 (79 FR 18644), EPA approved 

portions of Delaware’s March 27, 2013 submittal for 

(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 

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 http://

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 

http://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). 

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


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 44933 

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. 

3See ‘‘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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
44934 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

10CSAPR Update final rule. 81 FR 74504, 74519 

(October 26, 2016). 

11When 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. 

13Pennsylvania’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. 

14As 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). 

15See 81 FR at 74553. 

16EPA 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. 

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 

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

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 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal date 

EPA approval 

date 

Additional 

explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide .................... 3/27/13 9/27/17, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

This action addresses CAA element 

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

*******


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 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: 

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: 

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 EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 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. 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: 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. 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, http://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.’’ 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES