Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 24617-24621 [2017-10910]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 6, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017–10913 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0267; FRL–9962–74–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; District
of Columbia; Regional Haze Five-Year
Progress Report State Implementation
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of
a revision to the District of Columbia
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the District of Columbia
(the District) through the District of
Columbia Department of Energy and
Environment (DOEE). The District’s SIP
revision addresses requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules
that require states to submit periodic
reports describing progress towards
reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a
determination of the adequacy of the
state’s existing SIP addressing regional
haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is
proposing approval of the District’s SIP
revision because EPA has determined
that it satisfactorily addresses the
progress report and adequacy
determination requirements for the first
implementation period for regional
haze. This action is being taken under
the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 29, 2017.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2016–0267 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
rehn.brian@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Calcinore, (215) 814–2043, or by email
at calcinore.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
2, 2016, the District submitted, as a SIP
revision (progress report SIP), a report
on progress made for visibility
improvement in the first
implementation period. This progress
report SIP included a determination that
the existing regional haze SIP requires
no substantive revision to achieve the
established regional haze visibility
improvement and emissions reduction
goals.
ADDRESSES:
I. Background
States are required to submit, in the
form of a SIP revision, a progress report
that evaluates progress towards the
RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal
area within the state and in each
mandatory Class I federal area outside
the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. See 40
CFR 51.308(g). States are also required
to submit, at the same time as the
progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The
progress report SIP is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24617
haze SIP. On October 27, 2011, DOEE
submitted its first regional haze SIP in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308. On February 2, 2012 (77 FR
5191), EPA approved the District’s first
regional haze SIP. The District
submitted its first progress report SIP on
March 2, 2016 prior to the October 27,
2016 due date.
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze
Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy
Determinations
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must
submit a regional haze progress report
as a SIP revision that addresses, at a
minimum, the seven elements found in
40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in
further detail in section III of this
rulemaking action, to meet the progress
report requirement, 40 CFR 51.308(g)
requires: (1) A description of the status
of measures in the approved regional
haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions
reductions achieved; (3) an assessment
of visibility conditions for each Class I
area in the state; (4) an analysis of
changes in emissions from sources and
activities within the state; (5) an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state that have limited or
impeded progress in Class I areas
impacted by the state’s sources; (6) an
assessment of the sufficiency of the
approved regional haze SIP; and (7) a
review of the state’s visibility
monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are
required to submit, at the same time as
the progress report SIP, a determination
of the adequacy of their existing
regional haze SIP and to take one of four
possible actions based on information in
the progress report. As described in
further detail in section III of this
rulemaking action, to meet the adequacy
determination requirement, 40 CFR
51.308(h) requires states to either: (1)
Submit a negative declaration to EPA
that no further substantive revision to
the state’s existing regional haze SIP is
needed; (2) provide notification to EPA
(and other state(s) that participated in
the regional planning process) if the
state determines that its existing
regional haze SIP is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress at one or more Class I areas due
to emissions from sources in other
state(s) that participated in the regional
planning process, and collaborate with
these other state(s) to develop additional
strategies to address deficiencies; (3)
provide notification with supporting
information to EPA if the state
determines that its existing regional
haze SIP is or may be inadequate to
ensure reasonable progress at one or
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
24618
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in another country; or (4) revise
its regional haze SIP to address
deficiencies within one year if the state
determines that its existing regional
haze SIP is or may be inadequate to
ensure reasonable progress in one or
more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources within the state.
III. The District’s Regional Haze
Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination and EPA’s Analysis
A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs
This section summarizes each of the
seven elements that must be addressed
by the progress report under the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g); how the
District’s progress report SIP addressed
each element; and EPA’s analysis and
proposed determination as to whether
the District satisfied each element.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) require a description of the
status of implementation of all measures
included in the regional haze SIP for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both
within and outside the state. The
District evaluated the status of all
measures included in its 2011 regional
haze SIP in accordance with the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1).
The measures included applicable
federal programs (e.g., mobile source
rules, maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards, and
federal and state control strategies for
electric generating units (EGUs) such as
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),
and state regulations for EGUs). The
District’s summary includes a
discussion of the benefits associated
with each measure and quantifies those
benefits wherever possible. The progress
report SIP also discusses the status and
implementation of the best available
retrofit technology (BART)
determinations. The District’s 2011
regional haze SIP submittal addressed
its two BART eligible units at one
facility through a permit condition
requiring the shut down of each unit by
December 17, 2012. The District’s
progress report SIP confirms that these
units have been shutdown.1 Finally, the
District’s progress report SIP discusses
implementation of additional
regulations and requirements developed
after the original regional haze SIP was
prepared. Some of these regulations and
requirements include the District’s low
sulfur fuel oil regulations and additional
air toxics and hazardous air pollution
regulations which became applicable
after the District’s regional haze SIP was
submitted.
EPA proposes to find that the
District’s analysis adequately addresses
the provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1). In the regional haze SIP,
the District documents the
implementation status of measures from
its regional haze SIP and describes
additional measures that came into
effect since the District’s regional haze
SIP was completed, including new
regulations and various federal
measures. EPA proposes to conclude
that the District has adequately
addressed the status of control measures
in its regional haze SIP, as required by
the provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1), by discussing the status of
key measures that were relied upon in
the first implementation period.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(2) require the state to provide
a summary of the emissions reductions
achieved in the state through the
measures subject to the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The district
provided an assessment of the following
visibility impairing pollutants: sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX),
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse
particulate matter (PM10), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), and
ammonia (NH3). The Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU),
the regional planning organization
(RPO) of which the District is a member,
had determined for the initial round of
regional haze SIPs that the largest
contributor to visibility impairment in
the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern
states is SO2. Therefore, the District
provided additional information on SO2
emissions from stationary sources.
Overall, the District states that
emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants have decreased significantly.
Emissions for all of the analyzed
visibility impairing pollutants provided
for year 2011 (the last year for which a
comprehensive national emissions
inventory (NEI) is available)
demonstrate large decreases from the
District’s baseline emissions in 2002. In
addition to the 2002 and 2011 emissions
data which is presented in Table 1,
stationary source SO2 emissions are also
presented in Table 2 for the same years.
Overall, the District demonstrated
emissions reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants from the 2002
baseline emissions to the 2011 NEI
emissions for the same pollutants (see
Table 1 below); the District also
demonstrated emissions reductions of
SO2 emissions from stationary sources
(see Table 2 below); therefore, EPA
proposes to conclude that the District
has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2)
with its summary of large emissions
reductions of visibility imparing
pollutants.
TABLE 1—POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
[Tons per year]
2002 emissions
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SO2 ..............................................................................................................................................................
PM10 ............................................................................................................................................................
PM2.5 ............................................................................................................................................................
NOX ..............................................................................................................................................................
VOC .............................................................................................................................................................
NH3 ..............................................................................................................................................................
1 In summary, the District had no BART subject
sources because its only BART eligible units
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
2,946
6,986
1,613
14,897
13,469
418
received a permit to shut down and subsequently
did in fact permanently retire.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
2011 emissions
1,829
3,410
1,361
9,418
9,195
330
24619
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Class I areas; therefore, no visibility data
is required to be analyzed for this
element.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(4) require an analysis tracking
emissions changes of visibilityimpairing pollutants from the state’s
sources by type or category over the past
five years based on the most recent
updated emissions inventory. In its
progress report SIP, the District presents
emissions inventories for 2002, 2008,
and 2011, as well as projected
inventories for 2018, in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4).
The pollutants inventoried include
VOCs, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, NH3, and SO2.
The emissions inventories include the
following source classifications:
Stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources. The
inventories that are compared for the
TABLE 2—POINT SOURCE SO2
EMISSIONS
[Tons per year]
2002 emissions
2011 emissions
963
788
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) require that states with
Class I areas provide the following
information for the most impaired and
least impaired days for each area, with
values expressed in terms of five-year
averages of these annual values: 2 (1)
Current visibility conditions; (2) the
difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility
conditions; and (3) the change in
visibility impairment over the past five
years. The District does not have any
five year span are 2008 to 2011.
Although this time period does not
encompass five years, the 2008 and
2011 inventories were the only
comprehensive inventories available at
the time the District prepared its
progress report SIP revision. Table 3
presents the 2008, 2011, and projected
2018 emissions data. Comparison of
2008 and 2011 data shows decreases in
all of the visiblitity imparing pollutants
except for SO2. But comparison of 2008,
2011, and projected 2018 data shows
that there is an overall downward trend
in SO2 emissions. Additionally, the SO2
emisions from point sources within the
District have decreased since the 2002
base year. Table 4 presents the point
source SO2 emissions showing an
overall downward trend in emissions
since 2002.
TABLE 3—POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
[Tons per year]
2008 emissions
SO2 ............................................................................................................................
PM10 ..........................................................................................................................
PM2.5 ..........................................................................................................................
NOX ............................................................................................................................
VOC ...........................................................................................................................
NH3 ............................................................................................................................
2011 emissions
1,273
5,211
1,694
13,205
11,815
354
2018 emissions
1,829
3,410
1,361
9,418
9,195
330
769
1,999
508
6,491
8,247
475
TABLE 4—POINT SOURCE SO2 EMISSIONS
[Tons per year]
2008 emissions
2011 emissions
2018 emissions
963
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2002 emissions
343
788
564
EPA proposes to conclude that the
District has adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4).
While, ideally, the five-year period to be
analyzed for emissions inventory
changes is the five-year time period
between submittal of the current
regional haze SIP and the progress
report, availability of quality-assured
data may not always correspond with
this period. Therefore, EPA believes that
there is some flexibility in the five-year
time period states can select for tracking
emissions changes to meet this
requirement where more recent data is
not available. EPA believes that the
District presented an adequate analysis
tracking emissions trends for the key
visibility impairing pollutant, SO2, since
2008 to reflect trends over an
approximate five year period (from
when initial regional haze SIPs were
due to EPA under the CAA in 2007)
using the emissions data available to the
District. Even though there is an
increase in SO2 emissions between 2008
and 2011 within the District, these
emissions are largely due to an
increased combustion of fuel oil in the
District. However, the SO2 emissions are
projected to decrease even further by
2018 as compared to the baseline 2002
emissions, as the District has
implemented regulations to lower the
sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in
the District.3 EPA notes that with the
closure of the District’s only EGUs at
Pepco’s Benning Road, the District did
not have access to further SO2 or NOX
emissions data from EPA’s Clean Air
Markets Division which could have
supplemented inventory analysis. EPA
proposes to find that the District
provided sufficient information to
support the representativeness of the
five-year period it evaluated. EPA
proposes to find that the District has
adequately addressed the provisions
under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) tracking
emissions changes of visibilityimpairing pollutants from the state’s
sources by type or category over five
years.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of
any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state that have occurred over
the past five years that have limited or
impeded progress in reducing pollutant
2 The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired
days’’ in the regional haze rule refers to the average
visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for
the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar
year with the highest and lowest amount of
visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over a
five-year period. 40 CFR 51.301.
3 The District submitted its lower sulfur fuel oil
regulations to EPA as a SIP revision on January 20,
2016. Because these regulations are already
effective within the District, EPA expects SO2
emissions from combustion of fuel oil to decrease
by 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
24620
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the state’s
sources. The District’s sources do not
impact any Class I areas as was stated
in the District’s first regional haze SIP
revision, which EPA approved on
February 2, 2012 (77 FR 5191).4 In
addition, the District does not have any
Class I areas. Emissions reductions are
discussed in EPA’s analysis of the
District’s submittal to meet the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4).
Because the District demonstrated that
there are no significant changes in
emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants that would impede visibility
improvement in Class I areas and
demonstrated emissions decreases in
key visibility impairing polltuants by
2018 and because no Class I areas are
impacted by emissions from within the
District, EPA proposes to find that the
District has adequately addressed the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5).
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of
whether the current regional haze SIP is
sufficient to enable the state, or other
states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas
affected by emissions from the state.
The District does not contain any Class
I areas, and emissions from the District
were found to not impact any Class I
areas.5 As discussed previously,
emissions of all visibility impairing
pollutants have decreased since 2002.
As discussed in the District’s progress
report SIP, further reductions in
visibility impairing pollutants,
including SO2 which is the primary
contributor to visbility impairment in
the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states,
are expected by the District from
implementation of further pollution
reducing measures affecting mobile
sources and stationary sources
including MACT standards and mobile
source regulations. Although there are
slight increases in NH3, there is an
overall downward trend when looking
at all visibility impairing pollutants,
especially SO2, which was determined
to be the primary contributor to
visibility impairment in the District’s
first regional haze SIP. Therefore, EPA
proposes to conclude that the District
has addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6)
because its current regional haze SIP is
4 EPA notes that no state identified sources
within the District as contributing to visibility
impairment in Class I areas within their borders.
See 77 FR 5191.
5 The District’s progress report SIP did provide
data for the Brigantine federal Class I area in New
Jersey which showed Brigantine is on track to meet
or exceed its RPGs by 2018. However, emissions
from the District were not identified as contributing
to visibility impairment in Brigantine and such
information from the District was provided for
illustrative purposes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
sufficient to enable other nearby states
to meet their RPGs, particularly as the
District was not identified as
contributing to any impairment in such
Class I areas.
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(7) require a review of a state’s
visibility monitoring strategy for
visibility impairing pollutants and an
assessment of whether any
modifications to the monitoring strategy
are necessary. The District does not
contain any Class I areas. In its progress
report SIP, the District states that there
are no Class I areas within its
boundaries, and therefore it is not
required to fulfill this provision. EPA
proposes to conclude that the District is
exempt from addressing the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7), as
that requirement is solely for states with
Class I areas in their borders.
Thus, EPA proposes to conclude that
the District adequately addressed the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(h),
because decreasing emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants, lack of
Class I area impact from pollution
sources within the District, and progress
of regional Class I areas near the District
towards RPGs for 2018 indicate that no
further revisions to the District’s SIP are
necessary for this first regional haze
implementation period. EPA solicits
comments on this proposal.
B. Determination of Adequacy of
Existing Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are
required to take one of four possible
actions based on the information
gathered and conclusions made in the
progress report SIP. The following
section summarizes: The action taken by
the District under 40 CFR 51.308(h); the
District’s rationale for the selected
action; and EPA’s analysis and proposed
determination regarding the District’s
action.
In its progress report SIP, the District
submitted a negative declaration that it
had determined that the existing
regional haze SIP requires no further
substantive revision to achieve the RPGs
for Class I areas (as the District does not
have any Class I areas nor does it impact
any Class I areas). The basis for the
District’s negative declaration is the
findings from the progress report (as
discussed in section III of this
rulemaking action), including the
findings that: SO2 emissions from
sources within the District have
decreased; SO2 emissions have been
identified as the primary contributor to
visbility impairment in the Mid-Atlantic
and Northeast states; emissions of other
visibility impairing pollutants
(including NOX, VOC, PM10, PM2.5)
demonstrate a decreasing trend; and
additional control measures not relied
upon in the District’s regional haze SIP,
which are expected to yield further
reduction in emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants, have been and are
being implemented.6
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the District of Columbia’s
progress report SIP. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
Region III Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
6 EPA notes that in reviewing progress report SIP
submissions from other states, including Delaware,
West Virginia and Virginia, the Agency has found
that Class I areas in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast
region are on track to reach RPGs for the first
implementation period, which ends in 2018. See 79
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IV. EPA’s Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the
District’s regional haze five-year
progress report SIP revision, submitted
on March 2, 2016, as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
51.308(h).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
FR 25506 (May 5, 2014) (approval of Delaware’s
progress report SIP); 79 FR 25019 (May 2, 2014)
(approval of Virginia’s progress report SIP); and 80
FR 32019 (June 5, 2015) (approval of West
Virginia’s progress report SIP).
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, which
proposes approval of the District’s
progress report SIP, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 5, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017–10910 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0333; FRL–9962–50–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Permitting and General Rule
Revisions; Reopening of Comment
Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is reopening the public
comment period on the proposed rule
‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Permitting and General Rule Revisions’’
published March 22, 2017. A
commenter requested more time to
review the proposal and prepare
comments. In response, the EPA is
providing an additional 30 days for
public comment.
DATES: For the proposed rule published
March 22, 2017 (82 FR 14654),
comments must be received on or before
June 29, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2015–0333, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
electronically submit Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information that is restricted from
disclosure by statute. Please note that
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. The 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, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Hall, Air Planning Unit, Office of
Air and Waste (OAW–150),
Environmental Protection Agency—
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24621
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave. Seattle, WA
98101; telephone number: (206) 553–
6357; email address: hall.kristin@
epa.gov.
On March
22, 2017, the EPA published a proposed
rule to approve changes to the Oregon
State Implementation Plan (82 FR
14654). The changes, submitted by the
State of Oregon on April 22, 2015,
account for new federal requirements
for fine particulate matter, update the
major and minor source preconstruction permitting programs, and
add state level air quality designations.
The changes also address public notice
procedures for informational meetings,
and tighten emission standards for dust
and smoke. A commenter requested
more time to review the proposal and
prepare comments. In response to this
request, the EPA is reopening the public
comment period.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: April 26, 2017.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2017–10935 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0086; FRL– 9962–24–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval and Air Quality
Designation; TN; Redesignation of the
Knoxville 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
Nonattainment Area to Attainment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
On December 20, 2016,
Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), submitted a
request for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette,
TN fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
nonattainment area (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘‘Knoxville Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) and to approve a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
containing a maintenance plan and a
reasonably available control measures
(RACM) determination for the Area.
EPA is proposing to approve
Tennessee’s RACM determination for
the Knoxville Area and incorporate it
into the SIP; to approve Tennessee’s
plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24617-24621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10910]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0267; FRL-9962-74-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State
Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a revision to the District of Columbia State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the District of Columbia (the District) through
the District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE).
The District's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports
describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of
the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze SIP).
EPA is proposing approval of the District's SIP revision because EPA
has determined that it satisfactorily addresses the progress report and
adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation period
for regional haze. This action is being taken under the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0267 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
rehn.brian@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by
email at calcinore.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 2, 2016, the District submitted, as
a SIP revision (progress report SIP), a report on progress made for
visibility improvement in the first implementation period. This
progress report SIP included a determination that the existing regional
haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established
regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals.
I. Background
States are required to submit, in the form of a SIP revision, a
progress report that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I federal area within the state and in each mandatory
Class I federal area outside the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also
required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze
SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The progress report SIP is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On October 27, 2011,
DOEE submitted its first regional haze SIP in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. On February 2, 2012 (77 FR 5191), EPA
approved the District's first regional haze SIP. The District submitted
its first progress report SIP on March 2, 2016 prior to the October 27,
2016 due date.
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and
Adequacy Determinations
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress
report as a SIP revision that addresses, at a minimum, the seven
elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in further detail in
section III of this rulemaking action, to meet the progress report
requirement, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A description of the status
of measures in the approved regional haze SIP; (2) a summary of
emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility
conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an analysis of
changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5)
an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions
within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; (6) an assessment of the
sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and (7) a review of the
state's visibility monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of
their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible
actions based on information in the progress report. As described in
further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, to meet the
adequacy determination requirement, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to
either: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further
substantive revision to the state's existing regional haze SIP is
needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other state(s) that
participated in the regional planning process) if the state determines
that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning
process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop
additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification
with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its
existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress at one or
[[Page 24618]]
more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in another country; or
(4) revise its regional haze SIP to address deficiencies within one
year if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I
areas due to emissions from sources within the state.
III. The District's Regional Haze Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination and EPA's Analysis
A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs
This section summarizes each of the seven elements that must be
addressed by the progress report under the provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g); how the District's progress report SIP addressed each
element; and EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether
the District satisfied each element.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) require a description of
the status of implementation of all measures included in the regional
haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside
the state. The District evaluated the status of all measures included
in its 2011 regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements under
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The measures included applicable federal programs
(e.g., mobile source rules, maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) standards, and federal and state control strategies for electric
generating units (EGUs) such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and state regulations for
EGUs). The District's summary includes a discussion of the benefits
associated with each measure and quantifies those benefits wherever
possible. The progress report SIP also discusses the status and
implementation of the best available retrofit technology (BART)
determinations. The District's 2011 regional haze SIP submittal
addressed its two BART eligible units at one facility through a permit
condition requiring the shut down of each unit by December 17, 2012.
The District's progress report SIP confirms that these units have been
shutdown.\1\ Finally, the District's progress report SIP discusses
implementation of additional regulations and requirements developed
after the original regional haze SIP was prepared. Some of these
regulations and requirements include the District's low sulfur fuel oil
regulations and additional air toxics and hazardous air pollution
regulations which became applicable after the District's regional haze
SIP was submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In summary, the District had no BART subject sources because
its only BART eligible units received a permit to shut down and
subsequently did in fact permanently retire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that the District's analysis adequately
addresses the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In the regional
haze SIP, the District documents the implementation status of measures
from its regional haze SIP and describes additional measures that came
into effect since the District's regional haze SIP was completed,
including new regulations and various federal measures. EPA proposes to
conclude that the District has adequately addressed the status of
control measures in its regional haze SIP, as required by the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1), by discussing the status of key
measures that were relied upon in the first implementation period.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) require the state to
provide a summary of the emissions reductions achieved in the state
through the measures subject to the requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1). The district provided an assessment of the following
visibility impairing pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), coarse particulate matter (PM10),
volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3). The
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), the regional
planning organization (RPO) of which the District is a member, had
determined for the initial round of regional haze SIPs that the largest
contributor to visibility impairment in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern states is SO2. Therefore, the District provided
additional information on SO2 emissions from stationary
sources. Overall, the District states that emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants have decreased significantly. Emissions for all of
the analyzed visibility impairing pollutants provided for year 2011
(the last year for which a comprehensive national emissions inventory
(NEI) is available) demonstrate large decreases from the District's
baseline emissions in 2002. In addition to the 2002 and 2011 emissions
data which is presented in Table 1, stationary source SO2
emissions are also presented in Table 2 for the same years. Overall,
the District demonstrated emissions reductions in visibility impairing
pollutants from the 2002 baseline emissions to the 2011 NEI emissions
for the same pollutants (see Table 1 below); the District also
demonstrated emissions reductions of SO2 emissions from
stationary sources (see Table 2 below); therefore, EPA proposes to
conclude that the District has adequately addressed the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) with its summary of large emissions
reductions of visibility imparing pollutants.
Table 1--Pollutant Emissions
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 emissions 2011 emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2............................... 2,946 1,829
PM10.............................. 6,986 3,410
PM2.5............................. 1,613 1,361
NOX............................... 14,897 9,418
VOC............................... 13,469 9,195
NH3............................... 418 330
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24619]]
Table 2--Point Source SO2 Emissions
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 emissions 2011 emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
963 788
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) require that states with
Class I areas provide the following information for the most impaired
and least impaired days for each area, with values expressed in terms
of five-year averages of these annual values: \2\ (1) Current
visibility conditions; (2) the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and (3) the change in
visibility impairment over the past five years. The District does not
have any Class I areas; therefore, no visibility data is required to be
analyzed for this element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in
a calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. 40 CFR
51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) require an analysis
tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the
state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on
the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its progress report
SIP, the District presents emissions inventories for 2002, 2008, and
2011, as well as projected inventories for 2018, in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). The pollutants inventoried include
VOCs, NOX, PM2.5, PM10,
NH3, and SO2. The emissions inventories include
the following source classifications: Stationary point and area
sources, off-road and on-road mobile sources. The inventories that are
compared for the five year span are 2008 to 2011. Although this time
period does not encompass five years, the 2008 and 2011 inventories
were the only comprehensive inventories available at the time the
District prepared its progress report SIP revision. Table 3 presents
the 2008, 2011, and projected 2018 emissions data. Comparison of 2008
and 2011 data shows decreases in all of the visiblitity imparing
pollutants except for SO2. But comparison of 2008, 2011, and
projected 2018 data shows that there is an overall downward trend in
SO2 emissions. Additionally, the SO2 emisions
from point sources within the District have decreased since the 2002
base year. Table 4 presents the point source SO2 emissions
showing an overall downward trend in emissions since 2002.
Table 3--Pollutant Emissions
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 emissions 2011 emissions 2018 emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2.................................................... 1,273 1,829 769
PM10................................................... 5,211 3,410 1,999
PM2.5.................................................. 1,694 1,361 508
NOX.................................................... 13,205 9,418 6,491
VOC.................................................... 11,815 9,195 8,247
NH3.................................................... 354 330 475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Point Source SO2 Emissions
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 emissions 2008 emissions 2011 emissions 2018 emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
963 343 788 564
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to conclude that the District has adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). While, ideally, the five-
year period to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the five-
year time period between submittal of the current regional haze SIP and
the progress report, availability of quality-assured data may not
always correspond with this period. Therefore, EPA believes that there
is some flexibility in the five-year time period states can select for
tracking emissions changes to meet this requirement where more recent
data is not available. EPA believes that the District presented an
adequate analysis tracking emissions trends for the key visibility
impairing pollutant, SO2, since 2008 to reflect trends over
an approximate five year period (from when initial regional haze SIPs
were due to EPA under the CAA in 2007) using the emissions data
available to the District. Even though there is an increase in
SO2 emissions between 2008 and 2011 within the District,
these emissions are largely due to an increased combustion of fuel oil
in the District. However, the SO2 emissions are projected to
decrease even further by 2018 as compared to the baseline 2002
emissions, as the District has implemented regulations to lower the
sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in the District.\3\ EPA notes that
with the closure of the District's only EGUs at Pepco's Benning Road,
the District did not have access to further SO2 or
NOX emissions data from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division
which could have supplemented inventory analysis. EPA proposes to find
that the District provided sufficient information to support the
representativeness of the five-year period it evaluated. EPA proposes
to find that the District has adequately addressed the provisions under
40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing
pollutants from the state's sources by type or category over five
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The District submitted its lower sulfur fuel oil regulations
to EPA as a SIP revision on January 20, 2016. Because these
regulations are already effective within the District, EPA expects
SO2 emissions from combustion of fuel oil to decrease by
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of
any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside
the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited
or impeded progress in reducing pollutant
[[Page 24620]]
emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the
state's sources. The District's sources do not impact any Class I areas
as was stated in the District's first regional haze SIP revision, which
EPA approved on February 2, 2012 (77 FR 5191).\4\ In addition, the
District does not have any Class I areas. Emissions reductions are
discussed in EPA's analysis of the District's submittal to meet the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). Because the District demonstrated
that there are no significant changes in emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants that would impede visibility improvement in Class
I areas and demonstrated emissions decreases in key visibility
impairing polltuants by 2018 and because no Class I areas are impacted
by emissions from within the District, EPA proposes to find that the
District has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA notes that no state identified sources within the
District as contributing to visibility impairment in Class I areas
within their borders. See 77 FR 5191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of
whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable the
state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by
emissions from the state. The District does not contain any Class I
areas, and emissions from the District were found to not impact any
Class I areas.\5\ As discussed previously, emissions of all visibility
impairing pollutants have decreased since 2002. As discussed in the
District's progress report SIP, further reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants, including SO2 which is the primary
contributor to visbility impairment in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast
states, are expected by the District from implementation of further
pollution reducing measures affecting mobile sources and stationary
sources including MACT standards and mobile source regulations.
Although there are slight increases in NH3, there is an
overall downward trend when looking at all visibility impairing
pollutants, especially SO2, which was determined to be the
primary contributor to visibility impairment in the District's first
regional haze SIP. Therefore, EPA proposes to conclude that the
District has addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) because its current regional
haze SIP is sufficient to enable other nearby states to meet their
RPGs, particularly as the District was not identified as contributing
to any impairment in such Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The District's progress report SIP did provide data for the
Brigantine federal Class I area in New Jersey which showed
Brigantine is on track to meet or exceed its RPGs by 2018. However,
emissions from the District were not identified as contributing to
visibility impairment in Brigantine and such information from the
District was provided for illustrative purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) require a review of a
state's visibility monitoring strategy for visibility impairing
pollutants and an assessment of whether any modifications to the
monitoring strategy are necessary. The District does not contain any
Class I areas. In its progress report SIP, the District states that
there are no Class I areas within its boundaries, and therefore it is
not required to fulfill this provision. EPA proposes to conclude that
the District is exempt from addressing the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(7), as that requirement is solely for states with Class I
areas in their borders.
B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made
in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes: The
action taken by the District under 40 CFR 51.308(h); the District's
rationale for the selected action; and EPA's analysis and proposed
determination regarding the District's action.
In its progress report SIP, the District submitted a negative
declaration that it had determined that the existing regional haze SIP
requires no further substantive revision to achieve the RPGs for Class
I areas (as the District does not have any Class I areas nor does it
impact any Class I areas). The basis for the District's negative
declaration is the findings from the progress report (as discussed in
section III of this rulemaking action), including the findings that:
SO2 emissions from sources within the District have
decreased; SO2 emissions have been identified as the primary
contributor to visbility impairment in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast
states; emissions of other visibility impairing pollutants (including
NOX, VOC, PM10, PM2.5) demonstrate a
decreasing trend; and additional control measures not relied upon in
the District's regional haze SIP, which are expected to yield further
reduction in emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, have been
and are being implemented.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA notes that in reviewing progress report SIP submissions
from other states, including Delaware, West Virginia and Virginia,
the Agency has found that Class I areas in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeast region are on track to reach RPGs for the first
implementation period, which ends in 2018. See 79 FR 25506 (May 5,
2014) (approval of Delaware's progress report SIP); 79 FR 25019 (May
2, 2014) (approval of Virginia's progress report SIP); and 80 FR
32019 (June 5, 2015) (approval of West Virginia's progress report
SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, EPA proposes to conclude that the District adequately
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(h), because decreasing
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, lack of Class I area
impact from pollution sources within the District, and progress of
regional Class I areas near the District towards RPGs for 2018 indicate
that no further revisions to the District's SIP are necessary for this
first regional haze implementation period. EPA solicits comments on
this proposal.
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the District's regional haze five-year
progress report SIP revision, submitted on March 2, 2016, as meeting
the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g)
and 51.308(h).
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to include in a final
EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the District of Columbia's progress report
SIP. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region
III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions
[[Page 24621]]
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, which proposes approval of the
District's progress report SIP, does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 5, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-10910 Filed 5-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
