Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50785 

(A) The LEA demonstrates that the 

incidence of students with the most 

significant cognitive disabilities exceeds 

1.0 percent of all students in the 

combined grades assessed; 

(B) The LEA explains why the 

incidence of such students exceeds 1.0 

percent of all students in the combined 

grades assessed, such as school, 

community, or health programs in the 

LEA that have drawn large numbers of 

families of students with the most 

significant cognitive disabilities, or that 

the LEA has such a small overall 

student population that it would take 

only a few students with such 

disabilities to exceed the 1.0 percent 

cap; and 

(C) The LEA documents that it is 

implementing the State’s guidelines 

under § 200.1(f). 

(ii) The State must review regularly 

whether an LEA’s exception to the 1.0 

percent cap is still warranted. 

(5) In calculating AYP, if the 

percentage of proficient and advanced 

scores based on alternate academic 

achievement standards under § 200.1(d) 

exceeds the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section at the State or LEA level, the 

State must do the following: 

(i) Consistent with § 200.7(a), include 

all scores based on alternate academic 

achievement standards. 

(ii) Count as non-proficient the 

proficient and advanced scores that 

exceed the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section. 

(iii) Determine which proficient and 

advanced scores to count as nonproficient in schools and LEAs 

responsible for students who are 

assessed based on alternate academic 

achievement standards. 

(iv) Include non-proficient scores that 

exceed the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section in each applicable subgroup 

at the school, LEA, and State level. 

(v) Ensure that parents of a child who 

is assessed based on alternate academic 

achievement standards are informed of 

the actual academic achievement levels 

of their child. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 200.20 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (c)(3). 

■ B. Removing paragraph (g). 

■ C. Redesignating paragraph (h) as 

paragraph (g). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 200.20 Making adequate yearly progress. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) To count a student who is assessed 

based on alternate academic 

achievement standards described in 

§ 200.1(d) as a participant for purposes 

of meeting the requirements of this 

paragraph, the State must have, and 

ensure that its LEAs adhere to, 

guidelines that meet the requirements of 

§ 200.1(f). 

* * * * * 

PART 300—ASSISTANCE TO STATES 

FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN 

WITH DISABILITIES 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3, 1406, 1411– 

1419, 3474, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 7. Section 300.160 is amended by: 

■ A. Removing paragraph (c)(2)(ii). 

■ B. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2)(iii) 

as (c)(2)(ii). 

■ C. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii), removing the final punctuation 

‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place, ‘‘; and’’. 

■ D. Adding a new paragraph (c)(2)(iii). 

■ E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3). 

■ F. Revising paragraphs (d), (e), (f)(3), 

and (f)(5) introductory text. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 300.160 Participation in assessments. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii) of this section, a State’s 

alternate assessments, if any, must 

measure the achievement of children 

with disabilities against the State’s 

grade-level academic achievement 

standards, consistent with 34 CFR 

200.6(a)(2)(ii)(A). 

(3) Consistent with 34 CFR 200.1(e), a 

State may not adopt modified academic 

achievement standards for any students 

with disabilities under section 602(3) of 

the Act. 

(d) Explanation to IEP teams. A State 

(or in the case of a district-wide 

assessment, an LEA) must provide IEP 

teams with a clear explanation of the 

differences between assessments based 

on grade-level academic achievement 

standards and those based on alternate 

academic achievement standards, 

including any effects of State or local 

policies on the student’s education 

resulting from taking an alternate 

assessment based on alternate academic 

achievement standards (such as whether 

only satisfactory performance on a 

regular assessment would qualify a 

student for a regular high school 

diploma). 

(e) Inform parents. A State (or in the 

case of a district-wide assessment, an 

LEA) must ensure that parents of 

students selected to be assessed based 

on alternate academic achievement 

standards are informed that their child’s 

achievement will be measured based on 

alternate academic achievement 

standards. 

(f) * * * 

(3) The number of children with 

disabilities, if any, participating in 

alternate assessments based on modified 

academic achievement standards in 

school years prior to 2015–2016. 

* * * * * 

(5) Compared with the achievement of 

all children, including children with 

disabilities, the performance results of 

children with disabilities on regular 

assessments, alternate assessments 

based on grade-level academic 

achievement standards, alternate 

assessments based on modified 

academic achievement standards (prior 

to 2015–2016), and alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards if— 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–20736 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0537; FRL–9932–55– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Interstate Pollution 

Transport Requirements for the 2006 

24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

District of Columbia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements for interstate transport 

pollution with respect to the 2006 24- 

hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). EPA is approving this 

revision in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

20, 2015 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by September 21, 2015. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50786 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘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. This guidance is available online at http://

www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/

Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_

Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf. 2On September 25, 2009, EPA issued ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(l) 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2015–0537 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: Fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0537, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2015– 

0537. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI, or otherwise 

protected, through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the District of Columbia 

Department of the Environment, Air 

Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 

5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 16, 2015, the District of 

Columbia (the District), through the 

District Department of the Environment 

(DDOE), submitted a formal revision to 

its SIP. The SIP revision addresses the 

infrastructure requirements for 

interstate transport of pollution under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA 

with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

A. General 

Whenever new or revised NAAQS are 

promulgated, the CAA requires states to 

submit a plan for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of such 

NAAQS. The plan is required to address 

basic program elements, including, but 

not limited to, regulatory structure, 

monitoring, modeling, legal authority, 

and adequate resources necessary to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards. These elements are 

referred to as infrastructure 

requirements. 

On September 21, 2006, EPA 

promulgated a new 24-hour PM2.5

standard of 35 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3), based on a 3-year average 

of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 

(October 17, 2006). The 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on 

December 18, 2006. See 40 CFR 50.13. 

This rulemaking action pertains to the 

District’s July 16, 2015 infrastructure 

SIP revision addressing the interstate 

transport pollution requirements under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA 

with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA has taken previous 

rulemaking actions on the District’s SIP 

revision addressing infrastructure 

elements in section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), 

(K), (L), and (M) with respect to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 

20237 (April 12, 2011) (final approval of 

the District’s September 21, 2009 SIP 

revision addressing several section 

110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS) and 77 FR 5191 

(February 2, 2012) (final approval of the 

District’s SIP revision addressing 

section 110(a)(2)(i)(II) for visibility 

protection). 

B. EPA’s Infrastructure Requirements 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make infrastructure SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof).’’ 

Infrastructure SIP submissions should 

provide for the ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of such 

NAAQS. The statute directly imposes 

on states the duty to make these SIP 

submissions, and the requirement to 

make the submissions is not 

conditioned upon EPA’s taking any 

action other than promulgating a new or 

revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) 

includes a list of specific elements that 

‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ submission must 

address. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements. EPA most recently 

issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

on September 13, 2013 (2013 

Infrastructure Guidance).1 EPA 

developed this document to provide 

states with up-to-date guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs for any new or 

revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, 

EPA describes the duty of states to make 

infrastructure SIP submissions to meet 

basic structural SIP requirements within 

three years of promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions. The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2).2 EPA 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50787 

and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS),’’ Memorandum from William T. Hartnet, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division. This guidance 

provided that each state’s SIP submission for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS must discuss whether 

emissions from the state significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS or interference with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state and 

must address any such impact. This guidance is 

available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/ 

memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_

110a12.pdf. 

3The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially issued a 

decision in 2012 vacating CSAPR. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012); 

however, on April 29, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s decision 

and remanded the matter, including CSAPR, to the 

D.C. Circuit for further proceedings in accordance 

with its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On October 23, 2014, 

the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay on CSAPR, and EPA 

began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 

2015. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 

11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. See 

also 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final 

rulemaking clarifying how EPA will implement 

CSAPR to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect the 1997 annual PM2.5

and ozone NAAQS and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS). On July 28, 2015, in a subsequent 

decision on certain ‘‘as applied’’ challenges to 

CSAPR, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA for 

reconsideration specific emission allowances for 

ozone season NOX and SO2 for specific states, not 

including the District. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13039 (D.C. Cir. 

July 28, 2015). Because the District has no emission 

sources subject to CSAPR and is not one of the 

states whose ozone season NOX or SO2 allowances 

were remanded by the D.C. Circuit’s July 28, 2015 

decision, EPA asserts this recent July 28, 2015 

decision in EME Homer City by the D.C. Circuit has 

no impact on our conclusion in this rulemaking that 

the District has satisfied its obligation for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as 

explained in detail in the CSAPR rulemaking. See 

76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such 

that infrastructure SIP submissions need 

to address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

Additionally, EPA has provided in 

previous rulemaking actions a detailed 

discussion of the Agency’s approach in 

reviewing infrastructure SIPs, including 

the Agency’s longstanding 

interpretation of requirements for 

section 110(a)(1) and (2), the 

interpretation that the CAA allows 

states to make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements in section 110(a)(2) for a 

specific NAAQS, and the interpretation 

that EPA has the ability to act on 

separate elements of 110(a)(2) for a 

NAAQS in separate rulemaking actions. 

For example, see EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking action approving portions of 

the District’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. See 

80 FR 2865 (January 21, 2015). 

In particular, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requires state SIPs to address any 

emissions activity in one state that 

contributes significantly to 

nonattainment, or interferes with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in any 

downwind state. EPA sometimes refers 

to these requirements as prong 1 

(significant contribution to 

nonattainment) and prong 2 

(interference with maintenance), or 

conjointly, the interstate pollution 

transport requirements. EPA also 

commonly refers to these provisions 

conjointly as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provision of the CAA. Specifically, 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA 

requires the elimination of upwind state 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state. 

A combination of local emissions and 

emissions from upwind sources impacts 

air quality in any given location. 

Emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) can react in the atmosphere to 

form PM2.5 pollution. Similarly, NOX

emissions can react in the atmosphere to 

create ground-level ozone pollution. 

These pollutants can travel great 

distances affecting air quality and 

public health locally and regionally. 

The transport of these pollutants across 

state borders makes it difficult for 

downwind states to meet health-based 

air quality standards for PM2.5 and 

ozone. EPA has taken actions to 

facilitate implementing the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provision, including the 

promulgation and administration of 

various rules, such as the NOX Budget 

Trading Program, the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), and most 

recently, the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR). 

C. Background on CSAPR Rule 

On August 8, 2011, EPA promulgated 

CSAPR to address SO2 and NOX

emissions from electric generating units 

(EGUs) in several states in the Eastern 

United States that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance in one or more 

downwind states with respect to one or 

more of the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011).3

In CSAPR, EPA defined what portion 

of an upwind state’s emissions 

‘‘significantly contributed’’ to ozone or 

PM2.5 nonattainment or interference 

with maintenance areas in downwind 

states with respect to the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR requires 

states to eliminate their ‘‘significant 

contribution’’ emissions by setting a 

pollution limit (or budget). EPA used a 

state-specific methodology to identify 

necessary emission reductions required 

by CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

used a detailed air quality analysis to 

determine whether a state’s contribution 

to downwind air quality problems was 

at or above specific thresholds. EPA 

defined ‘‘significant contribution’’ using 

a multi-factor analysis that took into 

account both air quality and cost 

considerations. 

In promulgating CSAPR, EPA 

concluded that the District’s SIP 

satisfied the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS and concluded no 

emission sources in the District were 

subject to CSAPR. As discussed in the 

preamble of the CSAPR rulemaking, 

EPA had combined emission 

contributions projected in the air quality 

modeling from the State of Maryland 

and the District to determine whether 

those jurisdictions collectively 

contribute to any downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor 

in amounts equal to or greater than the 

one percent thresholds which EPA used 

to identify ‘‘significant contribution’’ for 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s 

modeling confirmed that the combined 

contributions exceeded the air quality 

threshold at downwind receptors for the 

1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. However, the District was not 

included in CSAPR because in the 

second step of EPA’s significant 

contribution analysis, EPA concluded 

that there are no emission reductions 

available from EGUs in the District of 

Columbia at the cost thresholds deemed 

sufficient to eliminate significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 

NAAQS considered at the linked 

receptors. See 76 FR 48208. 

In 2011, EPA found only one facility, 

Benning Road Generating Station, with 

units meeting CSAPR applicability 

requirements in the District, and EPA’s 

projections did not show any generation 

from this facility to be economic under 

any scenario analyzed and the facility 

had also announced plans to retire its 

units in early 2012. Subsequently, 

Benning Road permanently retired as an 

air pollution source in 2012. Because 

EPA projected Benning Road to have 

zero emissions in 2012, EPA also 

projected zero emissions of SO2 and 

NOX in the District for EGUs that would 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50788 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

4EPA’s determination that the District’s SIP 

satisfied requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS and its determination that no 

emission sources in the District were subject to 

CSAPR are not affected by the recent decision of the 

D.C. Circuit to remand specific portions of CSAPR 

to EPA for further consideration. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 

13039 (D.C. Cir. July 28, 2015) (remanding portions 

of CSAPR to EPA to reconsider specific state 

emission allowances for ozone season NOX and SO2

for specific states, not including the District). 

meet the CSAPR applicability 

requirements. Therefore, EPA did not 

identify any emission reductions 

available at any of the cost thresholds 

considered in CSAPR’s multi-factor 

analysis to identify significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance. For that 

reason, EPA concluded that no 

additional limits or reductions were 

necessary, at that time, in the District to 

satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Id.4

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA’s 

Evaluation 

The July 16, 2015 SIP revision 

consists of a letter from the DDOE 

affirming that the District has already 

satisfied the transport requirements 

under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. As explained in this letter, the 

District’s determination is based on two 

aspects: (1) EPA’s conclusion in the 

preamble for CSAPR that the District 

had no emission reductions at cost 

thresholds determined by EPA as 

necessary to address the District’s 

transport requirements for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS; 

and (2) the District’s declaration 

provided in the SIP submittal that it 

currently has no EGUs within the 

District and the District’s prior EGU, the 

Benning Road Generating Station, 

permanently shut down in 2012. 

As discussed in the preamble of the 

final CSAPR rulemaking and explained 

in the District’s July 16, 2015 SIP 

submittal, EPA had concluded that there 

are no emission reductions available 

from EGUs in the District at the cost 

thresholds deemed sufficient to 

eliminate significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of the NAAQS considered 

at the linked receptors. Therefore, EPA 

had concluded that the District satisfied 

the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 78 FR 

at 48262. 

The District’s July 16, 2015 SIP 

submission also certifies that the 

District currently has no EGUs that 

could significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The District confirms that 

Benning Road Generating Station, an 

EGU which was operational at the time 

of the promulgation of CSAPR in 2011, 

permanently retired as expected in 

2012. The District’s negative declaration 

further supports EPA’s determination in 

the CSAPR preamble that the District’s 

SIP needs no further measures or 

revisions to satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the District’s SIP 

revision submitted on July 16, 2015 

addressing the requirements for the 

District under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

regarding interstate transport pollution 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA concurs with the District’s 

determination that it has no EGUs and 

no emissions reductions are needed for 

the SIP to address significant 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance for 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

publishing this rule without prior 

proposal because EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comment. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA 

is publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

SIP revision if adverse comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective on 

October 20, 2015 without further notice 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by September 21, 2015. If EPA receives 

adverse comment, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. EPA will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under 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 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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, this rule 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50789 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 20, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking action. This 

rulemaking action, addressing the 

interstate pollution transport 

requirements for the District of 

Columbia with respect to the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

Dated: August 7, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart J—District of Columbia 

■ 2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS’’ to the end of the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

District of Columbia ............... 07/16/15 8/21/2015 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

This action addresses the following CAA elements, or 

portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

[FR Doc. 2015–20527 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0564; FRL–9932–83– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Kansas; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Kansas in a letter dated 

March 30, 2015. This SIP revision 

provides Kansas’ state-determined 

allowance allocations for existing 

electric generating units (EGUs) in the 

State for the 2016 control periods and 

replaces certain allowance allocations 

for the 2016 control periods established 

by EPA under the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The CSAPR 

addresses the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act) that requires states to reduce the 

transport of pollution that significantly 

affects downwind air quality. In this 

final action EPA is approving Kansas’ 

SIP revision, incorporating the statedetermined allocations for the 2016 

control periods into the SIP, and 

amending the regulatory text of the 

CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) to reflect this approval and 

inclusion of the state-determined 

allocations. EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve Kansas’ SIP revision 

because it meets the requirements of the 

CAA and the CSAPR requirements to 

replace EPA’s allowance allocations for 

the 2016 control periods. This action is 

being taken pursuant to the CAA and its 

implementing regulations. EPA’s 

allocations of CSAPR trading program 

allowances for Kansas for control 

periods in 2017 and beyond remain in 

place until the State submits and EPA 

approves state-determined allowance 

allocations for those control periods 

through another SIP revision. The 

CSAPR FIPs for Kansas remain in place 

until such time as the State decides to 

replace the FIPs with a SIP revision. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective September 30, 2015, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by September 21, 

2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, 

we will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0564, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Kemp.lachala@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Lachala 

Kemp, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 

0564. 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 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES