48030 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 198 / Monday, October 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81 subpart D. 

services provided that are not 

preauthorized by VA or that otherwise 

are not covered as emergency care under 

38 CFR 17.120 et. seq. or 17.1000 et seq. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1701, 1710, 1725, 

1728) 

[FR Doc. 2017–22358 Filed 10–13–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0185; FRL–9969–62– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional 

Haze Five-Year Progress Report State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Ohio (Ohio) through the 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

(OEPA). Ohio’s SIP revision addresses 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to submit periodic reports 

describing progress towards reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) established for 

regional haze, and a determination of 

the adequacy of the state’s existing 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is 

proposing approval of the Ohio SIP 

revision on the basis that it addresses 

the progress report and adequacy 

determination requirements for the first 

implementation period for regional 

haze. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 15, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0185 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

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 

http://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. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Analysis of Ohio’s Regional Haze 

Progress Report and Adequacy 

Determination 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

States are required to submit a 

progress report that evaluates progress 

towards the RPGs for each Class I 

Federal area 1 (Class I area) within the 

state and in each Class I area outside the 

state which may be affected by 

emissions from within the state. See 40 

CFR 51.308(g). States are also required 

to submit, at the same time as the 

progress report, a determination of the 

adequacy of the state’s existing regional 

haze SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The 

first progress report must be submitted 

in the form of a SIP revision and is due 

five years after the submittal of the 

initial regional haze SIP. On March 11, 

2011, OEPA submitted its first regional 

haze SIP in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 

On March 11, 2016, Ohio submitted 

as a SIP revision a report on the progress 

made in the first implementation period 

towards the RPGs for Class I areas that 

are affected by emissions from the state 

of Ohio (progress report). This progress 

report included a determination that 

Ohio’s existing regional haze SIP 

requires no substantive revision to 

achieve the established regional haze 

visibility improvement and emissions 

reduction goals for 2018. EPA is 

proposing to approve Ohio’s progress 

report on the basis that it satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 

II. EPA’s Analysis of Ohio’s Regional 

Haze Progress Report and Adequacy 

Determination 

On March 11, 2016, OEPA submitted 

a revision to Ohio’s regional haze SIP to 

address progress made in the first 

planning period towards RPGs for Class 

I areas that are affected by emissions 

from Ohio’s sources. This progress 

report also included a determination of 

the adequacy of the state’s existing 

regional haze SIP. 

Ohio has no Class I areas within its 

borders. Emissions from sources in Ohio 

contribute to the visibility impairment 

in the following Class I areas: Caney 

Creek Wilderness Area (Arkansas), 

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 

(Arkansas), Great Gulf Wilderness Area 

(New Hampshire), Presidential RangeDry River Wilderness Area (New 

Hampshire), Brigantine Wilderness Area 

(New Jersey), Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park (North Carolina, 

Tennessee), Mammoth Cave National 

Park (Kentucky), Acadia National Park 

(Maine), Moosehorn Wilderness Area 

(Maine), Seney Wilderness Area 

(Michigan), Hercules-Glades Wilderness 

Area (Missouri), Mingo Wilderness Area 

(Missouri), Lye Brook Wilderness 

(Vermont), James River Face Wilderness 

(Virginia), Shenandoah National Park 

(Virginia), and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek 

Wilderness (West Virginia). 

In developing a long term strategy 

(LTS) for ensuring reasonable progress 

towards improving visibility, Ohio 

participated with other states and tribes 

through the Midwest Regional Planning 

Organization (MRPO). Additionally, 

Ohio consulted with the Mid-Atlantic/ 

Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU), 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) as a 

part of developing its initial SIP. The 

original Ohio regional haze SIP 

determined that ‘‘on-the-books’’ controls 

would constitute the measures 

necessary to address Ohio’s contribution 

to visibility impairment in the Class I 

areas to which Ohio contributes. This 

was supported by modeling assessments 

from the MRPO and in consultation 

with other states and Regional Planning 

Organizations (RPOs). 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs 

The following section includes EPA’s 

analysis of Ohio’s progress report 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 198 / Monday, October 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48031 

2CAIR required certain states like Ohio to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) that significantly contribute to 

downwind nonattainment of the 1997 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005). 

3MANE–VU is a collaborative effort of State 

governments, Tribal governments, and various 

Federal agencies established to initiate and 

coordinate activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility and other 

air quality issues in the Northeastern United States. 

Member State and Tribal governments include: 

Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot 

Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk 

Tribe, and Vermont. 

4CSAPR was issued by EPA to replace CAIR and 

to help states reduce air pollution and attain CAA 

standards. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (final 

rule). CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the 

Eastern United States that significantly contribute 

to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

submittal and an explanation of the 

basis of our proposed approval. 

1. Status of Implementation of All 

Measures Included in the Regional Haze 

SIP 

In its progress report, Ohio 

summarizes the status of the emissions 

reduction measures that were included 

in its 2011 regional haze SIP, 

specifically, the status of the on-thebooks emissions reduction measures. 

Details of the measures and 

implementation for various on-highway 

mobile sources, off-highway mobile 

sources, area sources, and point sources 

are set forth in Section II.A of the 

progress report. 

In its regional haze SIP, Ohio relied 

on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

to meet the sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) best available 

retrofit technology (BART) requirements 

for its electric generating units (EGUs) 

as well as to ensure reasonable progress. 

Ohio’s progress report describes the 

litigation regarding CAIR and CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that 

has had a substantial impact on EPA’s 

review of the regional haze SIPs of many 

states. 

In 2005, EPA issued regulations 

allowing states to rely on CAIR to meet 

certain requirements of the Regional 

Haze Rule. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 

2005).2 A number of states, including 

Ohio, submitted regional haze SIPs 

consistent with these regulatory 

provisions. CAIR, however, was 

remanded (without vacatur) to EPA in 

2008, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and 

replaced by CSAPR. 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011). Implementation of 

CSAPR was scheduled to begin on 

January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would 

have superseded the CAIR program. 

However, numerous parties filed 

petitions for review of CSAPR, and at 

the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued 

an order staying CSAPR pending 

resolution of the petitions and directing 

EPA to continue to administer CAIR. 

Order of December 30, 2011, in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 

D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302. 

EPA finalized a limited approval of 

Ohio’s regional haze SIP on July 2, 2012. 

77 FR 39177. In a separate action, 

published on June 7, 2012, EPA 

finalized a limited disapproval of the 

Ohio regional haze SIP because of the 

state’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements, and issued 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address the deficiencies identified in 

the limited disapproval of Ohio and 

other states’ regional haze plans. 77 FR 

33642. In our FIP, we relied on CSAPR 

to meet certain regional haze 

requirements notwithstanding that it 

was stayed at the time. Following 

additional litigation and the lifting of 

the stay, EPA began implementation of 

CSAPR on January 1, 2015. 

Regarding the status of BART and 

reasonable progress control 

requirements for non-EGU sources in 

the state, Ohio’s progress report notes 

that two boilers at one facility, operated 

by the P.H. Glatfelter Company, were 

the only non-EGU emission units 

subject to the BART requirements in 

Ohio. BART requirements at the P.H. 

Glatfelter facility reflected alternative 

measures, which were incorporated into 

a Federally enforceable permit on March 

7, 2011, and the compliance date for 

these requirements was January 31, 

2017. Also, P.H. Glatfelter is currently 

pursuing conversion to natural gas at its 

facility to comply with the EPA 

Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) 

requirements, in the end, this will bring 

further reductions beyond the BART 

requirements. 

Additionally, as part of Ohio’s 

consultation with MANE–VU,3 MANE– 

VU identified 28 stacks from 14 sources 

in Ohio contributing to visibility 

impairment based on 2002 emissions. In 

Ohio’s regional haze SIP, the state 

declined to ‘‘commit to any particular 

course of action beyond the 

collaboration that occurred in 2009.’’ 

Ohio noted, however, that utilities 

within the state had made significant 

progress in installing the SO2 controls 

requested by MANE–VU. In the progress 

report, and subsequent letter to EPA 

dated July 11, 2017, Ohio indicated that 

27 of the 28 identified units have either 

shut down or installed post-combustion 

emission control for SO2 emissions. The 

final unit does not have a scrubber 

installed, but to comply with the SO2

Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, 

August 21, 2015) has accepted a 

Federally enforceable emission limit. 

EPA proposes to conclude that Ohio 

has adequately addressed the status of 

control measures in its regional haze 

SIP. Ohio describes the implementation 

status of measures from its regional haze 

SIP, including the status of control 

measures to meet BART and reasonable 

progress requirements, the status of 

measures from on-the-book controls and 

the status of control measures applied to 

stacks identified by MANE–VU. 

2. Summary of Emissions Reductions 

Achieved in the State Through 

Implementation of Measures 

In its progress report, Ohio 

summarizes the status of the emissions 

reduction measures that were included 

in its 2011 regional haze SIP, 

specifically, the status of the on-thebooks emissions reduction measures on 

which the state relied. Ohio also notes 

the conclusion in its original regional 

haze SIP that the majority of visibilityimpairing point source emissions in the 

State come from EGUs. The original SIP 

showed dramatic reductions in 

projected emissions from EGUs due to 

CAIR. Ohio’s progress report 

accordingly discusses the 

implementation of CAIR and its 

successor, CSAPR.4 The other measures 

addressed in the progress report include 

on- and off-highway mobile source 

rules, area source rules, and Title IV 

programs. 

As described above, throughout the 

litigation surrounding CAIR and 

CSAPR, EPA continued to implement 

CAIR. Thus, CAIR was in effect through 

the end of 2014. Ohio explained in its 

progress report that with CAIR 

remaining in effect throughout this 

process, Ohio has acted in accordance 

with the CAIR program, as determined 

by the Ohio Regional Haze SIP, resulting 

in emissions reductions from its EGUs. 

Data from the EPA Clean Air Markets 

Division shows NOX emissions from 

EGUs in Ohio decreased from 370,497 

tons per year (TPY) in 2002 to 89,345 

TPY in 2014, a 76% decrease. SO2 from 

EGUs in Ohio decreased from 1,132,069 

TPY in 2002 to 290,402 TPY in 2014, a 

75% decrease. Table 1 below shows the 

annual reductions of SO2 and NOX for 

Ohio. These decreases were a result of 

CAIR and other implementation 

strategies. Ohio further concluded that 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
48032 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 198 / Monday, October 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

5https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2017/08/07/2017-16484/air-plan-approvalkentucky-regional-haze-progress-report. 

6https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2017/07/20/2017-15266/air-plan-approval-meregional-haze-5-year-progress-report. 

7https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2016/08/25/2016-20309/air-plan-approval-northcarolina-regional-haze-progress-report. 

8https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/ 

05/02/2014-10110/approval-and-promulgation-ofimplementation-plans-virginia-regional-haze-fiveyear-progress-report. 

9https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/ 

06/05/2015-13801/approval-and-promulgation-ofimplementation-plans-west-virginia-regional-hazefive-year-progress. 

with CSAPR now being implemented, 

additional reductions in emissions from 

Ohio EGUs would result because the 

CSAPR budgets are more stringent than 

under CAIR. See 80 FR 75706. 

TABLE 1—ACTUAL SO2 AND NOX

EMISSIONS

Year SO2

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

2002 .................. 1,132,069 370,497 

2003 .................. 1,175,905 359,285 

2004 .................. 1,091,520 270,449 

2005 .................. 1,085,485 258,222 

2006 .................. 962,288 241,995 

2007 .................. 954,646 240,722 

2008 .................. 709,444 237,585 

2009 .................. 600,692 97,562 

2010 .................. 572,164 108,048 

2011 .................. 575,474 103,591 

2012 .................. 323,977 84,281 

2013 .................. 282,195 86,619 

2014 .................. 290,403 89,345 

3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions 

and Changes for Each Mandatory Class 

I Federal Area in the State 

Ohio noted in its progress report that 

it does not have any Class I areas within 

its boundaries, and as the applicable 

provisions pertain only to states 

containing Class I areas, no further 

discussion is necessary. EPA concurs, 

and proposes to conclude that Ohio has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes 

of Visibility-Impairing Pollutants 

In its progress report, Ohio tracked 

changes in emissions of visibilityimpairing pollutants using a base year 

inventory of 2005 and the 2011 National 

Emissions Inventory, the most recent 

updated inventory of actual emissions 

for the state at the time that it developed 

the progress report. For both years, 

pollutants inventoried include NOX, 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse 

particulate matter (PM10), ammonia 

(NH3), and SO2. The emissions 

inventories, include all point, nonpoint, 

on-road, non-road, marine-aircraft-rail 

(MAR), and other sources. 

Table 2 below shows the progress 

made from 2005–2011 toward the 

projected 2018 emission reductions 

indicated in the 2011 Ohio regional 

haze SIP submission. In the 2005 

inventory, SO2 emissions were 

1,241,414 TPY and the reduction 

projected by 2018 was 799,830 TPY for 

an annual SO2 emission of 441,584 TPY. 

In 2011, SO2 emissions had already 

decreased by 563,523 TPY, or achieved 

70 percent of the expected reduction. 

With the exception of NH3, which Ohio 

predicted to increase during the first 

implementation period (it actually 

decreased), all other pollutants at the 

time of the progress report had achieved 

more than 50 percent of the expected 

2018 emissions reductions. 

TABLE 2—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS—2005 TO 2011 VS. PROJECTED 2018 REDUCTIONS (TPY) 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

2005 to 2018 expected reduction ............ 151,522 392,994 3,521 4,497 ¥10,028 799,830 

2005 to 2011 reduction ............................ 86,950 266,969 14,996 19,214 19,775 563,523 

% toward 2018 RPG ................................ 57 68 426 427 N/A 70 

EPA proposes to conclude that Ohio 

has adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308. 

5. Assessment of Any Significant 

Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions 

In its progress report, Ohio indicated 

that no significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions have impeded 

progress in reducing emissions and 

improving visibility in Class I areas 

impacted by Ohio sources. The state 

referenced its analyses in the progress 

report identifying an overall downward 

trend in these emissions. 

EPA proposes to conclude that Ohio 

has adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308. 

6. Assessment of Whether the 

Implementation Plan Elements and 

Strategies Are Sufficient To Enable 

Other States To Meet RPGs 

In its progress report, Ohio concludes 

that the elements and strategies outlined 

in its original regional haze SIP are 

sufficient to enable Ohio and states 

where Ohio contributes to visibility 

impairments to meet all the established 

RPGs. To support this conclusion, Ohio 

notes that Kentucky,5 Maine,6 North 

Carolina,7 Virginia,8 and West Virginia 9

prepared progress reports demonstrating 

that visibility is improving at Class I 

areas and according to these reports 

Ohio is not interfering with the ability 

of these states to meet reasonable 

progress goals. 

Ohio’s long term strategy relied 

heavily on the emission reductions from 

CAIR, a program that has now been 

replaced by CSAPR. At the present time, 

the requirements of CSAPR apply to 

sources in Ohio under the terms of a 

FIP. The Regional Haze Rule requires an 

assessment of whether the current 

‘‘implementation plan’’ is sufficient to 

enable the states to meet all established 

reasonable progress goals. 40 CFR 

51.308(g). The term ‘‘implementation 

plan’’ is defined for purposes of the 

Regional Haze Rule to mean ‘‘any [SIP], 

[FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.’’ 

40 CFR 51.301. EPA is, therefore, 

proposing to determine that we may 

consider measures in any issued FIP, as 

well as those in a state’s regional haze 

SIP, in assessing the adequacy of the 

‘‘existing implementation plan’’ under 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). 

EPA proposes to conclude that Ohio 

has adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308. EPA views 

this requirement as an assessment that 

should evaluate emissions and visibility 

trends and other readily available 

information. Ohio determined its 

regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable 

other States to meet the RPGs for the 

Class I areas impacted by the State’s 

emissions. 

7. Review of the State’s Visibility 

Monitoring Strategy 

Ohio’s progress report states there are 

no Class I areas within its borders and 

is not required to have a visibility 

monitoring strategy in place. EPA 

concurs, and proposes to conclude that 

Ohio has adequately addressed the 

requirements for a monitoring strategy 

for regional haze and propose to 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 198 / Monday, October 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48033 

determine no further modifications to 

the monitoring strategy are required. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

In its progress report, Ohio submitted 

a negative declaration to EPA regarding 

the need for additional actions or 

emission reductions in Ohio beyond 

those already in place and those to be 

implemented by 2018 according to 

Ohio’s regional haze plan. 

In the 2016 progress report submittal, 

Ohio determined the existing regional 

haze SIP requires no further substantive 

revision at this time to achieve the RPGs 

for Class I areas affected by the State’s 

sources. The basis for the State’s 

negative declaration is the finding that 

visibility has improved at all Class I 

areas in the MANE–VU region. In 

addition, SO2, NOX, and PM emissions 

from the latest emission inventory for 

Ohio have decreased by more than 50% 

in the five-year time period, indicating 

that Ohio is on track to achieve the 

expected emission reductions outlined 

in its regional haze SIP. 

EPA proposes to conclude that Ohio 

has adequately addressed the provisions 

under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because 

monitored visibility values and 

emission trends indicate that Class I 

areas impacted by Ohio’s sources are 

meeting or exceeding the RPGs for 2018, 

and are expected to continue to meet or 

exceed the RPGs for 2018. 

C. Public Participation 

On December 14, 2015, Ohio provided 

an opportunity for FLMs to review the 

revision to Ohio’s SIP reporting on 

progress made during the first 

implementation period toward RPGs for 

Class I areas outside the state that are 

affected by emissions from Ohio’s 

sources. This was 60 days in advance of 

the public hearing. 

Ohio’s progress report includes the 

FLM comments in Appendices B.2 and 

B.3, and responses to those comments in 

Appendix B.4 to the progress report. 

Comments were received from the U.S. 

Forest Service and National Park 

Service. Ohio incorporated two of the 

three comments into the progress report 

and provided an explanation for not 

incorporating the third comment in the 

progress report. 

Ohio also published notification for a 

public hearing and solicitation for full 

public comment on the draft progress 

report in widely distributed 

publications. A public hearing was held 

on February 25, 2016. No comments 

were received and no testimony was 

provided. 

EPA proposes to find that Ohio has 

addressed the applicable requirements 

in 51.308(i) regarding FLM consultation. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

Regional Haze five-year progress report, 

submitted March 11, 2016, as meeting 

the applicable regional haze 

requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and 51.308(h). 

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 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

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 (Public Law 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: September 28, 2017. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22230 Filed 10–13–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0413; FRL–9969–47– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; 2015 Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of West Virginia 

for the purpose of updating the effective 

date by which the State regulations 

incorporate by reference the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), 

additional monitoring methods, and 

additional equivalent monitoring 

methods. This update will effectively 

add the following to the West Virginia 

SIP: The 2015 ozone NAAQS, 

monitoring reference and equivalent 

methods pertaining to fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), 

and course particulate matter (PM10), 

and it will revise the ozone monitoring 

season to March 1st through October 

31st, the Federal Reference Method 

(FRM), the Federal Equivalent Method 

(FEM), and the Photochemical 

Assessment Monitoring Stations 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS