48942 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

review, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

A preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration and a 

Memorandum for the Record not 

required for this proposed rule. We seek 

any comments or information that may 

lead to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, visit http://

www.regulations.gov/privacynotice. 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in this docket and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 117.273, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.273 Canaveral Barge Canal, 

Canaveral, FL. 

* * * * * 

(b) The drawspan of the SR401 

Drawbridge, mile 5.5 at Port Canaveral, 

must open on signal; except that, from 

6:30 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 

p.m. Monday through Friday except 

Federal holidays, the drawspan need 

not be opened for the passage of vessels. 

On Saturday and Sunday, this bridge 

will be allowed to remain closed to 

navigation from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. each 

day. From 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the 

drawspan must open on signal if at least 

three hours notice is given. The 

drawspan must open as soon as possible 

for the passage of public vessels of the 

United States and tugs with tows. 

Dated: October 17, 2017. 

Peter J. Brown, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22939 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2017–0340; FRL–9969–72– 

Region 2] 

Approval and Revision of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; State of New 

York; Regional Haze State and Federal 

Implementation Plans 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve a 

source-specific revision to the New York 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

SIP revision establishes Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) emission 

limits for sulfur dioxide that are 

identical to those set by the EPA’s 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 

the Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, which was promulgated in an 

action taken on August 28, 2012. The 

EPA proposes to find that the SIP 

revision fulfills the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act and the EPA’s Regional 

Haze Rule for the Roseton Generating 

Station, Units 1 and 2. In conjunction 

with this proposed approval, we 

propose to withdraw those portions of 

the FIP that address BART for the 

Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 

2. 

DATES: Comment must be received on or 

before November 22, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02– 

OAR–2017–0340), to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

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. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene B. Nielson, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Programs 

Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New 

York 10007–1866 at 212–637–3586 or 

by email at nielson.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background information for 

this proposal? 

A. SIP and FIP Background 

B. Regional Haze Background 

C. EPA Action on New York’s Regional 

Haze Submittals 

III. What is included in the NYSDEC SIP 

proposal? 

IV. What is the EPA analysis of NYSDEC’s 

submittal? 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘Agency,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, 

we mean the EPA. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48943 

1 77 FR 24794 (April 25, 2012) (proposed rule); 77 

FR 27162 (May 9, 2012) (Notice of Data 

Availability); 77 FR 51915 (Aug. 28, 2012) (final 

rule). 

2 In the SIP submittal and in subsequent 

correspondence with the EPA, NYSDEC notes the 

NOX and PM limits for Roseton Generating Station 

Units 1 and 2, which were not subject to the FIP 

and are not part of this SIP action, are consistent 

with BART limits approved by EPA in in its August 

28, 2012 Final Action on New York’s Regional Haze 

SIP (77 FR 51915). 

I. What action is the EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing to approve a 

source-specific State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision for Units 1 and 2 at 

the Roseton Generating Station 

submitted by the New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) on April 18, 

2017. The EPA is proposing to approve 

emission limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

for Units 1 and 2 at the Roseton 

Generating Station that are equivalent to 

the emission limits established by the 

EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP), as promulgated on August 28, 

2012 (77 FR 51915). 

II. What is the background information 

for this proposal? 

This section provides a brief overview 

of the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and Regional Haze Rule, as they 

apply to this particular action. Please 

refer to our previous rulemakings on the 

New York Regional Haze SIP for 

additional background regarding the 

visibility protection provisions of the 

CAA and the Regional Haze Rule.1

A. SIP and FIP Background 

The CAA requires each state to 

develop plans to meet various air 

quality requirements, including 

protection of visibility. (CAA sections 

110(a), 169A, and 169B). The plans 

developed by a state are referred to as 

SIPs. A state must submit its SIPs and 

SIP revisions to EPA for approval. Once 

approved, a SIP is federally enforceable, 

that is enforceable by the EPA and 

subject to citizen suits under the CAA. 

If a state fails to make a required SIP 

submittal, or if we find that a state’s 

required submittal is incomplete, or if 

we disapprove the submittal, then EPA 

must promulgate a FIP to fill this 

regulatory gap. (CAA section 110(c)(1)). 

B. Regional Haze Background 

In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, 

Congress initiated a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ In 1990 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA to address regional haze issues. On 

July 1, 1999, the EPA promulgated the 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 

35714). The requirement to submit a 

Regional Haze SIP applies to New York 

and all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia and the Virgin Islands. The 

RHR required states to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 

51.308(b). 

C. EPA Action on New York’s Regional 

Haze Submittals 

The EPA’s final action on New York’s 

Regional Haze SIP included approving 

17 source-specific SIP revisions 

containing permits for Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) and 

promulgating a FIP to address two 

sources where EPA disapproved New 

York’s BART determinations. These two 

sources are the Roseton Generating 

Station (Units 1 and 2) and the 

Danskammer Generating Station (Unit 

4). 77 FR 51915 (August 28, 2012). 

In the 2012 FIP, the EPA 

‘‘encourage[d] New York at any time to 

submit a SIP revision to incorporate 

provisions that match the terms of our 

FIP, or relevant portion thereof,’’ 

explaining that if EPA approved the SIP 

revision, it would replace the FIP 

provisions (77 FR 51915). On April 18, 

2017, NYSDEC responded to this by 

submitting a request for a sourcespecific SIP revision for the Roseton 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, that 

matches the terms of EPA’s FIP. Because 

NYSDEC was not required to update its 

BART determinations beyond 

incorporating the BART emission limits 

from the 2012 FIP, the EPA has no basis 

to disapprove the SIP revision and 

supplant it with another FIP. Therefore, 

in this action, the EPA proposes to 

approve the SIP revision and remove the 

Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 

2, from the FIP. This action follows 

EPA’s proposed action to remove the 

Danskammer Generation Station Unit 4 

from the FIP. See 82 FR 21749 (May 10, 

2017). 

III. What is included in the NYSDEC 

SIP submittal? 

On April 18, 2017, NYSDEC 

submitted a request for a source-specific 

SIP Revision for Roseton Generating 

Station, Units 1 and 2, intended to 

replace the EPA’s FIP BART emission 

limits and related requirements that 

were promulgated on August 28, 2012 

(77 FR 51915). 

NYSDEC submitted to the EPA the 

Title V permit conditions 32.1 and 32.2 

(pages 30–31) of the permit renewed on 

December 5, 2016 for the Roseton 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and 

a copy of the NYSDEC ENB notice of 

February 15, 2017 for the proposed 

Roseton Generating Station SIP 

revision.2

IV. What is the EPA analysis of 

NYSDEC’s submittal? 

NYSDEC’s submittal includes BART 

emission limits for the Roseton 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, that 

are identical to those contained in the 

EPA FIP: 0.55 pounds of SO2 per 

million British thermal unit (lb SO2/ 

MMBtu) calculated on a 24 hour average 

for each unit (Units 1 and 2). 

The EPA has evaluated and is 

proposing to approve NYSDEC’s SIP 

submittal for the Roseton Generating 

Station, Units 1 and 2, which consists 

of emission limits for SO2 and other 

administrative requirements (i.e., 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements). The SIP 

requirements are identical to those in 

the EPA’s FIP promulgated on August 

28, 2012. Consequently, the EPA 

proposes to withdraw those portions of 

the FIP that address BART for the 

Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 

2. The EPA will fully consider all 

significant comments on this proposed 

revision to the NYSDEC SIP with regard 

to Roseton Generating Station. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference a 

source-specific SIP revision dated April 

18, 2017, which includes BART 

emission limits for SO2. The summary 

of emission limits and other enforceable 

requirements are included in section IV 

of this rulemaking. The EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

materials generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA 

Region 2 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

In reviewing NYSDEC’s SIP submittal, 

the EPA’s role is to approve state 

choices if they meet the requirements of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48944 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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)) and 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011); 

• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order (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, 

Sulfur oxides, Reporting recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 29, 2017. 

Catherine R. McCabe, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22365 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0580; FRL–9969–81– 

Region 9] 

Contingency Measures for the 1997 

PM2.5 Standards; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Correction of 

Deficiency 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the deficiency that formed the basis 

for a disapproval of the contingency 

measures submitted for the San Joaquin 

Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards has been 

corrected. The proposed determination 

is based on the Agency’s approval of 

revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan that include 

regulations establishing standards and 

other requirements relating to the 

control of emissions from new on-road 

and new and in-use off-road vehicles 

and engines and a finding that the 

purposes of the contingency measure 

requirement, as applicable to the San 

Joaquin Valley based on its initial 

designation as a nonattainment area for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards, have been 

fulfilled. If finalized as proposed, the 

sanctions clocks triggered by the 

disapproval will be permanently 

stopped. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

November 22, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2017–0580 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Rory Mays at mays.rory@epa.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the 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. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3227, 

mays.rory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Proposed Determination and Termination 

of Sanctions 

III. Request for Public Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Under sections 108 and 109 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), the EPA 

establishes national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Over the years, the 

EPA has established NAAQS for 

particulate matter, ozone, carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and 

sulfur dioxide. Under CAA section 110, 

each state must adopt and submit state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS within such state. Under CAA 

section 107, the EPA designates areas of 

the country as ‘‘nonattainment’’ if the 

area does not meet a particular NAAQS 

or if the area contributes to ambient air 

quality in a nearby area that does not 

meet the NAAQS. In response to a 

nonattainment designation, states must 

revise their SIPs to provide for, among 

other things, reasonable further progress 

(RFP), attainment by the most 

expeditious date practicable but no later 

than the applicable attainment date, and 

contingency measures in the event the 

area fails to meet RFP or attainment by 

the applicable attainment date. See, 

generally, part D of title I of the CAA. 

Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA is 

charged with review of each SIP and SIP 

revision submitted by each state for 

compliance with applicable CAA 

requirements and for approval or 

disapproval (in whole or in part) 

through notice-and-comment 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS