82 FR 48030 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 198 (October 16, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 198 (October 16, 2017)
| Page Range | 48030-48033 | |
| FR Document | 2017-22230 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 48030-48033] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-22230] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit 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, [email protected]. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Areas 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Range-Dry 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 [[Page 48031]] 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-the-books 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 Cross-State 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ CAIR 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ MANE-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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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-the-books emissions reduction measures on which the state relied. Ohio also notes the conclusion in its original regional haze SIP that the majority of visibility- impairing 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ CSAPR 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 48032]] 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SO2 (tons) NOX (tons) Year ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 visibility-impairing 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/07/2017-16484/air-plan-approval-kentucky-regional-haze-progress-report. \6\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/07/20/2017-15266/air-plan-approval-me-regional-haze-5-year-progress-report. \7\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/25/2016-20309/air-plan-approval-north-carolina-regional-haze-progress-report. \8\ https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/05/02/2014-10110/approval-and-promulgation-of-implementation-plans-virginia-regional-haze-five-year-progress-report. \9\ https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/05/2015-13801/approval-and-promulgation-of-implementation-plans-west-virginia-regional-haze-five-year-progress. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 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
![48030 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 198 / Monday, October 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules
services provided that are not The written comment is considered the report included a determination that
preauthorized by VA or that otherwise official comment and should include Ohio’s existing regional haze SIP
are not covered as emergency care under discussion of all points you wish to requires no substantive revision to
38 CFR 17.120 et. seq. or 17.1000 et seq. make. EPA will generally not consider achieve the established regional haze
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1701, 1710, 1725, comments or comment contents located visibility improvement and emissions
1728) outside of the primary submission (i.e., reduction goals for 2018. EPA is
[FR Doc. 2017–22358 Filed 10–13–17; 8:45 am] on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing proposing to approve Ohio’s progress
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P system). For additional submission report on the basis that it satisfies the
methods, please contact the person requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.
identified in the FOR FURTHER
II. EPA’s Analysis of Ohio’s Regional
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Haze Progress Report and Adequacy
AGENCY full EPA public comment policy,
Determination
information about CBI or multimedia
40 CFR Part 52 submissions, and general guidance on On March 11, 2016, OEPA submitted
making effective comments, please visit a revision to Ohio’s regional haze SIP to
[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0185; FRL–9969–62– http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ address progress made in the first
Region 5] planning period towards RPGs for Class
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: I areas that are affected by emissions
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Regional from Ohio’s sources. This progress
Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Michelle Becker, Life Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance report also included a determination of
Implementation Plan the adequacy of the state’s existing
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency, regional haze SIP.
Agency (EPA). Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Ohio has no Class I areas within its
ACTION: Proposed rule. Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–3901, borders. Emissions from sources in Ohio
Becker.Michelle@epa.gov. contribute to the visibility impairment
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection in the following Class I areas: Caney
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of Creek Wilderness Area (Arkansas),
Throughout this document whenever
a revision to the Ohio State Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by (Arkansas), Great Gulf Wilderness Area
EPA. This supplementary information
the State of Ohio (Ohio) through the (New Hampshire), Presidential Range-
section is arranged as follows:
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Dry River Wilderness Area (New
I. Background Hampshire), Brigantine Wilderness Area
(OEPA). Ohio’s SIP revision addresses
II. EPA’s Analysis of Ohio’s Regional Haze (New Jersey), Great Smoky Mountains
the requirements of the Clean Air Act Progress Report and Adequacy
(CAA) and EPA’s rules that require Determination
National Park (North Carolina,
states to submit periodic reports III. What action is EPA taking? Tennessee), Mammoth Cave National
describing progress towards reasonable IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Park (Kentucky), Acadia National Park
progress goals (RPGs) established for (Maine), Moosehorn Wilderness Area
I. Background (Maine), Seney Wilderness Area
regional haze, and a determination of
the adequacy of the state’s existing States are required to submit a (Michigan), Hercules-Glades Wilderness
implementation plan addressing progress report that evaluates progress Area (Missouri), Mingo Wilderness Area
regional haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is towards the RPGs for each Class I (Missouri), Lye Brook Wilderness
proposing approval of the Ohio SIP Federal area 1 (Class I area) within the (Vermont), James River Face Wilderness
revision on the basis that it addresses state and in each Class I area outside the (Virginia), Shenandoah National Park
the progress report and adequacy state which may be affected by (Virginia), and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek
determination requirements for the first emissions from within the state. See 40 Wilderness (West Virginia).
implementation period for regional CFR 51.308(g). States are also required In developing a long term strategy
haze. to submit, at the same time as the (LTS) for ensuring reasonable progress
progress report, a determination of the towards improving visibility, Ohio
DATES: Comments must be received on adequacy of the state’s existing regional participated with other states and tribes
or before November 15, 2017. haze SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The through the Midwest Regional Planning
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, first progress report must be submitted Organization (MRPO). Additionally,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– in the form of a SIP revision and is due Ohio consulted with the Mid-Atlantic/
OAR–2016–0185 at http:// five years after the submittal of the Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU),
www.regulations.gov or via email to initial regional haze SIP. On March 11, and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) as a
Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For 2011, OEPA submitted its first regional part of developing its initial SIP. The
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, haze SIP in accordance with the original Ohio regional haze SIP
follow the online instructions for requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. determined that ‘‘on-the-books’’ controls
submitting comments. Once submitted, On March 11, 2016, Ohio submitted would constitute the measures
comments cannot be edited or removed as a SIP revision a report on the progress necessary to address Ohio’s contribution
from Regulations.gov. For either manner made in the first implementation period to visibility impairment in the Class I
of submission, EPA may publish any towards the RPGs for Class I areas that areas to which Ohio contributes. This
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
comment received to its public docket. are affected by emissions from the state was supported by modeling assessments
Do not submit electronically any of Ohio (progress report). This progress from the MRPO and in consultation
information you consider to be with other states and Regional Planning
Confidential Business Information (CBI) 1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
Organizations (RPOs).
or other information whose disclosure is areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
restricted by statute. Multimedia acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. The following section includes EPA’s
accompanied by a written comment. 7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81 subpart D. analysis of Ohio’s progress report
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:01 Oct 13, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM 16OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_48228/page/1.svg)
![48032 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 198 / Monday, October 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules
with CSAPR now being implemented, 3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions particulate matter (PM10), ammonia
additional reductions in emissions from and Changes for Each Mandatory Class (NH3), and SO2. The emissions
Ohio EGUs would result because the I Federal Area in the State inventories, include all point, nonpoint,
CSAPR budgets are more stringent than Ohio noted in its progress report that on-road, non-road, marine-aircraft-rail
under CAIR. See 80 FR 75706. it does not have any Class I areas within (MAR), and other sources.
its boundaries, and as the applicable Table 2 below shows the progress
TABLE 1—ACTUAL SO2 AND NOX provisions pertain only to states made from 2005–2011 toward the
EMISSIONS containing Class I areas, no further projected 2018 emission reductions
discussion is necessary. EPA concurs, indicated in the 2011 Ohio regional
SO2 NOX and proposes to conclude that Ohio has
Year (tons) (tons) haze SIP submission. In the 2005
adequately addressed the applicable inventory, SO2 emissions were
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g). 1,241,414 TPY and the reduction
2002 .................. 1,132,069 370,497
2003 .................. 1,175,905 359,285 4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes projected by 2018 was 799,830 TPY for
2004 .................. 1,091,520 270,449 of Visibility-Impairing Pollutants an annual SO2 emission of 441,584 TPY.
2005 .................. 1,085,485 258,222 In its progress report, Ohio tracked In 2011, SO2 emissions had already
2006 .................. 962,288 241,995 changes in emissions of visibility- decreased by 563,523 TPY, or achieved
2007 .................. 954,646 240,722 70 percent of the expected reduction.
impairing pollutants using a base year
2008 .................. 709,444 237,585 With the exception of NH3, which Ohio
inventory of 2005 and the 2011 National
2009 .................. 600,692 97,562 predicted to increase during the first
Emissions Inventory, the most recent
2010 .................. 572,164 108,048 implementation period (it actually
updated inventory of actual emissions
2011 .................. 575,474 103,591
for the state at the time that it developed decreased), all other pollutants at the
2012 .................. 323,977 84,281
the progress report. For both years, time of the progress report had achieved
2013 .................. 282,195 86,619
2014 .................. 290,403 89,345 pollutants inventoried include NOX, more than 50 percent of the expected
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse 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 notes that Kentucky,5 Maine,6 North 51.308(g). The term ‘‘implementation
has adequately addressed the applicable Carolina,7 Virginia,8 and West Virginia 9 plan’’ is defined for purposes of the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308. prepared progress reports demonstrating Regional Haze Rule to mean ‘‘any [SIP],
that visibility is improving at Class I [FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.’’
5. Assessment of Any Significant areas and according to these reports 40 CFR 51.301. EPA is, therefore,
Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions Ohio is not interfering with the ability proposing to determine that we may
of these states to meet reasonable consider measures in any issued FIP, as
In its progress report, Ohio indicated
progress goals. well as those in a state’s regional haze
that no significant changes in Ohio’s long term strategy relied
anthropogenic emissions have impeded SIP, in assessing the adequacy of the
heavily on the emission reductions from ‘‘existing implementation plan’’ under
progress in reducing emissions and CAIR, a program that has now been 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h).
improving visibility in Class I areas replaced by CSAPR. At the present time,
impacted by Ohio sources. The state the requirements of CSAPR apply to EPA proposes to conclude that Ohio
referenced its analyses in the progress sources in Ohio under the terms of a has adequately addressed the applicable
report identifying an overall downward FIP. The Regional Haze Rule requires an provisions of 40 CFR 51.308. EPA views
trend in these emissions. assessment of whether the current this requirement as an assessment that
‘‘implementation plan’’ is sufficient to should evaluate emissions and visibility
EPA proposes to conclude that Ohio trends and other readily available
has adequately addressed the applicable enable the states to meet all established
reasonable progress goals. 40 CFR information. Ohio determined its
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308. regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable
6. Assessment of Whether the 5 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ other States to meet the RPGs for the
Implementation Plan Elements and 2017/08/07/2017-16484/air-plan-approval- Class I areas impacted by the State’s
kentucky-regional-haze-progress-report. emissions.
Strategies Are Sufficient To Enable 6 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
Other States To Meet RPGs 2017/07/20/2017-15266/air-plan-approval-me- 7. Review of the State’s Visibility
regional-haze-5-year-progress-report. Monitoring Strategy
In its progress report, Ohio concludes 7 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
that the elements and strategies outlined 2016/08/25/2016-20309/air-plan-approval-north- Ohio’s progress report states there are
carolina-regional-haze-progress-report.
in its original regional haze SIP are 8 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/ no Class I areas within its borders and
sufficient to enable Ohio and states 05/02/2014-10110/approval-and-promulgation-of- is not required to have a visibility
where Ohio contributes to visibility implementation-plans-virginia-regional-haze-five- monitoring strategy in place. EPA
impairments to meet all the established year-progress-report. concurs, and proposes to conclude that
9 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/
RPGs. To support this conclusion, Ohio 06/05/2015-13801/approval-and-promulgation-of-
Ohio has adequately addressed the
implementation-plans-west-virginia-regional-haze- requirements for a monitoring strategy
five-year-progress. for regional haze and propose to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:01 Oct 13, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM 16OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_48228/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 198 / Monday, October 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48033
determine no further modifications to EPA proposes to find that Ohio has practicable and legally permissible
the monitoring strategy are required. addressed the applicable requirements methods, under Executive Order 12898
in 51.308(i) regarding FLM consultation. (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
B. Determination of Adequacy of In addition, the SIP is not approved
Existing Regional Haze Plan III. What action is EPA taking? to apply on any Indian reservation land
In its progress report, Ohio submitted EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s or in any other area where EPA or an
a negative declaration to EPA regarding Regional Haze five-year progress report, Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
the need for additional actions or submitted March 11, 2016, as meeting tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
emission reductions in Ohio beyond the applicable regional haze Indian country, the rule does not have
those already in place and those to be requirements as set forth in 40 CFR tribal implications and will not impose
implemented by 2018 according to 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). substantial direct costs on tribal
Ohio’s regional haze plan. governments or preempt tribal law as
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
In the 2016 progress report submittal, Reviews
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Ohio determined the existing regional Under the CAA, the Administrator is
haze SIP requires no further substantive required to approve a SIP submission List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
revision at this time to achieve the RPGs that complies with the provisions of the Environmental protection, Air
for Class I areas affected by the State’s CAA and applicable Federal regulations. pollution control, Incorporation by
sources. The basis for the State’s 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). reference, Intergovernmental relations,
negative declaration is the finding that Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
visibility has improved at all Class I EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Reporting and recordkeeping
areas in the MANE–VU region. In provided that they meet the criteria of requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
addition, SO2, NOX, and PM emissions the CAA. Accordingly, this action organic compounds.
from the latest emission inventory for merely approves state law as meeting Dated: September 28, 2017.
Ohio have decreased by more than 50% Federal requirements and does not
in the five-year time period, indicating Robert A. Kaplan,
impose additional requirements beyond Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
that Ohio is on track to achieve the those imposed by state law. For that
expected emission reductions outlined [FR Doc. 2017–22230 Filed 10–13–17; 8:45 am]
reason, this action:
in its regional haze SIP. • Is not a significant regulatory action BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
EPA proposes to conclude that Ohio subject to review by the Office of
has adequately addressed the provisions Management and Budget under ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, AGENCY
monitored visibility values and October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
emission trends indicate that Class I January 21, 2011); 40 CFR Part 52
areas impacted by Ohio’s sources are • Does not impose an information
meeting or exceeding the RPGs for 2018, collection burden under the provisions [EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0413; FRL–9969–47–
Region 3]
and are expected to continue to meet or of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
exceed the RPGs for 2018. U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Approval and Promulgation of Air
• Is certified as not having a Quality Implementation Plans; West
C. Public Participation significant economic impact on a Virginia; 2015 Ozone National Ambient
On December 14, 2015, Ohio provided substantial number of small entities Air Quality Standards
an opportunity for FLMs to review the under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
revision to Ohio’s SIP reporting on U.S.C. 601 et seq.); AGENCY: Environmental Protection
progress made during the first • Does not contain any unfunded Agency (EPA).
implementation period toward RPGs for mandate or significantly or uniquely ACTION: Proposed rule.
Class I areas outside the state that are affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
affected by emissions from Ohio’s
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the
sources. This was 60 days in advance of
the public hearing. • Does not have Federalism state implementation plan (SIP) revision
implications as specified in Executive submitted by the State of West Virginia
Ohio’s progress report includes the Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, for the purpose of updating the effective
FLM comments in Appendices B.2 and 1999); date by which the State regulations
B.3, and responses to those comments in • Is not an economically significant incorporate by reference the national
Appendix B.4 to the progress report. regulatory action based on health or ambient air quality standards (NAAQS),
Comments were received from the U.S. safety risks subject to Executive Order additional monitoring methods, and
Forest Service and National Park 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); additional equivalent monitoring
Service. Ohio incorporated two of the • Is not a significant regulatory action methods. This update will effectively
three comments into the progress report subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR add the following to the West Virginia
and provided an explanation for not 28355, May 22, 2001); SIP: The 2015 ozone NAAQS,
incorporating the third comment in the • Is not subject to requirements of monitoring reference and equivalent
progress report. Section 12(d) of the National methods pertaining to fine particulate
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Ohio also published notification for a Technology Transfer and Advancement matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO),
public hearing and solicitation for full Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because and course particulate matter (PM10),
public comment on the draft progress application of those requirements would and it will revise the ozone monitoring
report in widely distributed be inconsistent with the CAA; and season to March 1st through October
publications. A public hearing was held • Does not provide EPA with the 31st, the Federal Reference Method
on February 25, 2016. No comments discretionary authority to address, as (FRM), the Federal Equivalent Method
were received and no testimony was appropriate, disproportionate human (FEM), and the Photochemical
provided. health or environmental effects, using Assessment Monitoring Stations
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:01 Oct 13, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM 16OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_48228/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2017-10-14 01:42:33
Document Modified: 2017-10-14 01:42:33
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2017. | |
| Contact | Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR- 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3901, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 48030 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR