Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 and 2006 PM2.5, 60572-60576 [2017-27431]

Download as PDF 60572 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 244 / Thursday, December 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules The Secretary also designates the following individuals to replace Federal representatives of the Committee as Primary members: —Anthony Bedell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of the Secretary, USDOT, Washington, DC [replacing Kenneth Martin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs, Office of the Secretary, USDOT, Washington, DC] —Colleen Vaughn, Environmental Policy Analyst/Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Policy Development, USDOT, Washington, DC [replacing Katherine Andrus, Environmental Protection Specialist and Federal Preservation Officer, FAA, Washington, DC] —Erin Kenley, Director, Office of Tribal Transportation, FHWA, USDOT, Washington, DC as the Designated Federal Official [replacing Robert W. Sparrow, Supervisory Program Manager, Office of Tribal Transportation, FHWA, Washington, DC]. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS II. Meeting Participation The meeting will be open to the public. Time has been set aside during each day of the meeting for members of the public to contribute to the discussion and provide oral comments. The committee will dedicate a substantial amount of time at this meeting to reviewing and finalizing the proposed regulatory language and preamble to the NPRM. III. Potential Future Committee Meetings and Rulemaking Calendar Potential future meetings and the committee’s responsibilities, as well as locations of consultation sessions/ outreach during the NPRM comment period, will be discussed during this meeting. Notifications of any future meetings will be shown on the TTSGP website at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/ programs/ttp/ttsgp/ at least 15 calendar days prior to a meeting. Dates and locations of consultation sessions/ outreach during the comment period will be shown on the site as well as be included in a Federal Register document and in the preamble to the proposed NPRM. The Department intends to complete the negotiated rulemaking process for the proposed rule and publish a Final Rule in 2018. Issued on: December 13, 2017. Brandye L. Hendrickson, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. [FR Doc. 2017–27439 Filed 12–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–22–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:21 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 244001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0699; FRL–9971–87– Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Revisions to the Definitions for Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control: Volatile Organic Compounds Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of the revision to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on March 24, 2017. The revision modifies the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Specifically, the submitted revision will incorporate the EPA’s latest definition of VOC on the basis that these compounds make negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before January 22, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA–R06–OAR–2017– 0699, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to Ms. Nevine Salem. For additional information on how to submit comments see the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nevine Salem, (214) 665–7222, salem.nevine@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this issue of the Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State’s SIP submittal as a direct rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this issue of the Federal Register. Dated: December 15, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2017–27459 Filed 12–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0759; FRL–9972–35– Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 and 2006 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone NAAQS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) on an Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing regional haze. This proposed action is based on a final determination by EPA that a state’s participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) program continues to meet the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)’s criteria to qualify as an alternative to the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). EPA is proposing the following five actions: Approve the portion of Ohio’s November 30, 2016 SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to CSAPR for certain regional haze requirements; convert EPA’s limited approval/limited disapproval of Ohio’s March 11, 2011 regional haze SIP to a full approval; withdraw the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) provisions that address the limited disapproval; approve the visibility prong of Ohio’s infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and convert EPA’s disapproval of the visibility portion of Ohio’s infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an approval. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2016–0759 at https:// www.regulations.gov or via email to SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM 21DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 244 / Thursday, December 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules Aburano.Douglas@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: Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–3901, Becker.Michelle@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS I. Background A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to submit regional haze SIPs that contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:21 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 244001 reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006). In revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005, EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART.1 See 70 FR 39104. In those revisions, EPA amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP, or states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected BARTeligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX). As a result of EPA’s determination that CAIR was ‘‘better-than-BART,’’ a number of states in which CAIR applies, including Ohio, relied on the CAIR capand-trade programs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their regional haze SIPs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur (preserving the environmental benefits provided by CAIR). North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.2 Implementation of CSAPR was 1 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states (and the District of Columbia), including Ohio, that contributed to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 2 CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states’ ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 60573 scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. Due to the D.C. Circuit’s 2008 ruling that CAIR was ‘‘fatally flawed,’’ and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Ohio’s regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), triggering the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP unless Ohio submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision that corrected the deficiency. EPA finalized a limited approval of Ohio’s regional haze SIP on July 2, 2012 (77 FR 39177), as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR. In the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide that participation by a state’s EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant—either a CSAPR Federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision— qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.3 See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR, including Ohio, have utilized the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.4 Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance 3 Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-thanBART rule from state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12–1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012). 4 EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 (July 6, 2012), and Texas 82 FR 48324 (October 17, 2017). EPA has approved Minnesota’s, Wisconsin’s, and Alabama’s SIPs relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 FR 34801 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota, 77 FR 46952 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin, and 82 FR 47393 (October 12, 2017) for Alabama. E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM 21DEP1 60574 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 244 / Thursday, December 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS with the high court’s ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for four states and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for Ohio, and 10 other states. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule’s Phase 2 budgets that were originally scheduled to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017. On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA published a final rule affirming the continued validity of the Agency’s 2012 determination that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR’s criteria for an alternative to the application of source specific BART. In the rulemaking, EPA explained that the limited changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage did not alter EPA’s conclusion that CSAPR remains ‘‘better-than-BART;’’ that is, that participation in CSAPR remains available as an alternative to BART for EGUs covered by the trading program. Ohio’s November 30, 2016 SIP submittal seeks to correct the deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval of its regional haze SIP by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Specifically, Ohio requests that EPA approve the State’s regional haze SIP revision that replaces reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to satisfy SO2 and NOX BART requirements and SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR,5 and as part of the LTS for Ohio in the first planning period of the RHR. B. Infrastructure SIPs The ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state’s air quality management program are adequate to meet the state’s responsibilities under the CAA. The requirement for states to make an infrastructure SIP submission is under CAA section 110(a)(1). SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 5 In its regional haze SIP, Ohio concluded and EPA found acceptable, that no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for SO2 for affected Ohio EGUs for the first implementation period. See 77 FR 39177 (July 2, 2012). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:21 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 244001 (2) of the CAA are required to be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state’s implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Prong 4 Requirements Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state’s implementation plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state’s efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Guidance 6 states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state’s sources that impact the visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies. The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state’s infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. One way is via confirmation that the state has an approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. The regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency’s jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies’ plans to protect visibility. Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies’ plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed upon regional haze RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states. Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Ohio’s infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 standards, and to convert EPA’s disapproval of the prong 4 portion of Ohio’s infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an approval, as discussed in section IV of this action. All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS 6 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM 21DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 244 / Thursday, December 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules relevant to this proposal is provided below. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS 1. 2012 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3). See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. Ohio submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 4, 2015. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission. The other portions of Ohio’s December 4, 2015 PM2.5 infrastructure submission have been previously addressed (81 FR 64072, September 19, 2016) or will be addressed in a separate action. On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than September 21, 2009. Ohio submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on September 4, 2009, supplemented on June 3, 2011, and July 5, 2011. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission. The other portions of Ohio’s September 4, 2009 PM2.5 infrastructure submission have been previously addressed (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011, 77 FR 65478, October 29, 2012, and 79 FR 18999, April 7, 2014). 2. 2010 SO2 NAAQS On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. Ohio submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 7, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission. The other portions of Ohio’s June 7, 2013 SO2 infrastructure submission have been addressed in a previous EPA action (80 FR 48733, August 14, 2015). 3. 2010 NO2 NAAQS On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 98th VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:21 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 244001 percentile of the yearly distribution of 1hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Ohio submitted infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on February 8, 2013, and February 25, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of those submissions. The other portions of Ohio’s February 8, 2013, and February 25, 2013 NO2 infrastructure submissions have been addressed in a previous EPA action (79 FR 60075, October 6, 2014). 4. 2008 Ozone NAAQS On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. Ohio submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 27, 2012. On August 12, 2016, EPA disapproved the prong 4 element of Ohio’s 2008 ozone infrastructure submission. See 81 FR 53309. This proposed action addresses that disapproval and proposes to convert it to a full approval for prong 4. The other portions of Ohio’s December 27, 2012 ozone infrastructure SIP submission have been addressed in a previous EPA action (79 FR 62019, October 16, 2014). II. What is EPA’s analysis of how Ohio addressed regional haze and prong 4? Ohio submitted infrastructure SIPs for the following NAAQS: 2012 annual PM2.5 (December 4, 2015); 2010 NO2 (February 8 and 25, 2013); 2010 SO2 (June 7, 2013); and 2008 ozone (December 27, 2012) which relied on the State having a fully approved regional haze SIP to satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA had not previously fully approved Ohio’s regional haze SIP. The Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State’s original regional haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR, which also triggered the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP in Ohio utilizing CSAPR. To correct the deficiencies in its regional haze SIP and obtain approval of the aforementioned infrastructure SIPs that rely on the regional haze SIP, the State submitted a SIP revision on November 30, 2016, to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. As noted above, EPA determined that CSAPR remains ‘‘better than BART,’’ given the changes to CSAPR’s scope in response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 60575 Because the Agency has finalized the ‘‘CSAPR remains better-than-BART’’ rulemaking EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the State’s November 30, 2016 SIP revision and convert EPA’s previous action on Ohio’s regional haze SIP from a limited approval/limited disapproval to a full approval. Specifically, EPA’s finds that this portion of Ohio’s November 30, 2016 SIP revision satisfies the SO2 and NOX BART requirements and SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved regional haze SIP, EPA is also proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Ohio’s 2012 and 2006 PM2.5 submissions; 2010 NO2 submissions; 2010 SO2 submission; and to convert EPA’s disapproval of the prong 4 portions of Ohio’s 2008 ozone infrastructure submission to an approval. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the portion of Ohio’s November 30, 2016 SIP submittal seeking to change from reliance on CAIR to reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze requirements; (2) convert EPA’s limited approval/limited disapproval of Ohio’s March 11, 2011 regional haze SIP to a full approval; (3) withdraw the FIP provisions that address the limited disapproval; (4) approve the visibility prong of Ohio’s infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 and 2006 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS; and (5) convert EPA’s disapproval of the visibility portion of Ohio’s infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an approval. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. IV. 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 action: • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM 21DEP1 60576 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 244 / Thursday, December 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:21 Dec 20, 2017 Jkt 244001 Dated: December 8, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. 2017–27431 Filed 12–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 170 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0543; FRL–9972–10] RINs 2070–AK40 and 2070–AK43 Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Reconsideration of Several Requirements and Notice About Compliance Dates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: EPA is providing notice to the public that it has initiated a rulemaking process to revise certain requirements in the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard. EPA expects to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in FY 2018 to solicit public input on proposed revisions to the WPS requirements for minimum age, designated representative, and application exclusion zone. DATES: EPA is also announcing that the compliance dates in the revised WPS published on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67496) (FRL–9931–81) remain in effect and that the Agency does not intend to extend them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Keaney, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–5557; email address: keaney.kevin@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you work in or employ persons working in crop production agriculture where pesticides are applied. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: • Agricultural Establishments (NAICS code 111000). • Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421). PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • Timber Tract Operations (NAICS code 113110). • Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products (NAICS code 113210). • Farm Workers (NAICS codes 11511, 115112, and 115114). • Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS code 115112). • Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders (NAICS code 115115). • Pesticide Handling in Forestry (NAICS code 115310). • Pesticide Manufacturers (NAICS code 325320). • Farm Worker Support Organizations (NAICS codes 813311, 813312, and 813319). • Farm Worker Labor Organizations (NAICS code 813930). • Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712). II. What action is the Agency taking? A. Potential Changes to Several WPS Requirements In accordance with Executive Order 13777, titled Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, EPA solicited public comments on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement or modification as part of the President’s Regulatory Reform Agenda efforts. The comments received can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov under docket EPA–HQ–OA–2017–0190. EPA received comments on the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) requirements for minimum age, designated representative, and application exclusion zone (AEZ). These three topics were discussed at the November 2, 2017, meeting of the Office of Pesticide Program’s Federal Advisory Committee, the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). A transcript of the meeting will be posted when available on EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-advisorycommittees-and-regulatory-partners/ pesticide-program-dialogue-committeemeeting-5. After considering these comments, revisiting the record, and reviewing the applicable statutory authority, EPA has determined that further consideration of the WPS requirements for minimum age, designated representative, and AEZ is warranted through the rulemaking process. A brief summary of the existing WPS requirements for minimum age, designated representative, and the AEZ is provided below. 1. Minimum Age. The 2015 WPS established a minimum age of 18 years for pesticide handlers and for earlyentry workers, with an exemption for owners of agricultural establishments and their immediate family members. E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM 21DEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60572-60576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27431]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0759; FRL-9972-35-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 
(Visibility) for the 2012 and 2006 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 
Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take 
action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) on an Ohio State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) submittal addressing regional haze. This proposed action is 
based on a final determination by EPA that a state's participation in 
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) program continues to meet 
the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)'s criteria to qualify as an alternative to 
the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). EPA is 
proposing the following five actions: Approve the portion of Ohio's 
November 30, 2016 SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to CSAPR for certain regional haze 
requirements; convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of 
Ohio's March 11, 2011 regional haze SIP to a full approval; withdraw 
the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) provisions that address the 
limited disapproval; approve the visibility prong of Ohio's 
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 annual and 2006 24-hour fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5), 2010 nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and convert EPA's disapproval of 
the visibility portion of Ohio's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS to an approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0759 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to

[[Page 60573]]

[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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, 
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3901, 
[email protected]a.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to submit regional 
haze SIPs that contain such measures as may be necessary to make 
reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a 
requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART 
as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to 
conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may 
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a 
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, 
states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program 
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides 
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. See 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with this flexibility in the 
RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the criteria for assessing 
whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress 
in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 
39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
    In revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005, EPA 
demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than 
BART.\1\ See 70 FR 39104. In those revisions, EPA amended its 
regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-
trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP, or states that 
remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected BART-eligible 
electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART 
for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce 
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states 
(and the District of Columbia), including Ohio, that contributed to 
downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was ``better-than-
BART,'' a number of states in which CAIR applies, including Ohio, 
relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for 
EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their 
regional haze SIPs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a 
long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 
for their regional haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) 
remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur (preserving the environmental 
benefits provided by CAIR). North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 
(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. 
Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs 
to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.\2\ Implementation of 
CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have 
superseded the CAIR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide 
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to 
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other 
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone 
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR 
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide 
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual 
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered 
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two 
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets 
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets 
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally 
flawed,'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following 
that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the 
extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On 
these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Ohio's regional 
haze SIP on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), triggering the requirement for 
EPA to promulgate a FIP unless Ohio submitted and EPA approved a SIP 
revision that corrected the deficiency. EPA finalized a limited 
approval of Ohio's regional haze SIP on July 2, 2012 (77 FR 39177), as 
meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth 
in the CAA and the RHR.
    In the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval action, EPA also amended 
the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR 
trading program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR Federal trading 
program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state 
trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--
qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.\3\ 
See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous 
states covered by CSAPR, including Ohio, have utilized the provision 
through either SIPs or FIPs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from 
state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air 
Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 
2012).
    \4\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for 
BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, 
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 
(July 6, 2012), and Texas 82 FR 48324 (October 17, 2017). EPA has 
approved Minnesota's, Wisconsin's, and Alabama's SIPs relying on 
CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 FR 34801 (June 12, 
2012) for Minnesota, 77 FR 46952 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin, and 
82 FR 47393 (October 12, 2017) for Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. 
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating 
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of 
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United 
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to 
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance

[[Page 60574]]

with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 
134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in 
most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR 
budgets as to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 
EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
    The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions 
budgets for four states and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX 
budgets for Ohio, and 10 other states. This litigation ultimately 
delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, 
when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to 
replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the 
rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally scheduled to begin on 
January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017.
    On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA published a final rule 
affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination 
that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative 
to the application of source specific BART. In the rulemaking, EPA 
explained that the limited changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage did 
not alter EPA's conclusion that CSAPR remains ``better-than-BART;'' 
that is, that participation in CSAPR remains available as an 
alternative to BART for EGUs covered by the trading program.
    Ohio's November 30, 2016 SIP submittal seeks to correct the 
deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval of its 
regional haze SIP by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. 
Specifically, Ohio requests that EPA approve the State's regional haze 
SIP revision that replaces reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to satisfy 
SO2 and NOX BART requirements and SO2 
reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR,\5\ 
and as part of the LTS for Ohio in the first planning period of the 
RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In its regional haze SIP, Ohio concluded and EPA found 
acceptable, that no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable 
for SO2 for affected Ohio EGUs for the first 
implementation period. See 77 FR 39177 (July 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Infrastructure SIPs

    The ``infrastructure SIP'' requirements are designed to ensure that 
the structural components of each state's air quality management 
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the 
CAA. The requirement for states to make an infrastructure SIP 
submission is under CAA section 110(a)(1). SIPs meeting the 
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are required to 
be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the 
Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement 
of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP 
submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. 
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements 
such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority 
that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly 
established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 
provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure 
SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet 
for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established 
or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may 
vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the 
state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's 
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits 
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct 
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed 
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or other 
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly 
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from 
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). 
The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prohibit emissions activity in one state from 
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with 
measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4).
Prong 4 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan 
to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting 
pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to 
protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 
169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance \6\ states that these prong 4 
requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has 
found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources 
that impact the visibility program requirements in other states. The 
2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be 
pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need 
only address the potential for interference with protection of 
visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the 
new or revised NAAQS applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' 
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP may 
satisfy prong 4. One way is via confirmation that the state has an 
approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308 or 51.309. The regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 
specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning 
process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of 
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A 
fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from 
sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with 
measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to 
protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze 
SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a 
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions 
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans 
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need 
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure 
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed upon regional haze 
RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 
portion of Ohio's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 
PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 
standards, and to convert EPA's disapproval of the prong 4 portion of 
Ohio's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an 
approval, as discussed in section IV of this action. All other 
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions 
have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief 
background regarding the NAAQS

[[Page 60575]]

relevant to this proposal is provided below.
1. 2012 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary 
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). 
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to 
EPA no later than December 14, 2015. Ohio submitted an infrastructure 
SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 4, 2015. 
This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that 
submission. The other portions of Ohio's December 4, 2015 
PM2.5 infrastructure submission have been previously 
addressed (81 FR 64072, September 19, 2016) or will be addressed in a 
separate action.
    On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average primary and 
secondary PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. See 71 FR 61144 
(October 17, 2006). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP 
submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than 
September 21, 2009. Ohio submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on September 4, 2009, supplemented on 
June 3, 2011, and July 5, 2011. This proposed action only addresses the 
prong 4 element of that submission. The other portions of Ohio's 
September 4, 2009 PM2.5 infrastructure submission have been 
previously addressed (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011, 77 FR 65478, October 
29, 2012, and 79 FR 18999, April 7, 2014).
2. 2010 SO2 NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an 
hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average 
of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 
See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS to EPA 
no later than June 2, 2013. Ohio submitted an infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 7, 2013. 
This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that 
submission. The other portions of Ohio's June 7, 2013 SO2 
infrastructure submission have been addressed in a previous EPA action 
(80 FR 48733, August 14, 2015).
3. 2010 NO2 NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for 
NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required 
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 
NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Ohio submitted 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on 
February 8, 2013, and February 25, 2013. This proposed action only 
addresses the prong 4 element of those submissions. The other portions 
of Ohio's February 8, 2013, and February 25, 2013 NO2 
infrastructure submissions have been addressed in a previous EPA action 
(79 FR 60075, October 6, 2014).
4. 2008 Ozone NAAQS
    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per 
million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to 
submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA 
no later than March 12, 2011. Ohio submitted an infrastructure SIP for 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 27, 2012. On August 12, 2016, EPA 
disapproved the prong 4 element of Ohio's 2008 ozone infrastructure 
submission. See 81 FR 53309. This proposed action addresses that 
disapproval and proposes to convert it to a full approval for prong 4. 
The other portions of Ohio's December 27, 2012 ozone infrastructure SIP 
submission have been addressed in a previous EPA action (79 FR 62019, 
October 16, 2014).

II. What is EPA's analysis of how Ohio addressed regional haze and 
prong 4?

    Ohio submitted infrastructure SIPs for the following NAAQS: 2012 
annual PM2.5 (December 4, 2015); 2010 NO2 
(February 8 and 25, 2013); 2010 SO2 (June 7, 2013); and 2008 
ozone (December 27, 2012) which relied on the State having a fully 
approved regional haze SIP to satisfy its prong 4 requirements. 
However, EPA had not previously fully approved Ohio's regional haze 
SIP. The Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original 
regional haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR, which 
also triggered the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP in Ohio 
utilizing CSAPR. To correct the deficiencies in its regional haze SIP 
and obtain approval of the aforementioned infrastructure SIPs that rely 
on the regional haze SIP, the State submitted a SIP revision on 
November 30, 2016, to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.
    As noted above, EPA determined that CSAPR remains ``better than 
BART,'' given the changes to CSAPR's scope in response to the D.C. 
Circuit's remand. Because the Agency has finalized the ``CSAPR remains 
better-than-BART'' rulemaking EPA is proposing to approve the regional 
haze portion of the State's November 30, 2016 SIP revision and convert 
EPA's previous action on Ohio's regional haze SIP from a limited 
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval. Specifically, EPA's 
finds that this portion of Ohio's November 30, 2016 SIP revision 
satisfies the SO2 and NOX BART requirements and 
SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly 
subject to CAIR. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements 
through a fully approved regional haze SIP, EPA is also proposing to 
approve the prong 4 portion of Ohio's 2012 and 2006 PM2.5 
submissions; 2010 NO2 submissions; 2010 SO2 
submission; and to convert EPA's disapproval of the prong 4 portions of 
Ohio's 2008 ozone infrastructure submission to an approval.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the 
portion of Ohio's November 30, 2016 SIP submittal seeking to change 
from reliance on CAIR to reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze 
requirements; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of 
Ohio's March 11, 2011 regional haze SIP to a full approval; (3) 
withdraw the FIP provisions that address the limited disapproval; (4) 
approve the visibility prong of Ohio's infrastructure SIP submittals 
for the 2012 and 2006 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 
SO2 NAAQS; and (5) convert EPA's disapproval of the 
visibility portion of Ohio's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS to an approval.
    All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the 
infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in 
separate rulemakings.

IV. 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 action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under

[[Page 60576]]

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 
3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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.

    Dated: December 8, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2017-27431 Filed 12-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.