Rule2022-19645
Air Plan Disapproval; New York and New Jersey; Interstate Transport Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
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
September 12, 2022
Effective
October 12, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is disapproving State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from New York and New Jersey addressing interstate transport for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The "good neighbor" or "interstate transport" provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that each state's SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from within the state from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. This requirement is part of the broader "infrastructure" requirements, which 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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 175 (Monday, September 12, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55692-55697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19645]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2021-0631; FRL-9125-02-R2]
Air Plan Disapproval; New York and New Jersey; Interstate
Transport Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
disapproving State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from New York
and New Jersey addressing interstate transport for the 2008 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The ``good
neighbor'' or ``interstate transport'' provision of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires that each state's SIP contain adequate provisions to
prohibit emissions from within the state from significantly
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in other states. This requirement is part of the broader
``infrastructure'' requirements, which 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.
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 12, 2022.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2021-0631. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Fradkin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-
1866, at (212) 637-3702, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#16706477727d7f78387d73787873627e5673667738717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6c0d4c7c2cdcfc888cdc3c8c8c3d2cee6c3d6c788c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. What are the consequences of a disapproved SIP?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this action?
On November 3, 2021, the EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to disapprove State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submissions from New York and New Jersey pertaining to the
[[Page 55693]]
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. 86 FR 60602.
Section 110(a) of the CAA imposes an obligation upon states to
submit SIP submissions, also referred to as revisions or submittals,
that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a
new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of that
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states must
meet in these SIP submissions, as applicable. The EPA refers to this
type of SIP as the ``infrastructure'' SIP because the SIP ensures that
states can implement, maintain, and enforce the air standards. Within
these requirements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains
requirements to address interstate transport of NAAQS pollutants or
their precursors. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which is also known
as the ``good neighbor'' provision, requires SIPs to contain provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity within the
State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state
(commonly referred to as prong 1) or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). A SIP revision submitted under this
provision is often referred to as an ``interstate transport SIP'' or a
good neighbor SIP.
New York submitted its good neighbor SIP revision to the EPA for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS on September 25, 2018.\1\ New Jersey submitted a
SIP revision, which also addressed the good neighbor provision for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, on May 13, 2019. For the reasons stated in the
proposal for this action, the EPA is disapproving these SIP submissions
from New York and New Jersey regarding the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
indicated in their September 25, 2018, SIP submission that the
submittal was to address the EPA's August 26, 2016, disapproval of a
portion of New York's April 4, 2013 submittal addressing the good
neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See the NPRM for this
action at 86 FR 60602 (November 3, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?
The EPA received comments during the public comment period on our
proposed action from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP), the State of Pennsylvania's Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), and the Midwest Ozone Group (MOG). A
synopsis of the comments and our responses are below. The complete
comments may be viewed under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2021-0631 on the
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website.
Comment 1: NJDEP stated that New Jersey's rules, such as its High
Electric Demand Day (HEDD) rule, the 2017 New Jersey rule for
stationary natural gas compressor engines and turbines, and other rules
implemented for both Electric Generating Unit (EGU) sources and non-EGU
sources, are more stringent than nearby and upwind states and were
implemented well ahead of the 2021 Serious attainment date for the 2008
NAAQS. New Jersey asserts that it is being penalized for early action.
Response 1: Although New Jersey's existing control measures may be
more stringent than nearby states' controls and were implemented prior
to the 2021 Serious classification attainment date for the 2008 NAAQS,
the EPA does not find that the existence of those rules alone satisfies
New Jersey's 2008 ozone good neighbor obligations. New Jersey did not
evaluate the availability of additional air quality controls to improve
downwind air quality at nonattainment and maintenance receptors, even
though New Jersey itself acknowledged it potentially significantly
contributed above the 1 percent of the standard threshold to 14
receptors.
The EPA's updated modeling used for evaluating interstate transport
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (2016v1 emissions platform based
modeling) accounted for the emission reductions from the controls
listed in the SIP--including New Jersey's HEDD, the 2017 New Jersey
rule for stationary natural gas compressor engines and turbines, and
other State rules--and nonetheless continued to project that New Jersey
would contribute to downwind air quality problems above 1 percent of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Under the 4-step framework, this triggered a need
to assess additional emissions control opportunities at Step 3.
As explained in the EPA's November 3, 2021 NPRM, the EPA's modeling
projects that New Jersey contributes well above the air quality
threshold of 1 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per billion,
``ppb'') to several projected downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptors. The EPA's modeling projects that New Jersey contributes up
to 8.62 ppb to downwind receptors, and 5.71 ppb to downwind maintenance
receptors in Connecticut, both of which greatly exceed the threshold
contribution level of 0.75 ppb.
The State is not being ``penalized'' for early action. Whether New
Jersey's measures are more stringent, or implemented earlier, than
neighboring states is not relevant to EPA's determination regarding the
adequacy of New Jersey's good neighbor SIP submission. The EPA's role
in reviewing infrastructure SIP submissions is to ensure that the
state's plan complies with the statute. With respect to prongs 1 and 2
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the EPA has reviewed New Jersey's
demonstration and determined, for the reasons stated in the NPRM, it
does not adequately demonstrate that the State's good neighbor plan is
sufficient to ensure that emissions from the State will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance.
Comment 2: NJDEP notes that the EPA's proposal states that a SIP
revision could replace the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
promulgated in the Revised CSAPR Update if the State's SIP could
demonstrate enforceable emission control measures that achieve at least
the same amount of emissions reductions achieved by the FIP. NJDEP
states that its 2017 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions inventory indicates that
79% of the state's annual NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are from mobile
sources, while EGUs make up 3%, and point sources up to 14%. The State
concludes that this reflects the extensive control measures implemented
in New Jersey, as well as that EGUs located in New Jersey are well
controlled. NJDEP further states that the EPA should consider the many
control measures implemented by New Jersey before requiring additional
reductions from a source sector that is already well controlled, and a
small portion of statewide NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. New Jersey asserts
that the EPA should rescind the disapproval and approve New Jersey's
Good Neighbor SIP. New Jersey further states that the EPA should also
implement federal mobile source measures, to address the major
contributor in New Jersey.
Response 2: As noted in the EPA's NPRM, the EPA determined in the
Revised CSAPR Update that additional NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
reductions, relative to the CSAPR Update, are available and necessary
to eliminate New Jersey's significant contribution for the good
neighbor provision under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. New Jersey's
NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season emissions budget for the State's EGUs as
determined under the Revised CSAPR Update is 1,253 tons in 2021 and
subsequent years. The EPA has determined that the emissions
[[Page 55694]]
reductions achieved as a result of the Group 3 NO<INF>X</INF> ozone
season emissions budget are necessary to eliminate New Jersey's
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
As noted in the November 3, 2021, NPRM, as well as the Revised
CSAPR Update, a state can submit a SIP revision to replace the FIP,
which implements the state's NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season emissions
budget, if the SIP is approved by the EPA and achieves the necessary
emissions reductions even if it does not use the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF>
Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program. 86 FR 60610-60611; 86 FR 23147-
23148.\2\ The EPA would evaluate the transport SIP based on the
particular control strategies selected and whether the strategies as a
whole provide adequate and enforceable provisions ensuring that the
necessary emissions reductions (i.e., reductions equal to or greater
than the Group 3 trading program) will be achieved. In order to best
ensure its approvability, the SIP revision should include the following
general elements: (1) a comprehensive baseline 2021 statewide
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions inventory (which includes existing control
requirements), which should be consistent with the 2021 emission
inventory that the EPA used to calculate the required state budget in
the Revised CSPAR Update (unless the state can explain the
discrepancy); (2) a list and description of control measures to satisfy
the state emissions reduction obligation and a demonstration showing
when each measure would be in place to meet the 2021 and successive
control periods; (3) fully-adopted state rules providing for such
NO<INF>X</INF> controls during the ozone season; (4) for EGUs greater
than 25 MWe (megawatt electrical), monitoring and reporting under 40
CFR part 75, and for other units, monitoring and reporting procedures
sufficient to demonstrate that sources are complying with the SIP (see
40 CFR part 51 subpart K (``source surveillance'') requirements); and
(5) a projected inventory demonstrating that state measures along with
federal measures will achieve the necessary emissions reductions in
time to meet the next compliance deadline.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For further information on replacing a FIP with a SIP, see
the discussion in the final CSAPR rulemaking (76 FR 48326).
\3\ See 86 FR 23054, 23147-23148 (April 30, 2021) (describing
expected elements needed to replace a Revised CSAPR Update FIP). In
addition, should a state wish to adopt the Group 3 trading program
itself into its SIP, EPA regulations address replacing the Revised
CSAPR Update FIP with a Revised CSAPR Update SIP at 40 CFR
52.38(b)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey has not submitted, nor has the EPA approved, a SIP
revision that provides adequate and enforceable provisions ensuring
that emission reductions equal to or greater than the Group 3 trading
program will be achieved. Merely indicating the percentage of annual
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from mobile, EGU, and point sources in the
State of New Jersey does not demonstrate that necessary emission
reductions have been sufficiently achieved as reflected by the state-
level, seasonal emissions budget established for New Jersey in the
Revised CSAPR Update.
Despite NJDEP's claim that the State's 2017 NO<INF>X</INF> emission
inventory demonstrates that EGUs are well controlled, the EPA's
analysis performed for the Revised CSAPR Update did find that
additional cost-effective controls were available for EGUs in New
Jersey.
NJDEP has not adequately demonstrated that the State's plan is
sufficient to ensure that New Jersey emissions will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other
states. As such, the EPA must disapprove New Jersey's SIP submission
for failing to satisfy the statutory requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
In its comments to the EPA, NJDEP further states that the EPA
should also implement federal mobile source measures. The EPA has been
regulating mobile source emissions since it was established as a
federal agency in 1970 and is committed to continuing the effective
implementation and enforcement of current mobile source emissions
standards. The EPA believes that the NO<INF>X</INF> reductions from its
federal programs are an important reason for the historical and long-
running trend of improving air quality in the United States. The trend
helps explain why the overall number of receptors and severity of ozone
nonattainment problems under the 2008 ozone NAAQS have declined. As a
result of this long history, NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from on road and
nonroad mobile sources have substantially decreased (78 percent and 62
percent since 2002, for on road and nonroad, respectively) \4\ and are
predicted to continue to decrease into the future as newer vehicles and
engines that are subject to the most recent, stringent standards
replace older vehicles and engines.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ US EPA. Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends Through 2021.
<a href="https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2022/#home">https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2022/#home</a>.
\5\ National Emissions Inventory Collaborative (2019). 2016v1
Emissions Modeling Platform. Retrieved from <a href="https://views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/wiki/10202">https://views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/wiki/10202</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 28, 2022, the EPA proposed new standards for emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles for model years 2027 and beyond.\6\ If
finalized, the proposed standards would significantly reduce
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from heavy-duty gasoline and diesel engines
and set more stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for certain
commercial vehicle categories. This proposal is consistent with
President Biden's Executive Order 14037, ``Strengthening American
Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,'' \7\ and would ensure the heavy-
duty vehicles and engines that drive American commerce are as clean as
possible while charting a path to advance zero-emission vehicles in the
heavy-duty fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 87 FR 17414 (March 28, 2022).
\7\ 86 FR 43583 (August 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: PADEP is supportive of the proposed disapproval of New
York's and New Jersey's SIP submissions to address the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). PADEP notes that New Jersey contributes at roughly
twelve times the one percent significant contribution threshold for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, and New York contributes almost twenty times the
significant contribution threshold for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, to
downwind receptors in Connecticut.
PADEP states that because of New York and New Jersey's close
proximity to Connecticut, their emissions generate more pollution
contributions to Connecticut's monitors than other states.
Additionally, PADEP asserts that New York and New Jersey could still
make overall low-cost ozone reductions on a ``part per billion'' basis
to address nonattainment at Connecticut monitors for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. PADEP notes that as part of EPA's analysis in the proposed
disapproval, the EPA finds that New York and New Jersey fail to address
the Revised CSAPR Update's benefits in their SIPs. Additionally, PADEP
states that the EPA should consider cost effectiveness based upon the
magnitude of the direct ozone reduction when reviewing New York's and
New Jersey's Good Neighbor SIP obligations due to their large impact
and proximity to Connecticut's nonattainment areas.
PADEP also notes the large contributions from New York and New
Jersey for the 2015 ozone NAAQS to Pennsylvania.
Response 3: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the
EPA's proposed rule disapproving New York and New Jersey SIP
submissions
[[Page 55695]]
pertaining to the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The EPA's proposed action was limited to determining whether New
York and New Jersey SIP submissions adequately address the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As
evidenced by this disapproval action, EPA has concluded that the New
York and New Jersey SIP submissions do not adequately address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). PADEP's comments
characterizing the nature of interstate transport between New York, New
Jersey, and Connecticut do not alter EPA's conclusion. Additionally,
the Revised CSAPR Update was not opened for reconsideration in this
action. Comments on the Revised CSAPR Update were previously responded
to in the final notice and docket for that rulemaking. 86 FR 23054
(April 30, 2021).\8\ Lastly, the EPA considers the portions of the
PADEP comment regarding the 2015 ozone NAAQS to be outside the scope of
this action, which is only related to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272. Available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: The Midwest Ozone Group (MOG) submitted comments that
urge the EPA to require New York to impose emission controls for Simple
Cycle Combustion Turbines (SCCTs) units by 2021, instead of the 2023-
2025 period as specified in an EPA-approved New York regulation.
MOG states that the EPA's disapproval of New York's good neighbor
SIP is based upon the recognition that New York did not demonstrate
that it was adequately controlling its emissions, with New York
conceding that its emissions were linked to Connecticut nonattainment
areas. Furthermore, MOG states that the EPA indicates that New York's
regulation for SCCTs will not be phased in until the 2023-2025 period,
even though the applicable serious nonattainment deadline is July 20,
2021.
Accordingly, MOG asserts, the EPA ignored good neighbor caselaw by
approving New York SCCT controls in a separate action (86 FR 43956
(August 11, 2021)) when those controls would not be required until the
2023-2025 period.
MOG alleged that the delay in NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions
from New York's SCCTs are impacting nonattainment and downwind areas as
well as affecting upwind states through what they allege to be
inappropriate regulation under the Revised CSAPR Update. MOG's comment
letter also included Exhibit A, MOG's December 14, 2020 comment letter
to the EPA regarding the proposal of the Revised Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. Exhibit A made similar
comments regarding New York's SCCT rule, including MOG's assertion of
the need for the EPA to address New York's failure to impose controls
under that rule by 2021.
MOG requests that EPA exercise its authority, pursuant to CAA
Section 110(k)(5), to require New York to revise its SIP to impose
controls on SCCT units by the 2008 ozone attainment date of 2021.
Additionally, MOG argues, the EPA must recognize and determine that New
York's failure to impose SCCT controls by 2021 constitutes a failure by
New York as both an upwind and downwind state to harmonize its
attainment date obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Response 4: It is not readily apparent from the comment if MOG
supports or opposes EPA's proposal to disapprove New York's 2008 ozone
NAAQS good neighbor SIP submission. The EPA proposed to disapprove New
York's good neighbor SIP submission based on the deficiencies as
described in the November 3, 2021, NPRM. Outside of that rationale, the
EPA noted for informational purposes that some controls identified in
New York's 2008 ozone NAAQS good neighbor SIP submission as in
development as of the date New York submitted the good neighbor
submission in 2018 to EPA were later adopted by the State and approved
by the EPA, including the SCCT controls, which are the focus of MOG's
comment. However, New York's SCCT controls were not included by New
York in the submission under EPA review in this action, nor was the
prior approval of the SCCT controls (approved by the EPA as a SIP
strengthening measure) reopened for consideration by the Agency in this
action. The EPA previously responded to MOG's comments on the need for
faster implementation of the SCCT controls in the notice for that
separate final action. 86 FR 43956, 43957-43958 (August 11, 2021).
Therefore, MOG's comments related to New York's SCCT controls are
outside the scope of this action, which is determining only that New
York's 2018 submission does not satisfy the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
MOG stated it ``incorporated'' its comments on the Revised CSAPR
Update into its comments on this action. However, the Revised CSAPR
Update was not reopened for consideration in this action. Certain MOG
comments question whether the Revised CSAPR Update is a lawful and
complete remedy to resolve certain states' interstate transport
obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Those issues were appropriately
addressed in the Revised CSAPR Update rulemaking, and there is no need
to revisit those issues in order to find New York's transport submittal
is not approvable in this action. The EPA previously responded to MOG's
comments on the Revised CSAPR Update in the final notice and docket for
that rulemaking. 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).\9\ MOG's legal challenge
to the Revised CSAPR Update is currently pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. MOG v. EPA et al., No. 21-1146
(D.C. Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272. Available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also finds MOG's suggestion to issue a SIP Call to New York
to modify its infrastructure SIP under CAA section 110(k)(5) irrelevant
to the final determination made in this action, which is that New
York's 2008 ozone NAAQS good neighbor SIP submission does not satisfy
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
III. What action is the EPA taking?
The EPA is disapproving the portion of the New York and New Jersey
SIP submittals pertaining to the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding interstate transport of air pollution
(prongs 1 and 2) that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
IV. What are the consequences of a disapproved SIP?
Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock pursuant to
CAA section 179 because this action does not pertain to either a part D
plan for nonattainment areas required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I),
or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). The EPA has amended
FIPs, in a separate action finalizing the Revised CSAPR Update for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, to reflect the additional emissions reductions
necessary to address New York's and New Jersey's significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance.
Therefore, this action does not trigger a duty for the EPA to
promulgate FIPs for either New York or New Jersey.
[[Page 55696]]
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This final action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA section
110 will not create any new information collection burdens but simply
proposes to disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into
the SIP.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This proposed rule
does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities.
This proposed SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not create any
new requirements but simply proposes to disapprove certain State
requirements, for inclusion into the SIP.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
on which EPA is proposing action would not 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. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks 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 simply disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion
into the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This action merely disapproves
certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
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. The 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).
L. 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 14, 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 CAA section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Lisa Garcia,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart FF--New Jersey
0
2. Section 52.1586 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1586 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Disapproval. (i) Submittal from New Jersey dated October 17,
2014, to address the CAA infrastructure requirements of section
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 NO<INF>2</INF>,
2010 SO<INF>2</INF>, 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 PM<INF>10</INF> and
2011 CO NAAQS is disapproved for (D)(i)(II) prong 3 (PSD program only).
These requirements are being addressed by Sec. 52.1603 which has been
delegated to New Jersey to implement.
(ii) New Jersey SIP revision submitted on May 13, 2019, to address
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is disapproved. These requirements are being
addressed by Sec. 52.1584.
* * * * *
Subpart HH--New York
0
3. Section 52.1683 is amended by adding paragraph (u) to read as
follows:
[[Page 55697]]
Sec. 52.1683 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(u) The SIP revision submitted on September 25, 2018, addressing
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS is disapproved. These requirements are being addressed by
Sec. 52.1684.
[FR Doc. 2022-19645 Filed 9-9-22; 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 September 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.