[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8663-8666]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1139]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW), at Wrightsville Beach, NC; Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear
River, at Wilmington, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations that govern
the operations of three North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) bridges: The S.R. 74 Bridge, across the AIWW, mile 283.1 at
Wrightsville Beach, NC; the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge across the Cape
Fear River, mile 26.8; and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge across the
Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 1.0; both at Wilmington, NC. The
proposed change will alter the dates these bridges are allowed to
remain in the closed position to accommodate the annual
Beach2Battleship Iron and \1/2\

Iron Triathlon and the Battleship North Carolina Half Marathon and 5K.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-1139 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Ms. Lindsey Middleton, Fifth District Bridge
Administration Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-1139), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online
via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax,
hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having
been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2010-1139'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\; by
11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-1139'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Basis and Purpose

    The Beach2Battleship Iron and \1/2\ Iron distance Triathlon
competition is an annual event that is held in the Wrightsville Beach
and Wilmington, NC area. The swimming portion of this triathlon is tide
dependent and so is difficult to determine the exact date to best hold
the event. The Coast Guard proposes to allow the S.R. 74 (Wrightsville
Beach) Bridge to remain closed to navigation between 7 a.m. and 10:30
a.m. and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge to remain closed to navigation
between 12 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on the last Saturday in October or the
first or second Saturday in November depending on the tides and the
date the event will be held. The exact date of the closure will be
published locally in the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice
to Mariners.
    Also, the sponsoring group of the Battleship North Carolina Half
Marathon & 5K, has requested a change to the current operating
regulation of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and the Isabel S. Holmes
Bridge. The request is to modify the existing annual November closure
from just the second Sunday in November to the first or second Sunday
in November. The Battleship Race group has agreed to schedule their
race on the opposing weekend of the Iron Man competition. As with the
Iron Man race, the exact date of the closure will be published locally
in the Local Notice to Mariners and the Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    The S.R. 74 Bridge is a double leaf bascule drawbridge with a
vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water in the closed
position. The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is a vertical lift drawbridge
with a vertical clearance of 65 feet at mean high water in the closed
position. The Isabel S. Holmes Bridge is a double leaf bascule
drawbridge with a vertical clearance of 40 feet at mean high water in
the closed position.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR 117.821 (a)(4)for the
S.R. 74 Bridge, at mile 283.1 at Wrightsville Beach, NC, 33 CFR 117.823
for the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge at mile 26.8, and 33

CFR 117.829(a)(4) for the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge at mile 1.0, both at
Wilmington, NC. The proposed amendment would allow the S.R. 74 and
Isabel S. Holmes bridges to remain in the closed position on the last
Saturday of October or the first or second Saturday of November and
allow the Cape Fear Memorial and Isabel S. Holmes Bridges to remain in
the closed position during the morning hours on the first or second
Sunday of November. Once the dates of the races have been determined,
the Coast Guard will issue Local Notice to Mariners' and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners' for mariners to plan their schedules accordingly.
    There are no alternative routes available to vessels transiting
these waterways. Vessels that can transit under the bridges without an
opening may do so at any time. The bridges will be able to open for
emergencies.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    The proposed changes are expected to have minimal impact on
mariners due to the short duration that the drawbridges will be
maintained in the closed position. Both events have been observed in
past years with little to no impact to marine or vehicular traffic. It
is also a necessary measure to facilitate public safety that allows for
the orderly movement of participants and vehicular traffic before,
during, and after the races.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or
operators of vessels needing to transit any of the bridges between the
hours of closure on either race day.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds minimal
restrictions to the movement of navigation, and mariners who plan their
transits in accordance with the scheduled bridge closures can minimize
delay. Vessels that can safely transit under the bridges may do so at
any time.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lindsey Middleton, Bridge
Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this proposed
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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. Revise Sec.  117.821(a)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.821  Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Albermarle Sound to
Sunset Beach.

    (a) * * *
    (4) S.R. 74 Bridge, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC, between
7 a.m. and 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour; except that
from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the third and fourth Saturday in September of
every year, the draw need not open for vessels and between 7 a.m. and
10:30 a.m. on the last Saturday of October each year or the first or
second Saturday of November of every year the draw need not open for
vessels due to annual triathlon events.
    3. Revise Sec.  117.823 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.823  Cape Fear River.

    The draw of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, mile 26.8, at Wilmington
need not open for the passage of vessels from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on the
second Saturday of July of every year, and from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on
the first or second Sunday of November of every year to accommodate
annual marathon races.
    4. Revise Sec.  117.829(a)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.829  Northeast Cape Fear River.

    (a)* * *
    (4) From 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on the second Saturday of July of every
year, from 12 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on the last Saturday of October or the
first or second Saturday of November of every year, and from 7 a.m. to
11 a.m. on the first or second Sunday of November of every year, the
draw need not open for vessels to accommodate annual marathon and
triathlon races.
* * * * *

    Dated: February 1, 2011.
William D. Lee,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-3355 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 233 (Friday, December 4, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75845-75847]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30685]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0750; FRL- 9939-65-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for
the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
District of Columbia (the District). This revision pertains to the
infrastructure requirement for interstate transport pollution with
respect to the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0750 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0750 Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0750. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form

of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during
normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the District of Columbia Department of Energy and
Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th floor,
Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn Velez-Rosa,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6, 2014, the District Department of
Energy and the Environment (DDOEE) submitted a SIP revision addressing
the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

I. Background

A. General

    Whenever new or revised NAAQS are promulgated, the CAA requires
states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic
program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary
to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements
are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
    On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA established a new 1-hour
primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion
(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly
distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 40 CFR 50.11.
NO2 is a subset, and often considered an indicator, of the
broader pollutant nitrogen oxides (NOX). On February 17, 2012 (77 FR
9532), EPA published its final designations for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS, based upon 2008-2010 design values. In this rulemaking, EPA
determined that no area in the country was violating the standard,
designating all the areas of the country as unclassifiable/attainment.
The 2008-2010 design values reflect conditions at the time throughout
the country well below the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, including the
District and nearby states.

B. EPA's Infrastructure Requirements

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make infrastructure SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof).''
Infrastructure SIP submissions should provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements. EPA most
recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013
(2013 Infrastructure Guidance).\1\ EPA developed this document to
provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any
new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of
states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural
SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions. The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2).\2\ EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need
not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. This guidance
is available online at http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.
    \2\ On September 25, 2009, EPA issued ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS),'' Memorandum from William T. Hartnett, Director, Air
Quality Policy Division. This guidance provided that each state's
SIP submission for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS must
discuss whether emissions from the state significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the NAAQS or interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state and must address any such impact. This
guidance is available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA has provided in previous rulemaking actions a
detailed discussion of the Agency's approach in reviewing
infrastructure SIPs, including the Agency's longstanding interpretation
of requirements for section 110(a)(1) and (2), the interpretation that
the CAA allows states to make multiple SIP submissions separately
addressing infrastructure SIP elements in section 110(a)(2) for a
specific NAAQS, and the interpretation that EPA has the ability to act
on separate elements of 110(a)(2) for a NAAQS in separate rulemaking
actions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 80 FR 2865 (January 21, 2015) (EPA's rulemaking action
proposing approval of portions of the District's infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires state SIPs to
address any emissions activity in one state that contributes
significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in any downwind state. EPA sometimes refers to these requirements
as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance), or conjointly as the ``good neighbor''
provision of the CAA. Specifically, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires
the elimination of upwind state emissions that significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state.

II. Summary of SIP Revisions

    On June 6, 2014, the District through DDOEE submitted a revision to
its SIP to satisfy the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), pertaining to interstate transport requirements. On
April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA approved the District's
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for all
applicable elements

of section 110(a)(2) with the exception of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\4\ This
rulemaking action is addressing the portions of the District's
infrastructure submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS that pertain
to transport requirements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In this final rulemaking action, EPA also approved the
District's infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone and 2010
SO2 NAAQS with the exception of the transport elements in
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    \5\ For EPA's explanation of its ability to act on discrete
elements of section 110(a)(2), see EPA's proposed rulemaking action
regarding approval of portions of the District's infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and
SO2 NAAQS; 80 FR 2865 (January 21, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's June 6, 2014 transport submittal includes emissions
inventory and air quality data that concludes that the District does
not have sources that can contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere
with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2010
NO2 NAAQS. Currently available air quality monitoring data
included in the submittal confirms that NO2 levels continue
to be well below the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the District and in
any areas surrounding or bordering the District.\6\ Additionally, the
District describes existing SIP-approved measures and other Federally-
enforceable source-specific measures, pursuant to permitting
requirements under the CAA, that apply to NOX sources within
the District. EPA finds that the District's existing SIP provisions, as
identified in the submittal, are adequate to prevent its emission
sources from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering
with maintenance in another state with respect to the 2010
NO2 NAAQS. In light of these measures, EPA does not expect
NOX emissions in the District to increase significantly, and
therefore does not expect monitors in the District and nearby states,
all currently measuring NO2 concentrations well below the
2010 NO2 NAAQS, to have difficulty continuing to attain or
maintaining attainment of the NAAQS. A detailed summary of EPA's review
and rationale for proposing approval of this SIP revision as meeting
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 NO2 ozone
NAAQS may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this
rulemaking action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov,
Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The District's June 6, 2014 submittal included recent air
quality monitoring data for the states surrounding or bordering the
District within a 50 kilometer radius, which are Maryland and
Virginia. The 50 kilometers radius is the standard distance for
modeling analysis in EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (Appendix
W to 40 CFR part 51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the District's June 6,
2014 SIP revision addressing interstate transport for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS for purposes of meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements with respect to this NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, addressing the District's
interstate transport requirements under the CAA for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 23, 2015.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-30685 Filed 12-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P