```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50785-50789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20527]

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

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.

[[Page 50786]]

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 previously-listed 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 V[eacute]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 ([mu]g/
m\3\), 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

[[Page 50787]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \2\ On September 25, 2009, EPA issued ``Guidance on SIP Elements 
Required Under Sections 110(a)(l) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 50788]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA'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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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

0
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

0
2. In Sec.  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:

Sec.  52.470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
             revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure   District of                07/16/15  8/21/2015 [Insert    This action
 Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5    Columbia.                            Federal Register     addresses the
 NAAQS.                                                                  citation].           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
```