[Federal Register: March 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 52)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14181-14183]
[DOCID:fr17mr08-8]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2008-0045]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area: Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Oregon
Inlet, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary regulated
navigation area (RNA) on the waters of Oregon Inlet, NC. The regulated
navigation area (RNA) is needed to minimize the risk of potential
structural damage to the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge during fender repair
work. This rule will enhance the safety of vessels transiting the area
and vehicles crossing over the bridge during periods of reduced
horizontal clearance in the main navigation channel.

DATES: This rule is effective from 5 a.m. on April 16, 2008 through 8
p.m. May 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0045 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and at the United States
Coast Guard District Five Legal Office, 431 Crawford Street,
Portsmouth, Virginia between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning this
temporary final rule, phone CWO4 Stephen Lyons, Waterways Management
Division Chief, Sector North Carolina, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Immediate action is needed to
protect the maritime public from the hazards associated with this
maintenance project. The necessary information to determine whether the
construction poses a threat to persons and vessels was not provided
with

sufficient time to publish an NPRM. For the safety concerns noted, it
is in the public interest to have this regulation in place during the
construction.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
be contrary to public interest, since immediate action is needed to
ensure the public's safety.

Background and Purpose

    The State of North Carolina Department of Transportation has
awarded two contracts to Marine Technologies Inc. of Baltimore, MD to
perform repair work on the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge located in Oregon
Inlet, NC. The first contract provides for the placing of six
supplemental concrete sub-caps and the installation of nine pile
jackets. The second contract is for the repair of the existing fender
system that protects the main channel span from vessel allision. The
fender repair is scheduled to begin on April 16, 2008 and will require
45 working days to complete. The contractor will be utilizing a spud
barge with a 30[foot] beam during the fender system repair work. During
periods of work, the spud barge will reduce the available horizontal
clearance of the main navigational channel to 105[foot]. Vessel use of
the alternate channels will not be sanctioned by the Coast Guard
because the alternate spans are not clearly marked by navigational
aids. In addition, due to concerns about the stability of the bridge,
potential vessel strikes, and the absence of a fender system in the
alternate channels, the only safe passage for vessels is through the
main navigational channel.

Discussion of Rule

    The proposed regulated navigation area would encompass the area of
the main navigational channel directly under the Herbert C. Bonner
Bridge. All vessels of 100 gross tons and greater are not permitted to
transit the waterway during the periods of time when the available
horizontal clearance is reduced by the contractor's spud barge unless
the vessel asks the District Commander for permission to transit. The
District Commander can be contacted via Sector North Carolina at
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The contractor's spud barge will be relocated out of the main
navigational channel each day during non-working hours. All vessels,
including vessels of 100 gross tons and greater, will be permitted to
transit the main navigational channel during non-working hours when the
spud barge is removed.
    Vessels less than 100 gross tons are permitted to use the main
navigational channel at all times, including the periods of time when
the spud barge is restricting the available horizontal clearance, but
must transit the area at no-wake speed. However, nothing in this
proposed rule negates the requirement to operate at a safe speed as
provided in the Navigation Rules and Regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated
area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The
regulated navigation area will be in effect for a limited duration of
time and (ii) the Coast Guard will make notification via maritime
advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Although the regulated area will apply to the waters of the
Oregon Inlet, the zone will not have significant impact on small
entities because the zone will only be in place for a limited duration
of time and maritime advisories will be issued in advance to allow the
public to adjust their plans accordingly.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check
List'' and a final ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' will be
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

Regulation

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-005 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-005  Regulated Navigation Area; Bonner Bridge Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet, NC.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, District
Commander means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard District Five and any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
authorized by the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard District Five to act as a
designated representative on his behalf.
    (b) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area:
All waters of Oregon Inlet, from the surface to the bottom,
encompassing the area of the main navigational channel directly under
the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing regulated
navigation areas found in Sec.  165.13 of this part apply to the
regulated navigation area described in paragraph (b).
    (2) Any vessel of 100 gross tons or greater may not transit the
waterway when the available horizontal clearance is reduced by the
contractor's spud barge without first obtaining permission in
accordance with paragraph (5).
    (3) All vessels, including vessels of 100 gross tons or greater,
will be permitted to transit the main navigational channel during non-
working hours when the spud barge is removed.
    (4) Vessels less than 100 gross tons are permitted to use the main
navigational channel at all times, including the periods of time when
the spud barge is restricting the available horizontal clearance, but
must transit the area at no-wake speed.
    (5) Vessels of 100 gross tons or greater desiring to transit the
area of the regulated navigation area when the available horizontal
clearance is reduced by the contractor's spud barge must first obtain
authorization from the District Commander. To seek permission to
transit the area, the District Commander can be contacted via Sector
North Carolina at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed
as directed. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be
contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (7) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the District Commander and proceed at the
minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the
zone.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 5 a.m.
on April 16, 2008 through 8 p.m. May 31, 2008.

    Dated: February 22, 2008.
F.M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-5327 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


as upstream emissions, while emissions from the tailpipe of the
vehicle that result from the vehicle being driven are generally
referred to as downstream emissions. Decreases in upstream emissions
could result from decreases in gasoline consumption, and therefore
lower volumes of fuel production and distribution, while decreases
in downstream emissions generally occur because of on-vehicle
pollution controls like catalytic converter systems or because the
vehicle is being driven less, and therefore emits fewer emissions
from the tailpipe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reduce air pollution levels, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) (and some state agencies, like the California Air Resources
Board) established regulatory programs to control sources of emissions
from transportation. The regulatory programs that cover the vehicles
subject to proposed alternative CAFE standards in this notice include
EPA's Tier 2 and Tier 3 vehicle emissions and gasoline standards, which
prescribe reductions in vehicle tailpipe emissions as well as limits
for the sulfur content in gasoline. As discussed further in Chapter 4
of NHTSA's Final SEIS (Air Quality), since the 1970s aggregate
emissions traditionally associated with vehicles have decreased
substantially even as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased by
approximately 173 percent from 1970 to 2014, and additional growth in
VMT will have a smaller impact on emissions because of these stricter
EPA standards for vehicle tailpipe emissions and fuels.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Final SEIS, at 4-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 4 of the Final SEIS also discusses how air pollutant
emissions increase the risk of adverse health impacts, particularly for
populations that live, work, or go to school near high-traffic roadways
or that are exposed to high-traffic; the human health and environmental
effects of criteria pollutants and MSATs; the relevant regulatory
programs that control air pollutant emissions from vehicles and
gasoline; and trends in travel and emissions from highway vehicles.
Chapter 4 estimates the impact of emissions of criteria pollutants and
MSATs from passenger cars and light trucks that would result from
different levels of increases in CAFE standards for the U.S. light duty
vehicle fleet. Please refer to that Chapter for a comprehensive
discussion of those impacts.
    Finally, as discussed further in Chapter 5 of the Final SEIS
(Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change), the carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gasses emitted from the tailpipes of vehicles driven
in the United States have global impacts. Chapter 5 of the Final SEIS
provides a comprehensive survey of panel-reviewed synthesis and
assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program (GCRP),
supplemented with past reports from the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP), the National Research Council, the Arctic Council, and
EPA's Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (EPA
2009), which relied heavily on past major international or national
scientific assessment reports, to provide decisionmakers and the public
with information about climate change's potential impacts on health,
society, and the environment. Increases in greenhouse gas emissions, in
particular from human activities like burning fossil fuels,\95\ leads
to changes in global

average surface temperature, precipitation, ice cover, sea level, cloud
cover, sea surface temperatures and currents, and other climate
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ While greenhouse gas emissions and the corresponding
processes that affect the aforementioned climate parameters are
highly complex and variable, an increasing number of studies
conclude that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are affecting
the global climate in detectable and quantifiable ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 5 of the Final SEIS explains how NHTSA estimated the levels
of greenhouse gas emissions that would result from different levels of
CAFE standards, and how the agency modeled certain climate parameters
including global concentrations of CO2, sea level rise,
global mean surface temperature, and ocean pH. At the levels of
estimated fuel use resulting from different levels of industry-wide
CAFE standards for model years 2024-2026, NHTSA estimated the following
global impacts (presented as a range between the no action alternative,
which is an approximately 1.5 percent year over year increase in the
industry-wide light duty CAFE standards, and the most stringent action
alternative, which is an approximately 10 percent year over year
increase in the industry-wide light duty CAFE standards).\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Reproduced from Final SEIS Table 5.4.2-2, at 5-42. Note
that the numbers in Table 5.4.2-2 were rounded for presentation
purposes, and as a result, the reductions might not reflect the
exact difference of the values in all cases. See the Final SEIS at
5-42 for additional notes about these values.

                                           Table 5--CAFE MY 2024-2026 Final SEIS Estimates of Climate Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       CO2 concentration (ppm)          Global mean surface temperature increase          Sea-level rise (cm)                      Ocean pH
--------------------------------------                  ([deg]C)                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      -------------------------------------------
    2040         2060         2100          2040          2060          2100         2040        2060        2100        2040        2060        2100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   478.92-      565.10-      788.33-         1.287-        2.006-        3.481-      22.87-      36.55-      76.22-     8.4100-     8.3478-     8.2180-
    479.04       565.44       789.11          1.287         2.008         3.484       22.87       36.56       76.28      8.4099      8.3476      8.2176
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although actions related to motor vehicle fuel economy have local,
national, and global effect, it is difficult to assess the area of
effect for this action because--unlike the industry-wide EIS that
assigns nationwide impacts based in part on population \97\--NHTSA does
not know where the vehicles considered in this action are sold and
driven. Therefore, as discussed further below, NHTSA made several
simplifying assumptions for purposes of estimating the environmental
impacts of the proposed action and alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Moreover, this is unlike a typical NEPA action such as a
pipeline route, forest management plan, etc. that considers a site-
specific proposal and site-specific alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following subsection presents the estimated impacts of this
action on fuel use for each alternative and the associated estimated
downstream greenhouse gas emissions impacts based on estimated fuel
use. NHTSA did not conduct independent climate or air quality modeling
for this action because, as discussed further below, the agency
believes that it is reasonable to infer from the amount of estimated
fuel used under each alternative that none of the alternatives
considered in this notice would result in appreciable environmental
impacts, and this information would not result in any new meaningful
information for decisionmakers and the public. To read a comprehensive
discussion of the resource areas summarized above, or the other
resource areas considered when setting industry-wide CAFE standards,
please see the Final SEIS.
4. Environmental Consequences
    Like the estimates of fuel consumption that would result if NHTSA
set industry-wide CAFE standards at different levels, NHTSA's fuel
consumption estimates calculated for this action provide a starting
point to estimate a relative potential range of environmental impacts.
    To estimate the amount of additional fuel consumed by the exempted
fleet over its operating lifetime,\98\ NHTSA calculated the difference
between the low volume manufacturer's footprint-based standard for MY
2013 forward (i.e., the estimated fuel used under the no-action
alternative, for model years for which fuel economy credits are
available) and their proposed alternative standard (or achieved fleet
fuel economy for model years that have already passed). NHTSA
multiplied this difference by the manufacturer's estimated U.S.
production volume,\99\ and then by an estimated total miles that these
vehicles could travel as an active part of the fleet (i.e., the
vehicles' estimated yearly VMT).\100\ The resulting estimates of
additional lifetime fuel consumption for all manufacturers and model
years considered in this action compared to the no-action alternative
are shown below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Approximately 15 years, based on the estimated passenger
sedan life as calculated in the latest industry-wide CAFE rulemaking
action.
    \99\ As discussed in the preamble, where NHTSA did not have
final production data for a manufacturer, in particular where
estimated production data is still confidential, the agency averaged
the last three years of a manufacturers' actual production data.
    \100\ As discussed in the preamble, NHTSA estimated that a high-
performance vehicle would travel 2,543 miles per year, while a
mobility van would travel 11,128 miles per year.

                             Table 6--Estimated Additional Lifetime Fuel Consumption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Preferred
                                                                     No action      alternative    As requested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Gallons...................................................      48,873,908      88,643,357      88,997,267
Difference from the No Action Alternative.......................  ..............      39,769,449      40,123,359
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To put this in perspective, NHTSA looked at the average amount of
fuel consumed by an average passenger car subject to the industry-wide
passenger car CAFE standard over its useful life, in this case a MY
2017 Toyota Camry. The estimated total gallons of fuel used if
standards are set at the levels proposed in this action are roughly
equivalent to the fuel used by approximately 8,534 MY 2017 Toyota
Camrys. In other words, setting alternative standards at the levels
proposed in this notice for the 15 model years covered by this notice
would have the energy effect of a one-time addition of 171 MY 2017
Toyota Camrys per U.S. state. Compared to the pre-pandemic peak of
approximately 17 million vehicles sold in the United States in a model
year, the vehicles considered in

this notice that cover fifteen model years contribute only a small
amount to total U.S. transportation fuel use.
    As with the impacts to energy use, NHTSA expects that the proposed
action would have a relatively minimal impact on air quality, and
accordingly, air quality related health effects, based on the relative
percentage of fuel used by the vehicles considered in this action
compared to total light-duty vehicle fuel use. As discussed in Chapter
4 of NHTSA's Final SEIS, nationwide criteria pollutant emissions from
vehicle tailpipes are projected to decrease over time, even as VMT
increases, due to increasingly stringent EPA regulation of criteria
pollutant emissions and reductions in emissions from fuel production.
NHTSA does not expect that trend to change based on the levels of fuel
use projected for this action. In addition, some of the increases in
criteria pollutant emissions projected in the Final SEIS are due to
increases in upstream emissions from power plants from increased
electric vehicle use. The vehicles considered in this action run
primarily on gasoline; none of the vehicles with electrified
powertrains draw energy from the electric grid. The same projected
trends exist for toxic air pollutants; emissions are projected to
decrease through 2050 based on increasingly stringent EPA regulations
and reductions in emissions from fuel production, despite growth in
total VMT. NHTSA does not expect that any of these trends would change
based on the minor increases in fuel use projected from this action.
    To estimate the approximate effect that this action would have on
greenhouse gas emissions, NHTSA first used EPA's Greenhouse Gas
Equivalencies Calculator to convert the estimated additional gallons of
gasoline that would be used under the alternatives to metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.\101\ Over the lifetime of all
model year vehicles considered in this notice (15 model years' worth of
vehicles that each last approximately 15 years), for the fuel use
considered in this action, the following additional carbon dioxide
equivalent emissions are expected to result: 285,193 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions under the ``as-requested''
alternative, and 282,047 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions at the preferred alternative levels. To put this in
perspective, NHTSA referenced EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks 1990-2019 report, which estimated that the U.S.
passenger car and light truck vehicle fleet emits a little over a
thousand million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per
year (averaged over 2017, 2018, and 2019).\102\ Over the useful life of
a vehicle considered in this action, the vehicles considered in this
action are estimated to produce an estimated increase in carbon dioxide
equivalent emissions of 0.00169% and 0.00167% (for the as-requested and
preferred alternative levels, respectively) of total light duty vehicle
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions over what the vehicles would have
produced had they met their footprint-based standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator. EPA
specifies that estimates from this calculator are approximate and
should not be used for emission inventories or formal carbon
emissions analysis. NHTSA used these estimates as part of its
determination that a formal carbon emissions analysis is not
required for this action.
    \102\ U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2019, at Table 2-13, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-main-text.pdf?VersionId=wEy8wQuGrWS8Ef_hSLXHy1kYwKs4.ZaU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA did not perform independent climate modeling for this
proposal because the agency believes that is reasonable to infer that
if relatively small--but not trivial--climate impacts would result from
large-scale changes in fuel use from changes in the industry-wide
passenger car and light truck standards, as shown in the table of
estimated atmospheric CO2 concentrations, global mean
surface temperature increases, sea-level rise, and ocean pH above,
estimating the impacts of the no action alternative and alternatives
presented in this notice would not present any additional meaningful
information for decisionmakers and the public.
    Some potential impacts of the proposed action could be mitigated
through other means; as discussed above, EPA also sets alternative
carbon dioxide emissions standards for some of the low volume
manufacturers considered in this notice. Unlike the structure of EPCA/
EISA, which allows civil penalty payment for each 0.1 of a mile a
gallon by which the manufacturer falls short of the applicable average
fuel economy standard,\103\ manufacturers must be in compliance with
EPA regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act to sell their
vehicles. To the extent that EPA sets higher alternative standards for
model year 2022 and 2023 vehicles, some of the estimated impacts could
be mitigated. Next, the estimates of fuel use presented here are
dependent on several assumptions, one being how many miles these
vehicles are driven. The vehicles covered by this proposed exemption
represent an extremely small fraction of overall motor vehicle sales
and on-road VMT; most of the vehicles considered in this notice are
estimated to drive a quarter of the mileage of the average passenger
car. If these vehicles were or are driven less than NHTSA estimated,
fuel use, air quality impacts, and greenhouse gas emissions would be
reduced accordingly. However, to the extent that some of the vehicles
considered in this action have already been built and sold, the impacts
of those vehicles achieving a lower fuel economy level than their
footprint-based standard represent an unavoidable adverse impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ 49 U.S.C. 32912(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both alternatives considered in this Draft EA result in increased
fuel use compared to the no-action alternative; however, the preferred
alternative does result in marginally less estimated fuel use than the
``as requested'' alternative. NHTSA does not believe that establishing
alternative CAFE standards at the preferred alternative levels would
contribute appreciably to any of the environmental impacts considered
in this Draft EA. NHTSA seeks comment on this analysis and whether
there are any environmental impacts that the agency has not considered
that are relevant to a reasoned choice by the decisionmaker.
5. Agencies and Persons Consulted
    NHTSA coordinated with EPA to seek their feedback on this Draft EA,
and EPA had no comments or suggested changes.
6. Conclusion
    NHTSA has reviewed the information presented in this Draft EA and
concludes that the proposed action would have minimal impacts on the
quality of the human environment. Based on the information in this
Draft EA and assuming no additional information or changed
circumstances, NHTSA expects to issue a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI). Such a finding will be made only after careful review
of all public comments received. A Final EA and a FONSI, if
appropriate, will be issued as part of the final rule.

Proposed Regulatory Text

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 531

    Energy conservation, Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 531 is proposed to
be amended as follows:

PART 531--PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 531 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902, delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95.
0
2. Amend Sec.  531.5 by
0
a. Removing from paragraph (a) the term ``paragraph (f)'' and add in
its place ``paragraph (e)'' ;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (e)(4) and (15); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (e)(16) through (20).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  531.5  Fuel economy standards.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
(4) Aston Martin Lagonda Limited Average Fuel Economy Standard

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 (Miles
                          Model year                              per
                                                                gallon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008.........................................................       19.0
2009.........................................................       18.6
2010.........................................................       19.2
2011.........................................................       19.1
2012.........................................................       19.2
2013.........................................................       20.1
2014.........................................................       19.7
2015.........................................................       19.8
2016.........................................................       20.2
2017.........................................................       21.4
2018.........................................................       22.9
2019.........................................................       22.4
2020.........................................................       22.6
2021.........................................................       24.9
2022.........................................................       24.9
2023.........................................................       24.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
(15) Spyker Automobielen B.V.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 (Miles
                          Model year                              per
                                                                gallon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008.........................................................       19.6
2009.........................................................       19.6
2010.........................................................       20.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(16) Ferrari

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 (Miles
                          Model year                              per
                                                                gallon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.........................................................       21.7
2017.........................................................       21.5
2018.........................................................       21.6
2020.........................................................       21.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(17) Koenigsegg

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 (Miles
                          Model year                              per
                                                                gallon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015.........................................................       16.7
2018.........................................................       16.7
2019.........................................................       16.6
2020.........................................................       16.6
2021.........................................................       16.6
2022.........................................................       16.9
2023.........................................................       16.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(18) McLaren

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 (Miles
                          Model year                              per
                                                                gallon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.........................................................       23.2
2013.........................................................       24.0
2014.........................................................       23.8
2015.........................................................       22.9
2016.........................................................       23.2
2017.........................................................       24.3
2018.........................................................       23.3
2019.........................................................       22.5
2020.........................................................       22.5
2021.........................................................       21.5
2022.........................................................       24.6
2023.........................................................       25.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(19) Mobility Ventures

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 (Miles
                          Model year                              per
                                                                gallon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014.........................................................       19.6
2015.........................................................       20.1
2016.........................................................       20.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(20) Pagani

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 (Miles
                          Model year                              per
                                                                gallon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014.........................................................       15.6
2016.........................................................       15.6
2017.........................................................       15.6
2018.........................................................       15.6
2019.........................................................       15.5
2020.........................................................       15.5
2021.........................................................       15.5
2022.........................................................       15.5
2023.........................................................       15.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Steven S. Cliff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-12618 Filed 6-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Page 1 of 5 pages Rulemaking Hearing Rules of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Bureau of Environment Division of Air Pollution Control Chapter 1200 3 18 Volatile Organic Compounds Amendments Chapter 1200 3 18 is amended in the following four respects:

1. Subparagraph ( a) of paragraph ( 1) of rule 1200 3 18. 22 Bulk Gasoline Plants is amended by inserting between the words " in" and " Davidson" the words " Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham;" between the words " Davidson" and " Rutherford" the words " Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson;" between the words " Rutherford" and " Shelby" the word " Sevier;" between the words " Shelby" and " Sumner" the word " Sullivan;" and between the words " Sumner" and " Williamson" the words " Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington," so that, as amended, the subparagraph shall read:

( a) This rule applies to all unloading, loading, and storage operations at bulk gasoline plants in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, and Wilson Counties and to gasoline tank trucks delivering or receiving gasoline at these bulk gasoline plants.

Authority: TCA 68 201 105 and 4 5 202. Effective April 22, 1993.

2. Paragraph ( 6) of rule 1200 3 18. 22 Bulk Gasoline Plants is amended by adding a comma and the words " except that for any bulk gasoline plant in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Sevier, Sullivan, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, or Washington County that is an existing source on ( rule effective date) the initial compliance certification required in paragraph .04( 1) shall be submitted by ( the May 1 after one year after rule effective date) instead of the date specified in this paragraph .04( 1)," so that, as amended, the paragraph shall read:

( 6) The owner or operator of any facility containing sources subject to this rule shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs .04( 1) and ( 2) of this chapter, except that for any bulk gasoline plant in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Sevier, Sullivan, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, or Washington County that is an existing source on ( rule effective date) the initial compliance certification required in paragraph .04( 1) shall be submitted by ( the May 1 after one year after rule effective date) instead of the date specified in this paragraph .04( 1).

Authority: TCA 68 201 105 and 4 5 202. Effective April 22, 1993.

3. Subparagraph ( a) of paragraph ( 1) of rule 1200 3 18. 24 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery is amended by inserting between the words " in" and " Davidson" the words " Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham;" between the words " Davidson" and " Rutherford" the words " Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson;" between the words " Rutherford" and " Shelby" the word " Sevier;" between the words " Shelby" and " Sumner" the word " Sullivan;" and between the words " Sumner" and Page 2 of 5 pages " Williamson" the words " Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington," so that, as amended, the subparagraph shall read:

( a) This rule applies to any gasoline dispensing facility in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Rutherford, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Sumner, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, Washington, Williamson, or Wilson County and the appurtenant equipment necessary to the gasoline dispensing facility and to any gasoline tank truck that transfers gasoline to storage vessels at such facilities.

Authority: TCA 68 201 105 and 4 5 201 et. seq. Administrative History: Original rule filed March 8, 1993; effective April 22, 1993. effective June 21, 1996. Amendment filed May 30, 1996; effective August 10, 1996.

4. Subparagraph ( a) of paragraph ( 6) of rule 1200 3 18. 24 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery is amended by substituting for the present subparagraph a different subparagraph so that, as amended, the resulting subparagraph shall read:

( a) Comply with the requirements in paragraphs .04( 1) and ( 2) of this chapter, except that for gasoline dispensing facilities in Anderson, Blount, Carter, Cheatham, Dickson, Fayette, Hamilton, Hawkins, Haywood, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, Meigs, Montgomery, Putnam, Robertson, Sevier, Shelby, Sullivan, Tipton, Unicoi, Union, and Washington Counties that are existing sources on ( rule effective date) the initial compliance certifications required in paragraph .04( 1) shall be submitted by ( the May 1 after one year after rule effective date) instead of the date specified in this paragraph .04( 1) and shall be according to the applicable test methods specified in subparagraphs ( 4)( b) and ( c) of this rule;

Authority: TCA 68 201 105 and 4 5 201 et. seq. Administrative History: Original rule filed March 8, 1993; effective April 22, 1993. effective June 21, 1996. Amendment filed May 30, 1996; effective August 10, 1996.

Legal contact and/ or party who will approve final copy for publication:

Ms. Lacey Hardin Division of Air Pollution Control 9th Floor L & C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243 1531 ( 615) 532 0554 Contact for disk acquisition: Ms. Lacey Hardin Division of Air Pollution Control 9th Floor L & C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243 1531 ( 615) 532 0554 Page 3 of 5 pages Signature of the agency officer or officers directly responsible for proposing and drafting this rule:

___________________________________ Barry R. Stephens Director Tennessee Air Pollution Control Division The roll call vote of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board on this rulemaking hearing rule was as follows:

Aye No Abstain ________________________ _____ _____ _____ Richard A. Bolton _______________________ _____ _____ _____ Wilton Burnett, Jr.

________________________ _____ _____ _____ Tracy R. Carter _______________________ _____ _____ _____ Mary English _______________________ _____ _____ _____ Sharon Goldsworthy _______________________ _____ _____ _____ Stephen Gossett ________________________ _____ _____ _____ Helen Hennon ________________________ _____ _____ _____ Richard Holland ________________________ _____ _____ _____ Robert D. Kirkpatrick ________________________ _____ _____ _____ Ron Page _______________________ _____ _____ _____ Ike Sewell ________________________ _____ _____ _____ Greer Tidwell, Jr.

_______________________ _____ _____ _____ Richard Warder ________________________ _____ _____ _____ Larry Waters Page 4 of 5 pages I certify that this is an accurate and complete copy of the rulemaking hearing rule, lawfully promulgated and adopted by the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board on the ____ day of ______________, 2004. Page 5 of 5 pages Further, I certify that the provisions of T. C. A. § § 4 5 222 have been fully complied with, that this rule was properly presented for filing, a notice of rulemaking hearing having been filed in the Department of State on the 27th day of February 2004, and such notice of rulemaking hearing having been published in the March 15, 2004, issue of the Tennessee Administrative Register, and such rulemaking hearing having been conducted pursuant thereto on the 19th day of April 2004.

__________________________________ Barry R. Stephens Technical Secretary Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board Subscribed and sworn to before me this the _________ day of _____________________, 2004.

__________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires on the ________ day of ____________________ , ________ .

The rulemaking hearing rule provided for herein has been examined by the Attorney General and Reporter of the State of Tennessee and approved as to legality pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 5.

__________________________________ Paul G. Summers Attorney General and Reporter The rulemaking hearing rule set out herein was properly filed in the Department of State on the day of __________________ 20 , and will become effective on the _____ day of _____________ , 20 ____ .

__________________________________ Riley C. Darnell Secretary of State By: __________________________________

Winword/ rm/ 6 06. doc


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49511-49512]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23229]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0509; FRL-9969-92-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; City of Philadelphia; Control of
Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to notify the public that it has received a negative
declaration for sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units within the City
of Philadelphia. This negative declaration certifies that SSI units
subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) do not exist within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
Philadelphia Air Management Service (AMS). EPA is accepting the
negative declaration 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 November 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 Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2017-0509 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. 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: Mike Gordon,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require states to submit plans
to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid
waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards
of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new
sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines
(EG) for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant
for which no air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not
included on a list published under section 108(a) or section
112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, but emissions of which are subject to a
standard of performance for new stationary sources. On March 21, 2011
(76 FR 15372), EPA promulgated SSI unit new source performance
standards, 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, and emission guidelines,
subpart MMMM. The designated facilities to which the EG apply are
existing SSI units that: (1) Commenced construction on or before
October 14, 2010; (2) that meet the definition of a SSI unit as defined
in Sec.  60.5250; and (3) are not exempt under Sec.  60.5065.
    Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed
and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state
plans for controlling designated pollutants. Also, 40 CFR part 62
provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans.
When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then
develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant.
However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if there are no
existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state
may submit a letter of certification to that effect (i.e., negative
declaration) in lieu of a plan. The negative declaration exempts the
state from the requirements of subpart B that require the submittal of
a 111(d)/129 plan.

II. State Submittal and EPA Analysis

    Philadelphia AMS has determined that there are no SSI units subject
to the requirements of Sections CAA 111(d) and 129 of the CAA in their
respective air pollution control jurisdiction. Accordingly,
Philadelphia AMS submitted a negative declaration letter to EPA
certifying this fact on March 28, 2012. The negative declaration letter
and EPA's technical support document for this action are available in
the docket for this the docket for this rulemaking and available online
at www.regulations.gov.

III. Final Action

    In this direct final action, EPA is amending part 62 to reflect
receipt of the negative declaration letter from Philadelphia AMS. 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 today's Federal
Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the revision if adverse comments are filed. This
rule will be effective on December 26, 2017 without further notice
unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 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.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely notifies the public of EPA receipt of a negative declaration
from an air pollution control agency without any existing SSI units in
their jurisdiction. This action imposes no requirements. Accordingly,
EPA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action does not
impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state
law, it 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). This action also does not
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves the negative declaration for existing SSI
units from the Philadelphia AMS and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    With regard to negative declarations for designated facilities
received by EPA from states, EPA's role is to notify the public of the
receipt of such negative declarations and revise 40 CFR part 62
accordingly. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing
requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
EPA has no authority to approve or disapprove a CAA section 111(d)/129
plan negative declaration submission for failure to use VCS. It would
thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a CAA
section 111(d)/129 negative declaration, to use VCS in place of a
section 111(d)/129 negative declaration that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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 December 26, 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 today's 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.
    This action approving a negative declaration submitted by
Philadelphia AMS for SSI units may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: October 11, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. Add an undesignated heading and Sec.  [thinsp]62.9665 to subpart NN
to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

Sec.  62.9665  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the City of Philadelphia, Department of Public Health,
submitted March 28, 2012, certifying that there are no existing sewage
sludge incineration units within the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce.

[FR Doc. 2017-23229 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P