### 11711 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 

### 1 OF 

### § 165.801—S ECTOR 

### O HIO 

### V ALLEY 

### A NNUAL AND 

### R ECURRING 

### S AFETY 

### Z ONES 

### —Continued

Date Sponsor/name Location Safety zone

53. 1 day—July 4th ................................ Cities of Cincinnati, OH and Newport, KY/July 4th Fireworks. Newport, KY .......... Ohio River, Miles 469.6–470.2 (Kentucky and Ohio). 54. 2 days—second weekend in July .... Marietta Riverfront Roar/Marietta

Riverfront Roar. Marietta, OH ......... Ohio River, Mile 171.6–172.6 (Ohio).

55. 1 day—1st weekend in July ............. Gallia County Chamber of Commerce/ Gallipolis River Recreation Festival. Gallipolis, OH ........ Ohio River, Mile 269.5–270.5 (Ohio).

56. 1 day—July 4th ................................ Kindred Communications/Dawg Dazzle Huntington, WV ..... Ohio River, Mile 307.8–308.8 (West Virginia).57. 1 day—Last weekend in August ...... Swiss Wine Festival/Swiss Wine Festival Fireworks Show. Ghent, KY ............. Ohio River, Mile 537 (Kentucky).

58. 1 day—Saturday of Labor Day

weekend. University of Pittsburgh Athletic Department/University of Pittsburgh

Fireworks. Pittsburgh, PA ....... Allegheny River, Mile 0.0–0.25 (Pennsylvania).

59. Sunday, Monday, or Thursday from

September through January. Pittsburgh Steelers Fireworks .............. Pittsburgh, PA ....... Ohio River, Mile 0.3–Allegheny River, Mile 0.2 (Pennsylvania).60. 3 days—Third weekend in September. Wheeling Heritage Port SternwheelFestival Foundation/Wheeling Heritage Port Sternwheel Festival. Wheeling, WV ....... Ohio River, Mile 90.2–90.7 (West Virginia).

61. 1 day—Second Saturday in September. Ohio River Sternwheel Festival Committee fireworks. Marietta, OH ......... Ohio River, Mile 171.5–172.5 (Ohio).

62. 1 day—Second weekend of October Leukemia and Lymphoma Society/ Light the Night Walk Fireworks. Nashville, TN ........ Cumberland River, Mile 190.0–192.0 (Tennessee). 63. 1 day—First Saturday in October .... West Virginia Motor Car Festival ......... Charleston, WV ..... Kanawha River, Mile 58–59 (W est Virginia).64. 1 day—Friday before Thanksgiving Kittanning Light Up Night Firework Display. Kittanning, PA ....... Allegheny River, Mile 44.5–45.5 (Pennsylvania). 65. 1 day—First week in October .......... Leukemia & Lymphoma Society/Light the Night. Pittsburgh, PA ....... Ohio River, Mile 0.0–0.4 (Pennsylvania). 66. 1 day—Friday before Thanksgiving Duquesne Light/Santa Spectacular ..... Pittsburgh, PA ....... Monongahela River, Mile 0.00–0.22

, Allegheny River, Mile 0.00–0.25, andOhio River, Mile 0.0–0.3 (Pennsylvania).

* * * * *

Dated: January 5, 2016.

R.V. Timme, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.

[FR Doc. 2016–05032 Filed 3–4–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 9110–04–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0838; FRL–9943–26– Region 3]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;**  **Infrastructure Requirements for the**
**2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards** 

**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 Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality standards (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. The Commonwealth of Virginia has made a submittal addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS. This action is being taken under the CAA.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–

OAR–2015–0838 at http:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the **FOR**

**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On July 16, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision to the Commonwealth’s SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS.


### 11712 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

1 In EPA’s 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS revision, EPA left unchanged the existing welfare (secondary)

standards for PM 2.5 to address PM related effects such as visibility impairment, ecological effects, damage to materials and climate impacts. This includes an annual secondary standard of 15 mg/m 3
and a 24-hour standard of 35 mg/m 3

.

2 To clarify, the ‘‘2013 PM 2.5 NAAQS’’ referred to in the Virginia SIP submittal is the same as the ‘‘2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS’’ EPA refers to in this rulemaking action. The final rule for this NAAQS was signed by the EPA Administrator on December 14, 2012, thereby it has been called the ‘‘2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS.’’ However, the final rule was published in

the Federal Register on January 15, 2013, with an effective date of March 13, 2013, resulting in it also being referred to as the ‘‘2013 PM 2.5 NAAQS.’’ 3 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and I. Background

On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a new 24-hour and a new annual NAAQS for PM 2.5 (62 FR 38652). On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised
the standards for PM 2.5 , tightening the
24-hour PM 2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter ( mg/m 3 ) to

35 mg/m 3 , and retaining the annual

PM 2.5 standard at 15 mg/m 3 (71 FR 61144). Subsequently, on December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the level of the health based (primary) annual PM 2.5 standard to 12 mg/m 3

. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). 1

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon
states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the
content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state’s existing SIP already contains.

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

On July 16, 2015, the VADEQ provided a SIP revision to satisfy certain section 110(a)(2) requirements of the
CAA for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 2 This revision addressed the following CAA

infrastructure elements which EPA is proposing to approve: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). A detailed summary of EPA’s review and rationale for finding Virginia’s submittal addresses these requirements in section 110(a)(2) may be found in the technical support document (TSD) for this rulemaking

action which is available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number

EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0838.

This rulemaking action does not include any proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and Virginia’s July 16, 2015 SIP submittal did not address this element. Virginia’s obligations under section 110(a)(2)(I) will be addressed in a separate process if applicable or necessary for the 2012

PM 2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking action also does not include proposed action on requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA because Virginia’s submittal did not include any provisions for this element; therefore, EPA will take later, separate action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012

PM 2.5 NAAQS for Virginia. Finally, at this time, EPA is not proposing action on the portion of Virginia’s July 16,

2015 infrastructure SIP submittal addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility protection for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Although Virginia’s submittal referred to a July 16, 2015 regional haze

SIP revision submittal to address requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility protection for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA intends to take separate rulemaking action on the July 16, 2015 regional haze SIP revision and on the portion of the July 16, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) as explained in the TSD. EPA is soliciting public

comments on the issues discussed in

this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. III. EPA’s Approach To Reviewing
Infrastructure SIPs

EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Virginia that addresses the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for
the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. 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’s taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 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 section 110(a)(1) and (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

‘‘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 section 169A of the CAA, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA addresses the timing and general requirements for 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. 3 EPA


### 11713 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA 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) of the CAA provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

4 See, 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 NO X 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)).

5 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 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) of the CAA 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. 6 See, 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 PM 2.5 NSR rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS,’’ 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS).

7 On 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. 8 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS. 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 CAA, which specifically
address nonattainment SIP requirements. 4 Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA 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) of the CAA 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) of the CAA allows up to two years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated. 5 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 section 110(a)(1) and (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. 6 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 subelements of the same infrastructure SIP
submission. 7

Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (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. 8

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) of the CAA 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 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.


### 11714 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

9 EPA 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.

10 ‘‘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.

11 EPA’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 ongoing litigation, 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. 12 By 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. 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. 9 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance). 10 EPA developed thisdocument to provide states with up-todate 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) of the
CAA that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submissions. 11 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, 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.

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA 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) focus 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 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

PM 2.5 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) of the CAA 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 new source review 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. 12 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
infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are 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


### 11715 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

13 For 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).

14 EPA 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). The 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).

15 See, 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). 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) of the CAA, 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) of the CAA.

Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and (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) of the CAA 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. 13 Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions. 14 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. 15

IV. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the following elements of Virginia’s July 16,

2015 infrastructure SIP revision for the

2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). Virginia’s July 16, 2015 SIP revision provides the basic program elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. This proposed rulemaking

action does not include action on section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and will be addressed in a separate process where necessary and applicable. Additionally, this proposed rulemaking action does not include rulemaking action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (interstate transport of emissions) or (D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) for the

2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA will take later, separate action on Virginia’s requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. V. General Information Pertaining to
SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia’s legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver
for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily
discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia’s Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure
documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information ‘‘required by law,’’ including documents and information ‘‘required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no lessstringent than their federal counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore,
documents or other information needed
for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.’’

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,’’ any person


### 11716 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules

making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.’’

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement
under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

VI. 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 (Public Law 104–4);

• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule, which

satisfies certain infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the

CAA for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the Commonwealth of Virginia, is not being approved to apply on any Indian

reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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 will not have tribal implications and will not impose

substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: February 19, 2016.

Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 2016–04755 Filed 3–4–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION** 
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0860; FRL 9943–30– Region 5]** 

**Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Base**
**Year Emission Inventories for the 2008**
**8-Hour Ozone 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 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on November 14, 2014, to address emission inventory requirements for the Sheboygan,
Wisconsin nonattainment area and theWisconsin portion of the ChicagoNaperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (IL–IN–WI) nonattainment area under
the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve the 2011 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) emission inventories in the November 14, 2014, submittal as part of the Wisconsin SIP.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–

OAR–2014–0860 at http:// www.regulations.gov or via email to Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc. ) must be accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the **FOR FURTHER**

**INFORMATION CONTACT** section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on