Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 14025 

Technologies, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–4549. Email: 

asrac@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6307 Email: 

Johanna.Jochum@Hq.Doe.Gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 20, 2016, ASRAC met and 

unanimously passed the 

recommendation to form a circulator 

pumps working group. The purpose of 

the working group is to discuss and, if 

possible, reach consensus on a proposed 

rule regarding definitions, test 

procedures, and energy conservation 

standards, as authorized by the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 

1975, as amended. The working group 

consists of representatives of parties 

having a defined stake in the outcome 

of the proposed standards, and will 

consult as appropriate with a range of 

experts on technical issues. Per the 

ASRAC Charter, the working group is 

expected to make a concerted effort to 

negotiate a final term sheet by 

September 30, 2016. This notice 

announces the next series of meetings 

for this working group. 

DOE will host public meetings and 

webinars on the below dates. 

• Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12 p.m. 

to 4 p.m. EST Webinar only. 

• Thursday, March 31, 2016 from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m. EST at 950 L’Enfant Plaza, 

6th Floor SW., Washington, DC. 

• Friday, April 1, 2016 from 8 a.m. to 

3 p.m. EST at 950 L’Enfant Plaza, 6th 

Floor SW., Washington, DC. 

Members of the public are welcome to 

observe the business of the meeting and, 

if time allows, may make oral 

statements during the specified period 

for public comment. To attend the 

meeting and/or to make oral statements 

regarding any of the items on the 

agenda, email asrac@ee.doe.gov . In the 

email, please indicate your name, 

organization (if appropriate), 

citizenship, and contact information. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

participating in the public meeting are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures which require advance 

notice prior to attendance at the public 

meeting. If you are a foreign national, 

and wish to participate in the public 

meeting, please inform DOE as soon as 

possible by contacting Ms. Regina 

Washington at (202) 586–1214 or by 

email: Regina.Washington@ee.doe.gov 

so that the necessary procedures can be 

completed. Anyone attending the 

meeting will be required to present a 

government photo identification, such 

as a passport, driver’s license, or 

government identification. Due to the 

required security screening upon entry, 

individuals attending should arrive 

early to allow for the extra time needed. 

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented 

by the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) recent changes have 

been made regarding ID requirements 

for individuals wishing to enter Federal 

buildings from specific states and U.S. 

territories. Driver’s licenses from the 

following states or territory will not be 

accepted for building entry and one of 

the alternate forms of ID listed below 

will be required. 

DHS has determined that regular 

driver’s licenses (and ID cards) from the 

following jurisdictions are not 

acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: 

Alaska, Louisiana, New York, American 

Samoa, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona, 

Massachusetts, Washington, and 

Minnesota. 

Acceptable alternate forms of PhotoID include: U.S. Passport or Passport 

Card; an Enhanced Driver’s License or 

Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states 

of Minnesota, New York or Washington 

(Enhanced licenses issued by these 

states are clearly marked Enhanced or 

Enhanced Driver’s License); A military 

ID or other Federal government issued 

Photo-ID card. 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 

2016. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2016–05917 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0969; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0704; FRL–9943–76–Region 5] 

Indiana; Ohio; Wisconsin; Disapproval 

of Interstate Transport Requirements 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove elements of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions 

from Indiana and Ohio regarding the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

2008 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), and to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove elements of the SIP 

submission from Wisconsin addressing 

the same requirements. 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. This 

action pertains specifically to 

infrastructure requirements concerning 

interstate transport provisions. Ohio, 

Indiana, and Wisconsin made SIP 

submissions that, among other things, 

certified that their existing SIPs were 

sufficient to meet the interstate 

transport infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove portions of submissions 

from Indiana and Ohio, and to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a 

portion of Wisconsin’s submission 

addressing these requirements. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received on or before April 15, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0969 (Indiana and Ohio) 

and EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0704 

(Wisconsin) 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

14026 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1The 2013 Guidance does not make 

recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements—i.e., prongs one and two. EPA issued 

the Guidance shortly after 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 that ongoing litigation, EPA elected at the time 

to not provide additional guidance on those 

requirements. As guidance is neither binding, nor 

required by statute, whether EPA’s elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401, 

arra.sarah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Review 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

This rulemaking addresses CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements in 

three infrastructure SIP submissions 

addressing the applicable infrastructure 

requirements with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS: a December 12, 2011, 

submission from the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM), clarified in a May 

24, 2012, letter; a December 27, 2012, 

submission from the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA); and a June 20, 2013, submission 

from the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources (WDNR), clarified in 

a January 28, 2015, letter. 

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’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

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

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. EPA 

commonly refers to such state plans as 

‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ 

This rulemaking proposes action on 

three CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

requirements of these submissions. In 

particular, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS (‘‘prong 

one’’), or interfering with maintenance 

of the NAAQS (‘‘prong two’’), by any 

another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requires that infrastructure SIPs include 

provisions prohibiting any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one 

state from interfering with measures 

required to prevent significant 

deterioration (PSD) of air quality 

(‘‘prong three’’) and to protect visibility 

(‘‘prong four’’) in another state. This 

rulemaking addresses prongs one, two, 

and four of this CAA section. The 

majority of the other infrastructure 

elements were approved in rulemakings 

on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23713) for 

Indiana; October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62019) 

for Ohio; and September 11, 2015 (80 

FR 54725) for Wisconsin. 

II. EPA’s Review 

On September 13, 2013, EPA issued 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2)’’ (2013 Guidance). This 

guidance provides, among other things, 

recommendations on the development 

of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.1 As noted in the 2013 

Guidance, pursuant to CAA section 

110(a), states must provide reasonable 

notice and opportunity for public 

hearing for all infrastructure SIP 

submissions. IDEM, Ohio EPA, and 

WDNR provided public comment 

opportunities on their SIP submissions. 

In this action of proposed rulemaking, 

EPA is also soliciting comment on our 

evaluation of each state’s infrastructure 

SIP submission. The states summarized 

how various components of their SIPs 

met each of the applicable requirements 

in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, as applicable. The following 

review evaluates only the state’s 

submissions for three CAA section 

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

A. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Prongs 

One and Two 

IDEM’s submission addressing the 

prong one and two requirements states 

that it is currently ‘‘in the process of 

promulgating rules’’ to implement 

EPA’s 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR). IDEM noted, however, 

that at the time of its submission CSAPR 

was being implemented pursuant to a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). 

IDEM did not cite any additional rules 

or regulations controlling emissions 

from the state or otherwise provide any 

additional analysis regarding the 

impacts of emissions from sources in 

Indiana on air quality in other states 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA’s submission cited various 

state rules related generally to interstate 

transport of pollutants including rules 

concerning stack height requirements, 

acid rain permits and compliance, the 

nitrogen oxide budget trading program, 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Ohio 

EPA also noted EPA’s development of 

CAIR and regional haze programs that 

help address interstate transport. 

Finally, Ohio EPA noted that it has 

‘‘responded to requests’’ from Indiana 

and West Virginia to ameliorate 

interstate transport by revising state 

rules applicable to Hamilton and 

Jefferson Counties. Ohio EPA did not 

provide any additional analysis 

regarding the impacts of emissions from 

sources in Ohio on air quality in other 

states with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, particularly as to whether the 

state rules identified in its submission 

are sufficient to prohibit emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the standard in other 

states. 

WDNR’s submission states that the 

Wisconsin SIP implements the state 

portions of CAIR as a means of 

addressing the interstate transport of 

ozone precursors, and that current state 

and regional controls are sufficient to 

meet the state’s transport obligations. 

WDNR also noted that it has ‘‘the 

authority to develop’’ additional control 

requirements once the EPA complies 

with the DC Circuit’s opinion in EME 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 14027 

2This is particularly true where, as here, the 

states have failed to include any analysis of the 

downwind impacts of emissions originating within 

their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v. EPA, 

608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3–4 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 

7 (2012), instructing EPA to quantify 

each state’s significant contribution to 

air quality problems in other states 

before requiring states to submit SIPs 

addressing such pollution. Subsequent 

to WDNR’s submission, however, the 

U.S. Supreme Court reversed the DC 

Circuit. See EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). 

WDNR has not supplemented its initial 

submission and did not provide any 

additional analysis regarding the 

impacts of emissions from sources in 

Wisconsin on air quality in other states 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Although many of the programs and 

rules cited by Ohio EPA, IDEM, and 

WDNR reduce precursor emissions that 

contribute to ozone formation and 

interstate transport, they were not 

developed to address interstate 

transport for the more stringent 2008 

ozone NAAQS. None of the states have 

demonstrated how these programs and 

rules provide sufficient controls on 

emissions to address interstate transport 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. IDEM in 

particular does not cite any rules 

currently being implemented by the 

state that are part of Indiana’s approved 

SIP or that are being submitted as part 

of the present SIP submission to address 

interstate transport for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, instead Indiana refers only to 

rules that it anticipates may be 

implemented by the state in the future. 

Ohio EPA and WDNR’s submissions 

both rely on the states’ implementation 

of CAIR, which was designed to address 

the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, but not the 

more stringent 2008 ozone standard 

being evaluated in this action. 

Regardless, neither the states nor EPA 

are currently implementing the ozoneseason NOX trading program 

promulgated in CAIR, as it has been 

replaced by CSAPR. 

In turn, CSAPR addresses interstate 

transport requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the three 

submissions addressed by this action 

concern states’ interstate transport 

obligations for a different and more 

stringent standard (the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS), it is not sufficient to merely 

cite as evidence of compliance that 

these older programs have been 

implemented by the states or EPA.2

These submissions all lack any 

technical analysis evaluating or 

demonstrating whether emissions in 

each state impact air quality in other 

states with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. As such, the submissions 

themselves do not provide EPA with a 

basis to agree with the conclusions that 

the states already have adequate 

provisions in their SIPs to address CAA 

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

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Although these submissions contain 

no data or analysis to support their 

conclusions with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA has recently 

shared technical information with states 

to facilitate their efforts to address 

interstate transport requirements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA developed 

this technical information following the 

same approach used to evaluate 

interstate contribution in CSAPR in 

order to support the recently proposed 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 

75706 (December 3, 2015) (‘‘CSAPR 

Update Rule’’). 

In CSAPR, 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 

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, EPA proposed an air 

quality screening threshold of one 

percent of the applicable NAAQS and 

requested comment on whether one 

percent was appropriate. 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, EPA compiled the 

contribution modeling results for 

CSAPR to analyze the impact of 

different possible thresholds for the 

eastern United States. EPA’s analysis 

showed that the one percent 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. In addition, 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. 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. 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.’’ 

In the final CSAPR, 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 EPA’s previous use of a one percent 

threshold in CAIR. EPA used a single 

‘‘bright line’’ air quality threshold equal 

to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, or 0.08 parts per million 

(ppm). The projected contribution from 

each state was averaged over multiple 

days with projected high modeled 

ozone, and then compared to the one 

percent 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. EPA has subsequently proposed to 

use the same threshold for purposes of 

evaluating interstate transport with 

respect to the 2008 ozone standard in 

the CSAPR Update Rule. 

On August 4, 2015, 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. 

The modeling data released in this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

14028 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

NODA was also used to support the 

proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The 

moderate area attainment date for the 

2008 ozone standard is July 20, 2018. In 

order to demonstrate attainment by this 

attainment deadline, states will use 

2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. 

Therefore, EPA proposed that 2017 is an 

appropriate future year to model for the 

purpose of examining interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

EPA used photochemical air quality 

modeling to project ozone 

concentrations at air quality monitoring 

sites to 2017 and estimated state-bystate 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. 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 August 4, 2015, and the 

CSAPR Update are the most up-to-date 

information EPA has developed to 

inform our analysis of upwind state 

linkages to downwind air quality 

problems. As discussed in the CSAPR 

Update proposal for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, the air quality modeling: (1) 

Identified locations in the U.S. where 

EPA expects nonattainment or 

maintenance problems in 2017 for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment 

or maintenance receptors), and (2) 

quantified the projected contributions of 

emissions from upwind states to 

downwind ozone concentrations at 

those receptors in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 

75720–30, December 3, 2015). 

Consistent with CSAPR, EPA proposed 

to use a threshold of one percent of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per 

billion) to identify linkages between 

upwind states and downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors. EPA proposed that eastern 

states with contributions to a specific 

receptor that meet or exceed this 

screening threshold are considered 

‘‘linked’’ to that receptor, and were 

analyzed further to quantify available 

emissions reductions necessary to 

address interstate transport to these 

receptors. 

The results of EPA’s air quality 

modeling with respect to Ohio, Indiana, 

and Wisconsin are summarized in Table 

1 below. That modeling indicates that 

emissions from Ohio and Indiana are 

linked to both nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in downwind 

states, and that Wisconsin is linked only 

to downwind maintenance receptors. 

TABLE 1—CSAPR UPDATE PROPOSAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS

State 

Largest 

contribution to 

nonattainment 

Largest 

contribution to 

maintenance 

Downwind nonattainment 

receptors located in states Downwind maintenance receptors located in states 

Indiana .............. 6.24 ppb ........... 14.95 ppb ......... Connecticut and Wisconsin Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, 

Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

Ohio .................. 2.18 ppb ........... 7.92 ppb ........... Connecticut and Wisconsin Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, 

New York, and Pennsylvania. 

Wisconsin ......... 0.34 ppb ........... 2.59 ppb ........... .............................................. Michigan. 

Accordingly, the most recent 

technical analysis available to EPA 

contradicts Indiana, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin’s conclusion that each state’s 

SIP contains adequate provisions to 

address interstate transport as to the 

2008 ozone standard. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

Indiana and Ohio SIPs for both the 

prong one and prong two requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As 

explained above, the IDEM and Ohio 

EPA SIP submissions do not provide an 

adequate technical analysis 

demonstrating that each state’s SIP 

contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. 

Moreover, EPA’s most recent modeling 

indicates that emissions from those 

states are projected to significantly 

contribute to downwind nonattainment 

and maintenance receptors in other 

states. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

Wisconsin SIP for the prong two 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. As explained 

above, the WDNR SIP submission does 

not provide an adequate technical 

analysis demonstrating that the state’s 

SIP contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. 

Moreover, EPA’s most recent modeling 

indicates that emissions from Wisconsin 

are projected to contribute to projected 

downwind maintenance receptors in 

another state. 

However, EPA is proposing to 

approve the Wisconsin SIP for the prong 

one requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Although WDNR 

did not provide information or analyses 

explaining why existing SIP provisions 

are adequate to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment in 

downwind states, EPA’s independent 

modeling presented in the NODA and 

the CSAPR Update Rule indicates that 

Wisconsin emissions are not linked to 

any projected downwind nonattainment 

receptors. Accordingly, EPA proposes to 

find that the Wisconsin SIP has 

adequate provisions to prevent such 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment as to the 2008 ozone 

standard, and to accordingly approve 

the SIP for the prong one requirement of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Prong 

Four Only 

No action is being taken today on 

prong three relating to PSD. This prong 

was approved for Indiana on April 29, 

2015 (80 FR 23713) and for Ohio on 

February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10591), and 

will be acted on for Wisconsin in a 

future rulemaking. 

The 2013 Guidance states that section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)’s prong four 

requirements can be satisfied by 

approved SIP provisions that EPA has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 14029 

3 ‘‘Technical Support Document for the Final 

Clean Air Interstate Rule: Demonstration that CAIR 

Satisfies the ‘‘Better-than-BART’’ Test As proposed 

in the Guidelines for Making BART 

Determinations.’’ March 2005. 

4See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896; 

modified by 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

found to adequately address any 

contribution of a state’s sources to 

impacts on visibility programs in other 

states. The Guidance lays out two ways 

in which a state’s infrastructure SIP may 

comply with prong four. The first way 

is through an air agency’s confirmation 

in its infrastructure SIP submission that 

it has an EPA-approved regional haze 

SIP that fully meets the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. These sections 

specifically require that a state 

participating in a regional planning 

process include all measures needed to 

achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon 

through that process. A fully approved 

regional haze SIP will ensure that 

emissions from sources under an air 

agency’s jurisdiction are not interfering 

with measures in other air agencies’ 

plans to protect visibility. 

Alternatively, in the absence of a fully 

approved regional haze SIP, a state may 

meet its prong four requirements 

through a demonstration in its 

infrastructure SIP that emissions within 

its jurisdiction do not interfere with 

other air agencies’ plans to protect 

visibility. Such a submission would 

need to include measures to limit 

visibility-impairing pollutants and 

ensure that the reductions conform with 

any mutually agreed regional haze 

reasonable progress goals for mandatory 

Class I areas in other states. 

What is EPA’s assessment of the states’ 

prong four submissions? 

For prong four, relating to protection 

of visibility in another state, in this 

rulemaking EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the relevant portion of the 

SIPs for Ohio and Indiana. On 

September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54725), EPA 

approved Wisconsin’s visibility 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Therefore, in this rulemaking, 

no action is necessary regarding 

Wisconsin’s prong four requirements. 

IDEM’s submission acknowledges that 

Indiana is subject to the regional haze 

program, which addresses visibilityimpairing pollutants. EPA finalized a 

limited approval of Indiana’s regional 

haze SIP submission for, among other 

things, BART for non-electric generating 

units (EGUs) and PM from EGUs on 

June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34218). 

Ohio EPA’s submission also mentions 

the regional haze program for 

addressing visibility, as well as the air 

agency’s work with Federal Land 

Managers to address proposed major 

new sources in the state. EPA finalized 

a limited approval of Ohio’s regional 

haze SIP submission for, among other 

things, non-EGUs on July 2, 2012 (77 FR 

39177). 

However, Indiana and Ohio’s regional 

haze plans both rely on CAIR for 

addressing visibility for EGUs. EPA had 

originally found that CAIR was an 

acceptable solution for meeting the 

requirement of the regional haze 

program for EGUs.3 However, the D.C 

Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA with 

instructions to replace that rulemaking 

with a new rulemaking consistent with 

the Court’s opinion.4 Subsequently EPA 

issued a rulemaking stating that CAIR’s 

replacement, CSAPR, could be used to 

satisfy the EGU portion of the regional 

haze plans. June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). 

In that same rulemaking, EPA issued 

limited disapprovals of Indiana and 

Ohio’s regional haze SIP submissions, 

among other states, and issued FIPs that 

allowed CSAPR to meet the regional 

haze requirements for EGUs in 

applicable states (77 FR 33642). 

Although both Indiana and Ohio have 

approved regional haze plans for their 

non-EGUs, they do not have fully 

approved regional haze SIPs in place 

because both States’ EGU-related 

obligations are satisfied by EPA’s 

CSAPR-based FIPs. Furthermore, 

neither Indiana nor Ohio has provided 

a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP 

submission showing that emissions 

within its jurisdiction do not interfere 

with other air agencies’ plans to protect 

visibility. Because the States have failed 

to meet either option for satisfying their 

prong four obligations laid out in the 

2013 Guidance, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove prong four for the 

infrastructure element under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 ozone 

standard. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to disapprove a 

portion of submissions from Indiana, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin certifying that 

each of their current SIPs are sufficient 

to meet the required infrastructure 

element under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, specifically prongs one, two, 

and four for Indiana and Ohio, and 

prong two for Wisconsin. In addition, 

EPA is proposing to approve the prong 

one portion of Wisconsin’s SIP 

submission with respect to CAA section 

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This rulemaking does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the PRA. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the RFA. 

In making this determination, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities. An agency may certify that a 

rulemaking will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities if the rule 

relieves regulatory burden, has no net 

burden or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on the small entities 

subject to the rule. This action merely 

proposes to disapprove state law as not 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

14030 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children because it proposes to 

disapprove a state rule. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 7, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–05953 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0032; FRL–9942–86] 

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions 

Filed for Residues of Pesticide 

Chemicals in or on Various 

Commodities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of several initial filings 

of pesticide petitions requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number and the pesticide petition 

number (PP) of interest as shown in the 

body of this document, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://www.

epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lewis, Registration Division (RD) 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. Main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT for the division listed at the 

end of the pesticide petition summary of 

interest. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When preparing and submitting your 

comments, see the commenting tips at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/

comments.html. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low-income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticides 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 

II. What action is the agency taking? 

EPA is announcing its receipt of 

several pesticide petitions filed under 

section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 

346a, requesting the establishment or 

modification of regulations in 40 CFR 

part 180 for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various food 

commodities. The Agency is taking 

public comment on the requests before 

responding to the petitioners. EPA is not 

proposing any particular action at this 

time. EPA has determined that the 

pesticide petitions described in this 

document contain the data or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS