Rule2022-00138
Findings of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions in Response to the 2015 Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying To Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 12, 2022
Effective
February 11, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to find that 12 States and local air pollution control agencies failed to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) in a timely manner to address EPA's 2015 findings of substantial inadequacy and "SIP calls" for provisions applying to excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). This action triggers certain CAA deadlines for the EPA to impose sanctions if a State does not submit a complete SIP revision addressing the outstanding requirements and to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if the EPA does not approve the State's submission as a SIP revision.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1680-1683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00138]
[[Page 1680]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0863; FRL-9250-01-OAR]
Findings of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions
in Response to the 2015 Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Calls To Amend Provisions Applying To Excess Emissions During Periods
of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to find that 12 States and local air pollution control agencies
failed to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions required by
the Clean Air Act (CAA) in a timely manner to address EPA's 2015
findings of substantial inadequacy and ``SIP calls'' for provisions
applying to excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM). This action triggers certain CAA deadlines for the
EPA to impose sanctions if a State does not submit a complete SIP
revision addressing the outstanding requirements and to promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if the EPA does not approve the
State's submission as a SIP revision.
DATES: This action is effective February 11, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General questions concerning this
notice should be addressed to, Erin Lowder, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; by telephone (919) 541-5421;
or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c00031b08091e42091e05022c091c0d420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1cdced6c5c4d38fc4d3c8cfe1c4d1c08fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. How is the preamble organized?
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. How is the preamble organized?
B. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
C. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
D. Where do I go if I have specific air agency questions?
II. Background
III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit
IV. Findings of Failure To Submit for Air Agencies That Failed To
Make a SIP Submittal To Address EPA's 2015 SIP Calls for Provisions
Applying To Excess Emissions During SSM Periods
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
M. Judicial Review
B. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds
that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The 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 findings of failure to
submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the Clean Air Act (CAA),
where states have made no submissions to meet the requirement. As is
discussed in further detail later, pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(1)(B), the EPA ``shall 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 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(A). EPA exercises no
significant judgment in making a determination that a state failed to
make a submission and subsequently issuing a finding of failure to
submit. Thus, notice and public procedures are unnecessary to take this
action. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).
C. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0863. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> or
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, William Jefferson
Clinton Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the
Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-
1742. For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the
current status, please visit us online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
D. Where do I go if I have specific air agency questions?
For questions related to specific air agencies mentioned in this
notice, please contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional offices Air agencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region 1: Mr. John Rogan, Chief, Air Rhode Island.
Program Branch, EPA Region 1, 5 Post
Office Square, Boston, MA 02109.
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f4869b93959ada9e9b9c9ab4918495da939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93e1fcf4f2fdbdf9fcfbfdd3f6e3f2bdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a>.
EPA Region 3: Mr. Mike Gordon, Chief, District of Columbia.
Planning and Implementation Branch, EPA
Region 3, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e59514c5a5150105357555b7e5b4e5f10595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98fff7eafcf7f6b6f5f1f3fdd8fde8f9b6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>.
[[Page 1681]]
EPA Region 4: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Alabama; North Carolina--
Chief, Air Planning and Implementation Forsyth; Tennessee--Shelby
Branch, EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street (Memphis).
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303.
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c2e2922262d21252262203522233e2d290c293c2d622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1476717a7e75797d7a3a786d7a7b667571547164753a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.
EPA Region 5: Mr. Doug Aburano, Manager, Illinois; Ohio.
Air Program Branch, EPA Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL
60604. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1a0a3b4b3a0afaeefa5aeb4a6ada0b281a4b1a0efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92f3f0e7e0f3fcfdbcf6fde7f5fef3e1d2f7e2f3bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.
EPA Region 6: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Arkansas.
Air Program Branch, EPA Region 6, 1201
Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75270.
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d1912131c11190e1213531a08043d180d1c531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="482c272629242c3b2726662f3d31082d3829662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>.
EPA Region 8: Mr. Scott Jackson, Chief, South Dakota.
Air Quality Planning Branch, EPA Region
8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, CO 80202.
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c262d2f273f2322623f2f2338380c293c2d622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="640e05070f170b0a4a17070b1010240114054a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>.
EPA Region 9: Ms. Doris Lo, Manager, California--San Joaquin Valley
Rules Office, Air and Radiation Air Pollution Control
Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne District (APCD).
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#402c2f6e242f322933002530216e272f36"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfd3d091dbd0cdd6ccffdacfde91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.
EPA Region 10: Ms. Debra Suzuki, Chief, Washington--Energy Facility
Air Program Branch, EPA Region 10, 1200 Site Evaluation Council
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. (EFSEC); Washington--
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f4c4a454a5456115b5a5d4d5e7f5a4f5e11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb989e919e8082c58f8e89998aab8e9b8ac58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>. Southwest Clean Air Agency
(SWCAA).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
On June 12, 2015, the EPA finalized an action (2015 SSM SIP
Action), which clarified, restated, and updated EPA's national policy
regarding SSM provisions in SIPs (2015 Policy).\1\ The 2015 Policy
explained the EPA's interpretation of certain CAA requirements,
affirming that SSM exemption provisions (e.g., automatic exemptions,
discretionary exemptions, and overly broad enforcement discretion
provisions) and affirmative defense SIP provisions are generally viewed
as inconsistent with CAA requirements. At the same time, pursuant to
CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA issued findings of substantial
inadequacy for SIP provisions applying to excess emissions during SSM
periods for 36 states that were applicable in 45 statewide and local
jurisdictions (air agencies).\2\ As part of the 2015 SSM SIP Action,
the EPA also issued a ``SIP call'' (2015 SIP Call) to each of those 45
air agencies. The 2015 SIP Call required air agencies to adopt and
submit revisions to the EPA to correct identified SSM-related
deficiencies in their SIPs by November 22, 2016. The 2015 SSM SIP
Action also responded to a petition for rulemaking alleging specific
deficiencies related to SSM provisions in existing SIPs. On July 27,
2015, the 2015 SSM SIP Action was challenged in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to
SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction, 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015).
\2\ For convenience, the EPA refers to ``air agencies'' in this
action collectively when meaning to refer in general to states, the
District of Columbia, and local air permitting authorities that are
currently administering, or may in the future administer, EPA-
approved implementation plans.
\3\ Environ. Comm. Fl. Elec. Power v. EPA, et al., No. 15-1239
(D.C. Cir.) (and consolidated cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, the EPA requested that the pending litigation on the final
2015 SSM SIP Action be held in abeyance to allow the new administration
time to review the action. In 2020, Regions 4, 6, and 7 took final
actions that were inconsistent with the 2015 Policy and the EPA
withdrew the corresponding SIP calls previously issued to Texas, North
Carolina, and Iowa. These state-specific actions are the subject of
pending litigation.\4\ Moreover, in alignment with the SIP call
withdrawals for Texas, North Carolina, and Iowa, the EPA issued a
Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which established a new
national policy that permitted the inclusion of certain provisions
governing SSM periods in SIPs, including those related to exemptions
and affirmative defenses. Importantly, the 2020 Memorandum was not a
regulatory action and did not alter or withdraw the 2015 SIP Call for
any of the 45 air agencies identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. The
2020 Memorandum did, however, indicate the EPA's intent at the time to
review the remaining SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action to determine whether the EPA should maintain, modify, or
withdraw particular SIP calls through future agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 20-1115 (D.C. Cir.
Apr. 7, 2020); Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 20-1229 (D.C.
Cir. June 29, 2020); Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 21-1022
(D.C. Cir. January 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2021, the EPA issued a Memorandum (2021
Memorandum) that announced a withdrawal of the 2020 Memorandum and
EPA's intent to return to the 2015 Policy and implement it fully. As
previously articulated in the 2015 Policy, the 2021 Memorandum states
that SSM exemption provisions and affirmative defense provisions
included in SIPs will generally be viewed as inconsistent with CAA
requirements.
As part of the reinstatement of the 2015 Policy, the EPA intends to
implement the pending SIP calls, which remain in place from the 2015
SSM SIP Action. Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the 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 pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(1)(A). These criteria are set forth at 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. The EPA refers to the determination that a state has not
submitted a SIP submission that meets the minimum completeness
criteria, or has not submitted a SIP at all, as a ``finding of failure
to submit.''
For the 2015 SIP Call, as previously discussed, SIP submissions
were due by November 22, 2016. The EPA's determinations of whether air
agencies made submittals were therefore due on May 22, 2017. The EPA
has neither made such determinations nor issued findings of failure to
submit. Accordingly, the EPA is now issuing findings of failure to
submit to the 12 air agencies that, as of the date of this action, had
not submitted SIPs responding to the SIP call: Alabama, Arkansas,
California--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (APCD),
District of Columbia, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina--Forsyth County,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee--Shelby County, Washington--
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), and Washington--
Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA). The EPA also notes that on
September 8, 2021, a group of non-governmental organizations filed suit
in the Northern District of
[[Page 1682]]
California alleging that the EPA is in violation of its mandatory duty
to issue findings of failure to submit for those states that have not
yet responded to the 2015 SIP Call.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Sierra Club et al. v. Regan et al., No. 4:21-cv-06956 (N.D.
Cal. Sept 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit
If the EPA finds that a state has failed to make the required SIP
submittal or that a submitted SIP is incomplete, then CAA section
179(a) establishes specific consequences, after a period of time,
including the imposition of mandatory sanctions under CAA section
179(b) for the affected areas or states. The two applicable sanctions
enumerated in CAA section 179(b) are: (1) The 2-to-1 emission offset
requirement for all new and modified major sources subject to the
nonattainment NSR program, and (2) restrictions on highway funding.
Additionally, a finding that a state has failed to submit a complete
SIP triggers an obligation under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to
promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years after issuance of the finding of
failure to submit if the affected state has not submitted, and the EPA
has not approved, the required SIP submittal.
With respect to mandatory sanctions, if the EPA has not
affirmatively determined that a state has made the required complete
SIP submittal within 18 months \6\ of the effective date of this final
action, then, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31,
the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in
the affected nonattainment area or state. If the EPA has not
affirmatively determined that the state has made the required complete
SIP submittal within 6 months after the offset sanction is imposed,
then the highway funding sanction will apply in the affected
nonattainment area(s), in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40
CFR 52.31.\7\ The sanctions will not take effect if, within 18 months
after the effective date of these findings, the EPA affirmatively
determines that the state has made a complete SIP submittal addressing
the deficiency for which the finding was made. Additionally, if the
state makes the required SIP submittal and the EPA takes final action
to approve the submittal within 2 years of the effective date of these
findings, the EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ C.A.A. 110(k)(5).
\7\ Such highway sanctions would only apply in nonattainment
areas. If a state jurisdictional area does not contain any
nonattainment areas, then the highway sanctions would not apply in
that state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Findings of Failure To Submit for Air Agencies That Failed To Make
a SIP Submittal in Response to EPA's 2015 SIP Call for Provisions
Applying to Excess Emissions During SSM Periods
Based on a review of SIP submittals received and deemed complete as
of the date of signature of this action, the EPA finds that 12 air
agencies have failed to submit SIP revisions in response to the 2015
SSM SIP Call that were statutorily due no later than November 22, 2016.
These affected air agencies are Alabama, Arkansas, California--San
Joaquin Valley APCD, District of Columbia, Illinois, Ohio, North
Carolina--Forsyth County, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee--Shelby
County, Washington--EFSEC, and Washington--SWCAA.
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
The purpose of this action is to make findings that the named air
agencies failed to provide the identified SIP submissions to the EPA
that are required under the CAA. As such, this action, in and of
itself, does not adversely affect the level of protection provided for
human health or the environment. Moreover, it is intended that the
actions and deadlines resulting from this notice will promote greater
protection for U.S. citizens, including minority, low-income, or
indigenous populations, by ensuring that air agencies meet their
statutory obligation to develop and submit SIPs to ensure that areas
make progress toward reducing excess emissions during periods of SSM.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning 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. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA. This final action does not establish any new
information collection requirement apart from what is already required
by law. This action relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to
submit SIPs in response to findings of substantial inadequacy under
section 110(k)(5).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The action
is a finding that the named air agencies have not made the necessary
SIP submission in response to findings of substantial inadequacy under
section 110(k)(5) of the CAA.
E. 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 imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments, or the private sector.
F. 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action finds that several air agencies have
failed to submit SIP revisions in response to findings of substantial
inadequacy under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. No tribe is subject to
the requirement to submit an implementation plan under the findings of
inadequacy relevant to this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
H. 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 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 is a finding that several air agencies failed to submit SIP
revisions
[[Page 1683]]
in response to findings of substantial inadequacy under section
110(k)(5) of the CAA and does not directly or disproportionately affect
children.
I. 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.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This final action does not involve technical standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes this action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. In finding
that several air agencies have failed to submit SIP revisions in
response to findings of substantial inadequacy under section 110(k)(5)
of the CAA, this action does not directly affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the 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).
M. Judicial Review
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of
``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions
taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or
regionally applicable, but ``such action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the
Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a
determination.'' For locally or regionally applicable final actions,
the CAA reserves the EPA complete discretion whether to invoke the
exception in (ii).
This final action is ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning
of CAA section 307(b)(1). In the alternative, to the extent a court
finds this final action to be locally or regionally applicable, the
Administrator is exercising the complete discretion afforded to him
under the CAA to make and publish a finding that this action is based
on a determination of ``nationwide scope or effect'' within the meaning
of CAA section 307(b)(1).\8\ This final action consists of findings of
failure to submit required SIPs from areas within 10 states and the
District of Columbia, located in 8 of the 10 EPA regions, and in 8
different federal judicial circuits.\9\ This final action is also based
on a common core of factual findings concerning the receipt and
completeness of the relevant SIP submittals. For these reasons, this
final action is nationally applicable or, alternatively, the
Administrator is exercising the complete discretion afforded to him by
the CAA and hereby finds that this final action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA section
307(b)(1) and is hereby publishing that finding in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and
publishing a finding that this final action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator has
also taken into account a number of policy considerations, including
his judgment balancing the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's
authoritative centralized review versus allowing development of the
issue in other contexts and the best use of Agency resources.
\9\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this
final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not
affect the finality of the action for the purposes of judicial review,
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
Janet G. McCabe,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-00138 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 12, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.