
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48030-48033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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


