Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 70721 

The EPA has a longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that prohibits 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ provisions in 

SIPs if they provide unbounded 

discretion to allow what would amount 

to a case-specific revision of the SIP 

without meeting the statutory 

requirements of the CAA for SIP 

revisions. See 80 FR 33840, 22874–75 

(June 12, 2015); see also 40 CFR 52.2476 

(specifically providing that any change 

of a provision to the Washington SIP 

must be submitted by the State for 

approval by the EPA in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.104). Accordingly, the EPA is 

proposing to not approve Condition 10. 

V. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

The EPA proposes to approve the 

BART alternative measure for the BP 

Cherry Point Refinery located near 

Ferndale, Washington by incorporating 

by reference the conditions of Revision 

2 identified below. The EPA proposes to 

remove the BP Cherry Point Refinery, 

BART Compliance Order No. 7836 

currently in the Federally approved SIP 

at 40 CFR 52.2470(d) and replace it with 

provisions of the BP Cherry Point 

Refinery, BART Compliance Order No. 

7836 Revision 2. The EPA is also 

proposing to approve new Condition 9 

of the BART Compliance Order 7836 

Revision 2 relating to decommissioned 

units. The conditions of the BP BART 

Compliance Order Revision 2 that are 

proposed for incorporation by reference 

are: 

Condition 1: 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 

1.2.2; 

Condition 2: 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 

2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 

2.3.2, 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.5, 2.5.1, 

2.5.1.1, 2.5.1.2, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6, 

2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3, 

2.7.4, 2.8, 2.8.1, 2.8.2, 2.8.3, 2.8.4, 2.8.5, 

2.8.6; 

Condition 3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2, 

3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4; 

Condition 4, 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, 

4.1.1.3, 4.1.1.4; 

Condition 5, 5.1, 5.2; 

Condition 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3; 

Condition 7; and 

Condition 9. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In accordance with requirements of 1 

CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to revise 

our incorporation by reference located 

in 40 CFR 52.2470(d)—‘‘EPA-Approved 

State Source-Specific Requirements— 

Washington’’ to reflect the proposed 

approval of the BART alternative 

measure for the BP Cherry Point 

Refinery and the provision relating to 

decommissioned units. Due to the fact 

that the conditions in the original BART 

Order were renumbered in Revision 1, 

which was not submitted as a SIP 

revision, the EPA is proposing to 

remove the original IBR entry for ‘‘BP 

Cherry Point Refinery’’ in its entirety 

and incorporate in its place the 

specified conditions of Revision 2 

included in the docket for this action. 

The end result is that all of the 

conditions in the Original BART order 

remain in the SIP (but with different 

numbers) except as discussed above 

with respect to the BART alternative 

measure and the addition of Condition 

9. The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

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 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the 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 rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. The 

SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

reservations in the State or to any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 3, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–29175 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0710; FRL–9937–09– 

Region 7] 

Approval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans (SIP); State of 

Nebraska; Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

in Regards to Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Prongs 1 and 2 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from the State of 

Nebraska addressing the applicable 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110 for the 2008 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for Ozone (O3). CAA section 

110 requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP to support implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70722 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1Stephen D. Page, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum to EPA Regional Air Division 

Directors, Regions I–X, September 13, 2013. 

new or revised NAAQS promulgated by 

EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred 

to as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve Nebraska’s SIP as it relates to 

section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, 

for the 2008 O3 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0710, to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, 

11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, 

Kansas 66219. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding legal holidays. The interested 

persons wanting to examine these 

documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Gregory Crable, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: 

(913) 551–7391; fax number: (913) 551– 

7065; email address: crable.gregory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

to EPA. This section provides additional 

information by addressing the following 

questions: 

I. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

infrastructure SIP? 

II. What are the applicable elements under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions? 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of how the state 

addressed the relevant elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

V. What action is EPA proposing? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

infrastructure SIP? 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, 

in part, that states make a SIP 

submission to EPA to implement, 

maintain and enforce each of the 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA after 

reasonable notice and public hearings. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that such 

infrastructure SIP submissions must 

address. SIPs meeting the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be 

submitted by states within three years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. These SIP submissions are 

commonly referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. 

II. What are the applicable elements 

under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated 

a revised NAAQS for ozone based on 8- 

hour average concentrations. The level 

of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

(hereafter the 2008 O3 NAAQS) was 

revised from 0.08 parts per million 

(ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). 

For the 2008 O3 NAAQS, states 

typically have met many of the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through provisions adopted in 

earlier SIP submissions in connection 

with previous NAAQS. Nevertheless, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must review and revise, as appropriate, 

their existing SIPs to ensure that the 

SIPs are adequate to address the 2008 O3

NAAQS. To assist states in meeting this 

statutory requirement, EPA issued 

guidance on September 13, 2013 (2013 

Guidance), addressing the infrastructure 

SIP elements required to be addressed 

under section 110 (a)(1) and (2) for the 

2008 O3 NAAQS.1 In a previous final 

rulemaking (80 FR 55266, September 15, 

2015) EPA addressed elements (A 

through C), (D)(i)(II), and (E through M). 

As discussed in that notice, EPA 

planned to take separate action on 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 

2 on a timeline consistent with a 

deadline agreed to by the parties and 

entered by the court in Sierra Club v. 

McCarthy 4:14–cv–05091–YGR (N.D. 

Cal. May 15, 2015). In this action, EPA 

proposes action that, if finalized, fulfills 

that commitment to take final action as 

to Nebraska’s SIP submission addressing 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the February 11, 

2013, SIP submission from Nebraska 

that addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 O3 NAAQS. 

The requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make 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),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to 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 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. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 70723 

2For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

3See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

4EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

5See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

6On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007, 

submittal. 

7For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.2 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.3 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.4 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.5

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to 

act at different times on various 

elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submission.6

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants, for example, 

because the content and scope of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission to 

meet this element might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS 

than for a minor revision to an existing 

NAAQS.7

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions. 

For example, section 172(c)(7) requires 

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD 

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

8EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

9 ‘‘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. 10EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by this litigation (which 

culminated in the Supreme Court’s April 29, 2014 

decision at 134 SCt. 1584), EPA elected not to 

provide additional guidance on the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the 

guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, 

whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a 

particular section has no impact on a state’s CAA 

obligations. 

11By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

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.8 EPA most recently 

issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

on September 13, 2013 (2013 

Guidance).9 EPA developed the 2013 

Guidance document to provide states 

with up-to-date guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs for any new or 

revised NAAQS. Within the 2013 

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.10 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(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. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

SIP appropriately addresses the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and section 128. The 2013 Guidance 

explains EPA’s interpretation that there 

may be a variety of ways by which states 

can appropriately address these 

substantive statutory requirements, 

depending on the structure of an 

individual state’s permitting or 

enforcement program (e.g., whether 

permits and enforcement orders are 

approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). 

However they are addressed by the 

state, the substantive requirements of 

section 128 are necessarily included in 

EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and New 

Source Review (NSR) pollutants, 

including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By 

contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions 

that are not required under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are 

merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter 

optional provisions are types of 

provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

NSR program and whether the program 

addresses the pollutants relevant to that 

NAAQS. In the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.11 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 70725 

12For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

13EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

14See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

15NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 

12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

16 76 FR 48208. 

17CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and 

the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS. 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

section 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 

each and every provision of a state’s 

existing SIP against all requirements in 

the CAA and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

gives simpler recommendations with 

respect to carbon monoxide than other 

NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow EPA to take appropriately 

tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes 

EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the 

Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.12 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.13

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.14

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of how the 

state addressed the relevant elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

EPA Region 7 received Nebraska’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 O3 standard on February 11, 2013. 

The SIP submission became complete as 

a matter of law on August 11, 2013. EPA 

has reviewed Nebraska’s infrastructure 

SIP submission and the applicable 

statutory and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in those 

submissions or referenced in Nebraska’s 

SIP. EPA has previously approved 

sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)— 

prong 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M); did not propose any action 

on section 110(a)(2)(I)— Nonattainment 

Area Plan or Plan Revisions under part 

D; and disapproved 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)— 

prong 4, as it relates to the protection of 

visibility (80 FR 55266, September 15, 

2015). EPA also stated that it would take 

action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)— 

prongs 1 and 2 at a later time (80 FR 

35290). A discussion of that action 

follows. 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised 

the levels of the primary and secondary 

8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436). The CAA requires states to 

submit, within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, SIPs meeting the applicable 

‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2). One of these 

applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to 

contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to 

prohibit certain adverse air quality 

effects on neighboring states due to 

interstate transport of pollution. There 

are four sub-elements (or prongs) within 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action 

addresses the first two sub-elements of 

the good neighbor provisions, at CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These subelements require that each SIP for a new 

or revised standard contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the state from emitting air pollutants 

that will ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the applicable air 

quality standard in any other state. We 

note that the EPA has addressed the 

interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

eastern portion of the United States in 

several past regulatory actions.15 We 

most recently promulgated the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

which addressed CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion 

of the United States.16 CSAPR addressed 

multiple national ambient air quality 

standards, but did not address the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard.17

In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air 

quality analyses to determine whether 

an eastern state’s contribution to 

downwind air quality problems was at 

or above specific thresholds. If a state’s 

contribution did not exceed the 

specified air quality screening 

threshold, the state was not considered 

‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors and was therefore not 

considered to significantly contribute or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

standard in those downwind areas. If a 

state exceeded that threshold, the state’s 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

18CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 

2, 2010). 

19See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document, Appendix F, 

Analysis of Contribution Thresholds, Docket ID 

#EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491–4140. 

20CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236–37 (August 8, 

2011). 

21 Id. 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of 

Availability of the Environmental protection 

Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data 

for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS)). 

25Largest Ozone Contributions From Each State 

to Downwind 2017 Projected Nonattainment and to 

2017 Projected Maintenance-only sites, specific to 

the state of Nebraska are found in Table 3 at 80 FR 

46277. 

emissions were further evaluated, taking 

into account both air quality and cost 

considerations, to determine what, if 

any, emissions reductions might be 

necessary. For the reasons stated below, 

we believe it is appropriate to use the 

same approach we used in CSAPR to 

establish an air quality screening 

threshold for the evaluation of interstate 

transport requirements for the 2008 

ozone standard. 

In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air 

quality screening threshold of one 

percent of the applicable NAAQS and 

requested comment on whether one 

percent was appropriate.18 The EPA 

evaluated the comments received and 

ultimately determined that one percent 

was an appropriately low threshold 

because there were important, even if 

relatively small, contributions to 

identified nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors from multiple 

upwind states. In response to 

commenters who advocated a higher or 

lower threshold than one percent, the 

EPA compiled the contribution 

modeling results for CSAPR to analyze 

the impact of different possible 

thresholds for the eastern United States. 

The EPA’s analysis showed that the onepercent threshold captures a high 

percentage of the total pollution 

transport affecting downwind states, 

while the use of higher thresholds 

would exclude increasingly larger 

percentages of total transport. For 

example, at a five percent threshold, the 

majority of interstate pollution transport 

affecting downwind receptors would be 

excluded.19 In addition, the EPA 

determined that it was important to use 

a relatively lower one-percent threshold 

because there are adverse health 

impacts associated with ambient ozone 

even at low levels.20 The EPA also 

determined that a lower threshold such 

as 0.5 percent would result in relatively 

modest increases in the overall 

percentages of fine particulate matter 

and ozone pollution transport captured 

relative to the amounts captured at the 

one-percent level. The EPA determined 

that a ‘‘0.5 percent threshold could lead 

to emission reduction responsibilities in 

additional states that individually have 

a very small impact on those receptors— 

an indicator that emission controls in 

those states are likely to have a smaller 

air quality impact at the downwind 

receptor. We are not convinced that 

selecting a threshold below one percent 

is necessary or desirable.’’ 21

In the final CSAPR, the EPA 

determined that one percent was a 

reasonable choice considering the 

combined downwind impact of multiple 

upwind states in the eastern United 

States, the health effects of low levels of 

fine particulate matter and ozone 

pollution, and the EPA’s previous use of 

a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The 

EPA used a single ‘‘bright line’’ air 

quality threshold equal to one percent of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 

ppm.22 The projected contribution from 

each state was averaged over multiple 

days with projected high modeled 

ozone, and then compared to the onepercent threshold. We concluded that 

this approach for setting and applying 

the air quality threshold for ozone was 

appropriate because it provided a robust 

metric, was consistent with the 

approach for fine particulate matter 

used in CSAPR, and because it took into 

account, and would be applicable to, 

any future ozone standards below 0.08 

ppm.23

On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 

containing air quality modeling data 

that applies the CSAPR approach to 

contribution projections for the year 

2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.24 The moderate area 

attainment date for the 2008 ozone 

standard is July 11, 2018. In order to 

demonstrate attainment by this 

attainment deadline, states will use 

2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. 

Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future 

year to model for the purpose of 

examining interstate transport for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA used 

photochemical air quality modeling to 

project ozone concentrations at air 

quality monitoring sites to 2017 and 

estimated state-by-state ozone 

contributions to those 2017 

concentrations. This modeling used the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 

model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 

future base case emissions scenarios to 

identify projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA 

used nationwide state-level ozone 

source apportionment modeling (CAMx 

Ozone Source Apportionment 

Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 

Culpability Analysis technique) to 

quantify the contribution of 2017 base 

case NOX and VOC emissions from all 

sources in each state to the 2017 

projected receptors. The air quality 

model runs were performed for a 

modeling domain that covers the 48 

contiguous United States and adjacent 

portions of Canada and Mexico. The 

NODA and the supporting technical 

support documents have been included 

in the docket for this SIP action. 

The modeling data released in the 

NODA on July 23, 2015, is the most upto-date information the EPA has 

developed to inform our analysis of 

upwind state linkages to downwind air 

quality problems. For purposes of 

evaluating Nebraska’s interstate 

transport SIP with respect to the 2008 8- 

hour ozone standard, the EPA is 

proposing that states whose 

contributions are less than one percent 

to downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors are considered 

non-significant. The modeling indicates 

that Nebraska’s largest contribution to 

any projected downwind nonattainment 

site is 0.51 ppb and Nebraska’s largest 

contribution to any projected downwind 

maintenance-only site is 0.36 ppb. 80 

FR 46271.25 These values are below the 

one percent screening threshold of 0.75 

ppb, and therefore there are no 

identified linkages between Nebraska 

and 2017 downwind projected 

nonattainment and maintenance sites. 

Note that the EPA has not done an 

assessment to determine the 

applicability for the use of the one 

percent screening threshold for western 

states that contribute above the one 

percent threshold. There may be 

additional considerations that may 

impact regulatory decisions regarding 

‘‘potential’’ linkages in the West 

identified by the modeling. 

The State of Nebraska submitted a SIP 

on February 11, 2013. The SIP states 

that Nebraska does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state with regards to the 2008 O3

NAAQS. To support this conclusion, 

Nebraska cited modeling that EPA 

conducted for purposes of evaluating 

upwind contributions to downwind air 

quality in the CSAPR rulemaking. See 

76 FR 48244 (Federal Implementation 

Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone and 

Correction of SIP Approvals; Final 

Rule). Nebraska noted EPA’s statement 

in that action, that states ‘‘which 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 70727 

26Nebraska’s SIP submission appears to rely on 

EPA’s 2011 air quality modeling because at that 

time, the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA held that EPA must first 

quantify each state’s transport obligation before 

states had an obligation to make a SIP submission. 

See 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, 

Nebraska cites a November 19, 2012, memorandum 

from Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy, 

which describes the D.C. Circuit’s holding that ‘‘a 

SIP cannot be deemed deficient for failing to meet 

the good neighbor obligation before the EPA 

quantifies that obligation.’’ See Memo at 2, 

available at http://www3.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/ 

CSAPR_Memo_to_Regions.pdf. The memorandum 

also communicated the Agency’s intentions to ‘‘act 

in accordance with the [D.C. Circuit] decision 

during the pendency of the appeal,’’ id., but on 

appeal the Supreme Court reversed that holding. 

See EPA v. EME Homer City Gen., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 

1609–10 (2014). 

contribute 0.8 ppb or more to 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment or maintenance in 

another state are identified as states 

with contributions to downwind 

attainment and maintenance sites large 

enough to warrant further analysis.’’ 

Nebraska noted that 0.8 ppb cutoff 

equates to a one percent threshold, 

which was the threshold EPA used in 

that rulemaking for the previous 1997 

ozone NAAQS. According to Nebraska, 

the rule stands for the proposition that 

‘‘states whose contributions are below 

these thresholds do not significantly 

contribute or interfere with maintenance 

of the relevant NAAQS.’’ Nebraska 

noted that, pursuant to the modeling 

discussed in that rule (76 FR 48245), 

Nebraska’s largest downwind 

contribution to any identified 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

for ozone was 0.2 ppb. Nebraska 

concluded that because this modeling 

contribution represents far less than one 

percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at 

issue here, it ‘‘does not have any 

obligations’’ to reduce emissions to 

address interstate transport as to that 

standard. 

The EPA notes that the modeling 

Nebraska relies upon was conducted by 

EPA in 2011, for purposes of evaluating 

upwind state contributions and 

downwind air quality problems as to a 

prior, less-stringent ozone NAAQS, and 

that the modeling evaluated a 2012 

compliance year. Accordingly, the fact 

that this modeling showed downwind 

contribution less than one percent of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS is not necessarily 

dispositive of Nebraska’s obligations 

under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).26

However, as discussed above, the EPA 

has conducted more updated modeling 

subsequent to the state’s SIP submission 

that confirms the underlying conclusion 

of our 2011 modeling, and of Nebraska’s 

SIP submission. 

Based on the modeling data and the 

information and analysis provided in 

Nebraska’s SIP, EPA is proposing to 

approve Nebraska’s interstate transport 

SIP for purposes of meeting the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements as 

to the 2008 ozone standard. The EPA’s 

modeling confirms the results of the 

State’s analysis: Nebraska does not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard 

in any other state. 

V. What action is EPA proposing? 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 O3 NAAQS, with respect to the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2, and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

these submissions or referenced in 

Nebraska’s SIP, EPA is proposing to 

approve this element of the February 11, 

2013 SIP submission. 

We are hereby soliciting comment on 

this proposed action. Final rulemaking 

will occur after consideration of any 

comments. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

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’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is therefore not subject to 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

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 (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). 

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). 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 2, 2015. 

Mark Hague, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28908 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0701; FRL–9936–95– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Sewage 

Sludge Incinerators State Plan and 

Small Municipal Waste Combustors 

Negative Declaration for Designated 

Facilities and Pollutants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS