19098 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1See ‘‘Technical Support Document for EPA’s 

Proposed Action on the Arkansas Regional Haze 

Federal Implementation Plan’’ at page 147. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period; availability of 

supplemental information. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is reopening the comment 

period for a proposed rule to establish 

a Clean Air Act (CAA) Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

regional haze and visibility transport 

requirements for the State of Arkansas. 

The reopening of the comment period is 

strictly limited to EPA’s calculations of 

revised RPGs for Arkansas’ Class I areas, 

which are presented in a supporting 

document being made available at this 

time in the docket. EPA is reopening the 

public comment period until May 4, 

2016. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published on April 8, 

2015 (80 FR 18944), extended at 80 FR 

24872 (July 15, 2015), and reopened at 

80 FR 43661 (July 23, 2015), is again 

reopened. Written comments must be 

received on or before May 4, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2015–0189, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

donaldson.guy@epa.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, please 

contact Dayana Medina, 214–665–7241, 

medina.dayana@epa.gov. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dayana Medina, (214) 665–7241; 

medina.dayana@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Dayana Medina or 

Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

8, 2015, we published in the Federal 

Register a proposal to establish a FIP for 

the State of Arkansas addressing 

regional haze and visibility transport (80 

FR 18944). The proposed FIP includes 

emission limits for sources in Arkansas. 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

required to be received by May 16, 2015. 

On May 1, 2015, we extended the 

comment period to July 15, 2015 (80 FR 

24872). On July 23, 2015, we reopened 

the comment period until August 7, 

2015 (80 FR 43661), in response to a 

request we received for an extension of 

the comment period. 

We are announcing the availability in 

the docket of supplemental information 

we relied on in our Arkansas FIP 

proposal, but which was inadvertently 

omitted from the docket at the time we 

proposed the FIP. In our proposed rule 

published on April 8, 2015, we 

proposed revised RPGs for the 20% 

worst days for Arkansas’ Class I areas, 

the Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo 

Wilderness Areas (80 FR at 18998). Our 

revised RPGs and our methodology for 

calculating the revised RPGs were 

discussed in detail in our proposal and 

in our technical support 

documentation,1 which was made 

available in the docket when the 

proposed rule was published on April 8, 

2015. However, a spreadsheet 

containing the actual calculations of our 

revised RPGs was inadvertently omitted 

from the docket. Therefore, the 

reopening of the comment period is 

strictly limited to our calculations of the 

revised RPGs, as presented in the 

spreadsheet we are making available at 

this time in the docket. The reopening 

of the comment period does not apply 

to our general methodology for 

calculating the revised RPGs, to the 

numerical values of the revised RPGs, or 

to any other aspects or portions of our 

proposed rule, for which we have 

previously provided opportunity for 

public comment. This action will allow 

interested persons time to prepare and 

submit comments on our calculations of 

the revised RPGs, as presented in the 

spreadsheet that we are making 

available in the docket at this time. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Best available control 

technology, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Interstate 

transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping, requirements, Sulfur 

dioxides, Regional haze, Visibility. 

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

Dated: March 23, 2016. 

Lisa Price, 

Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07486 Filed 4–1–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0426; FRL–9944–52– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Energy 

and Environment Cabinet, Department 

for Environmental Protection, through 

the Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

(KDAQ), on April 26, 2013, to 

demonstrate that the Commonwealth 

meets the infrastructure requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 

2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each 

state adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. KDAQ certified 

that the Kentucky SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, 

and maintained in Kentucky. EPA is 

proposing to determine that Kentucky’s 

infrastructure submission, submitted on 

April 26, 2013, addresses certain 

infrastructure elements for the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19099 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a 

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be 

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this 

rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term 

‘‘401 KAR XX:XXX’’ indicates that the cited 

regulation has either been approved, or submitted 

for approval into Kentucky’s federally-approved 

SIP. The State statutes cited from the Kentucky 

Revised Statutes (also referred to as ‘‘KRS’’) 

throughout this rulemaking are not approved into 

the Kentucky SIP, unless otherwise indicated. 

2Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D, title I of the CAA; and (2) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 4, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0426 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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, 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: 

Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Notarianni can be reached via electronic 

mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov or 

the telephone number (404) 562–9031. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Overview 

II. What elements are required 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 analysis of how Kentucky 

addressed the elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘Infrastructure’’ 

provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Overview 

On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA 

revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an 

hourly standard at a level of 75 parts per 

billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average 

of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum concentrations. 

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. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

2, 2013.1

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the applicable 

requirements of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. With respect to the interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and the visibility requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 

1, 2, and 4), and the minor source 

program requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C), EPA is not proposing any 

action at this time regarding these 

requirements. For the aspects of 

Kentucky’s submittal proposed for 

approval today, EPA notes that the 

Agency is not approving any specific 

rule, but rather proposing that 

Kentucky’s already approved SIP meets 

certain CAA requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

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

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. 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 affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions 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 above, 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. The requirements that are the 

subject of this proposed rulemaking are 

summarized below and in EPA’s 

September 13, 2013, memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 2

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and 

Other Control Measures 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 3

• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate 

Pollution Transport 

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution 

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and 

Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

Regional Agencies 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source 

Monitoring and Reporting 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers 

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for 

Nonattainment Areas 4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and Prevention of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

19100 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5For 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. 

6See, 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)). 

7EPA 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. 

8See, 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). 

9On 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. 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Visibility Protection 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling 

and Submission of Modeling Data 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and 

Participation by Affected Local 

Entities 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from Kentucky that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2

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’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 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 (NNSR) 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 

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.5 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.6 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.7 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.8

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.9

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19101 

10For 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. 

11EPA 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. 

12 ‘‘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. 

13EPA’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.3d7 

(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. 

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 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.10

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 

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.11 EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).12 EPA developed 

this document to provide states with upto-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

for any new or revised NAAQS. Within 

this guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.13 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 

implementation plan 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 

fine particulate matter (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, 

among other things, the requirement 

that states have a program to regulate 

minor new sources. Thus, EPA 

evaluates whether the state has an EPAapproved minor NSR program and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

19102 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

14By 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. 

15For 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). 

16EPA 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). 

17See, 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 (Jan. 26, 2011) 

(final disapproval of such provisions). 

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.14 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 

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 

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.15 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.16

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.17

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Kentucky addressed the elements of the 

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

‘‘Infrastructure’’ provisions? 

Kentucky’s April 26, 2013, 

infrastructure submission addresses the 

provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

as described below. 

1. 110(a)(2)(A) Emission Limits and 

Other Control Measures: Section 

110(a)(2)(A) requires that each 

implementation plan include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements. These 

requirements are met through Kentucky 

Revised Statute (KRS) Chapter 224 

Section 10–100 (KRS 224.10–100), 

which provides the KDAQ the authority 

to administer all rules, regulations, and 

orders promulgated under Chapter 224, 

and to provide for the prevention, 

abatement, and control of all water, 

land, and air pollution. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19103 

18This rule is not approved into Kentucky’s 

federally-approved SIP. 

19On June 12, 2015, EPA published a final action 

entitled, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of 

EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend 

Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During 

Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.’’ 

See 80 FR 33840. 

20On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

KDAQ cited to chapters and 

associated Kentucky Administrative 

Regulations (KAR) under Title 401 to 

demonstrate that the Commonwealth 

meets the requirements of this element, 

including the following: 

• Chapter 50 General Administrative 

Procedures: 401 KAR 50:010. 

Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 50; 401 

KAR 50:012. General application; 401 

KAR 50:015. Documents incorporated 

by reference; 401 KAR 50:020. Air 

quality control regions; 401 KAR 50:025. 

Classification of counties; 401 KAR 

50:040. Air quality models; 401 KAR 

50:042. Good engineering practice stack 

height; 401 KAR 50:045. Performance 

tests; 401 KAR 50:047. Test procedures 

for capture efficiency; 401 KAR 50:050. 

Monitoring; 401 KAR 50:055. General 

compliance requirements; and 401 KAR 

50:060. Enforcement. 

• Chapter 51 Attainment and 

Maintenance of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards: 401 KAR 51:001. 

Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51; 401 

KAR 51:005. Purpose and General 

Provisions; 401 KAR 51:010. Attainment 

Status Designations; 401 KAR 51:017. 

Prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality; 401 KAR 51:052. Review of 

new sources in or impacting upon 

nonattainment areas. 

• Chapter 52 Permits, Registrations, 

and Prohibitory Rules: 401 KAR 52:001. 

Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 52; 401 

KAR 52:020. Title V permits; 18 401 

KAR 52:030. Federally-enforceable 

permits for nonmajor sources; 401 KAR 

52:090. Prohibitorv rule for hot mix 

asphalt plants; 401 KAR 53:005. General 

provisions; 401 KAR 53:010. Ambient 

air quality standards. 

Collectively these regulations 

establish enforceable emissions 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques, for activities that 

contribute to SO2 concentrations in the 

ambient air and provide authority for 

KDAQ to establish such limits and 

measures as well as schedules for 

compliance to meet the applicable 

requirements of the CAA. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that the 

provisions contained in these 

regulations, and Kentucky’s statute are 

adequate for enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques, as well as 

schedules and timetables for 

compliance for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS in the Commonwealth. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

Commonwealth provisions with regard 

to excess emissions during SSM 

operations at a facility. EPA believes 

that a number of states have SSM 

provisions which are contrary to the 

CAA and existing EPA guidance, ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown’’ (September 20, 

1999), and the Agency is addressing 

such state regulations in a separate 

action.19

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of states have such provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 

1987)), and the Agency plans to take 

action in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System: Section 

110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, 

compile, and analyze data on ambient 

air quality, and (ii) upon request, make 

such data available to the 

Administrator. These requirements are 

met through KRS 224.10–100 (22), 

which provides KDAQ the authority to 

require the installation, maintenance, 

and use of equipment, devices, or tests 

and methodologies to monitor the 

nature and amount of any substance 

emitted into the ambient air and to 

provide the information to the cabinet. 

KDAQ cites the following regulations 

to demonstrate that the Commonwealth 

meets the requirements of this element: 

401 KAR 50:050. Monitoring; 401 KAR 

51:017. Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality; and 401 

KAR 51:052. Review of new sources in 

or impacting upon nonattainment areas; 

401 KAR 53:005. General provisions; 

401 KAR 53:010. Ambient air quality 

standards. 

These SIP-approved rules and 

Kentucky’s statute, along with 

Kentucky’s Ambient Air Monitoring 

Network Plan, provide for the 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, the compilation 

and analysis of ambient air quality data, 

and the submission of these data to EPA 

upon request. Annually, states develop 

and submit to EPA for approval 

statewide ambient monitoring network 

plans consistent with the requirements 

of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The 

annual network plan involves an 

evaluation of any proposed changes to 

the monitoring network, includes the 

annual ambient monitoring network 

design plan and a certified evaluation of 

the agency’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.20 KDAQ’s 

monitoring network plan was submitted 

on July 1, 2015, and approved by EPA 

on October 28, 2015. Kentucky’s 

approved monitoring network plan can 

be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2014–0426. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system related to 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources: This element 

consists of three sub-elements: 

Enforcement, state-wide regulation of 

new and modified minor sources and 

minor modifications of major sources, 

and preconstruction permitting of major 

sources and major modifications in 

areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as 

required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the 

major source PSD program). These 

requirements are met through 401 KAR 

50:060. Enforcement; 401 KAR 51:017. 

Prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality; and 401 KAR 51:052. Review 

of new sources in or impacting upon 

nonattainment areas. Collectively, these 

regulations enable KDAQ to regulate 

sources contributing to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. EPA’s analysis of how 

these provisions of Kentucky’s SIP 

address each sub-element (with the 

exception of the minor source program 

requirements, as set forth below) is 

described below. 

Enforcement: KDAQ’s SIP-approved 

regulation, 401 KAR 50:060. 

Enforcement, provides for enforcement 

of SO2 emission limits and control 

measures through permit and 

compliance schedule modifications and 

revocations, and authorizes 

administrative penalties and injunctive 

relief, citing to statutory civil penalty 

and injunctive relief provisions of KRS 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

19104 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

21For more information concerning how the 

Kentucky infrastructure SIP submission currently 

meets applicable structural PSD program 

requirements, see the technical support document 

in the docket for today’s rulemaking. 

224.99–010. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP is adequate for 

enforcement related to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. 

PSD Permitting for Major Sources: 

EPA interprets the PSD sub-element to 

require that a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for a particular NAAQS 

demonstrate that the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program in 

place covering the structural PSD 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. A state’s PSD permitting 

program is complete for this subelement (and prong 3 of D(i) and J 

related to PSD) if EPA has already 

approved or is simultaneously 

approving the state’s SIP with respect to 

all structural PSD requirements that are 

due under the EPA regulations or the 

CAA on or before the date of the EPA’s 

proposed action on the infrastructure 

SIP submission. For the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS, Kentucky’s authority to 

regulate new and modified sources to 

assist in the protection of air quality in 

attainment or unclassifiable areas is 

established in KAR Chapter 51— 

Attainment and Maintenance of the 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, which describes the permit 

requirements for new major sources or 

major modifications of existing sources 

in areas classified as attainment or 

unclassifiable under section 

107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the CAA. 

These requirements are designed to 

ensure that sources in areas attaining 

the NAAQS at the time of designations 

prevent any significant deterioration in 

air quality. Chapter 51 also establishes 

the permitting requirements for areas in 

or around nonattainment areas and 

provides the Commonwealth’s statutory 

authority to enforce regulations relating 

to attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission demonstrates that new 

major sources and major modifications 

in areas of the Commonwealth 

designated attainment or unclassifiable 

for the specified NAAQS are subject to 

a federally-approved PSD permitting 

program meeting all the current 

structural requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA to satisfy the infrastructure 

SIP PSD elements.21 EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP is adequate for PSD 

permitting for major sources related to 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

Regulation of minor sources and 

minor modifications: Section 

110(a)(2)(C) also requires the SIP to 

include provisions that govern the 

minor source preconstruction program 

that regulates emissions of the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA is not proposing 

any action in this rulemaking related to 

the regulation of minor sources and 

minor modifications under section 

110(a)(2)(C) and will consider these 

requirements in relation to Kentucky’s 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 

submission in a separate rulemaking. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate 

Pollution Transport: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 

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

Each of these components has two 

subparts resulting in four distinct 

components, commonly referred to as 

‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The first 

two prongs, which are codified in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions 

that prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or 

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: 

EPA is not proposing any action in this 

rulemaking related to the interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

(prongs 1 and 2) because Kentucky’s 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 

submission did not address prongs 1 

and 2. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the 

PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this 

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to: A PSD program meeting all 

the current structural requirements of 

part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the 

state contains a nonattainment area that 

has the potential to impact PSD in 

another state) to a NNSR program. As 

discussed in more detail above under 

section 110(a)(2)(C), Kentucky’s SIP 

contains the relevant SIP revisions 

necessary to satisfy the structural PSD 

requirements of prong 3. Kentucky’s 

SIP-approved NNSR program is found at 

401 KAR 51:052. Review of new sources 

in or impacting upon nonattainment 

areas. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP is 

adequate for interstate transport for 

permitting of major sources and major 

modifications related to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: EPA is not 

proposing any action in this rulemaking 

related to the interstate transport 

provisions pertaining to visibility 

protection in other states of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) and will 

consider these requirements in relation 

to Kentucky’s 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

infrastructure submission in a separate 

rulemaking. 

5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and 

International Transport Provisions: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to 

include provisions ensuring compliance 

with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, 

relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement. Regulation 401 

KAR 51:010. Attainment Status 

Designations designates the status of all 

areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky 

with regard to attainment of the 

NAAQS. Regulation 401 KAR 51:017. 

Prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality and Regulation 401 KAR 

51:052. Review of new sources in or 

impacting upon nonattainment areas, 

Section 1, require Kentucky to provide 

notice to nearby states that may be 

affected by proposed major source 

modifications. These regulations cite to 

Federal notification requirements under 

40 CFR Sections 51.166 and 52.21, and 

to 401 KAR 52:100. Public, affected 

state, and US. EPA review, Section 6, 

which requires that public notice for 

permit actions be provided to affected 

states. Additionally, Kentucky does not 

have any pending obligation under 

sections 115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP is adequate for 

ensuring compliance with the 

applicable requirements relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources 

and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

Regional Agencies: Section 110(a)(2)(E) 

requires that each implementation plan 

provide (i) necessary assurances that the 

state will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) 

that the state comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and 

(iii) necessary assurances that, where 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19105 

22 ‘‘Credible Evidence,’’ makes allowances for 

owners and/or operators to utilize ‘‘any credible 

evidence or information relevant’’ to demonstrate 

compliance with applicable requirements if the 

appropriate performance or compliance test had 

been performed, for the purpose of submitting 

compliance certification and can be used to 

establish whether or not an owner or operator has 

violated or is in violation of any rule or standard. 

the state has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the state has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such plan provisions. EPA is 

proposing to approve Kentucky’s SIP 

submission as meeting the requirements 

of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and 

(iii). 

In support of EPA’s proposal to 

approve elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 

(iii), KDAQ’s infrastructure submission 

demonstrates that it is responsible for 

promulgating rules and regulations for 

the NAAQS, emissions standards, 

general policies, a system of permits, fee 

schedules for the review of plans, and 

other planning needs. With respect to 

having the necessary funding and 

authority to implement the Kentucky 

SIP, Kentucky regulation, 401 KAR 

50:038. Air Emissions Fee, and the 

following State statutes support subelements (i) and (iii): KRS 224.10–100. 

Powers and Duties of the Cabinet and 

KRS 224.10–020. Departments within 

the cabinet—Offices and divisions 

within the departments—Appointments. 

As evidence of the adequacy of KDAQ’s 

resources with respect to sub-elements 

(i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to 

KDAQ on March 12, 2015, outlining 105 

grant commitments and current status of 

these commitments for fiscal year 2014. 

The letter EPA submitted to KDAQ can 

be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2014–0426. Annually, states update 

these grant commitments based on 

current SIP requirements, air quality 

planning, and applicable requirements 

related to the NAAQS. There were no 

outstanding issues in relation to the SIP 

for fiscal year 2014, therefore, KDAQ’s 

grants were finalized and closed out. In 

addition, the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when 

EPA performs a completeness 

determination for each SIP submittal. 

This determination ensures that each 

submittal provides evidence that 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal 

authority under state law has been used 

to carry out the state’s implementation 

plan and related issues. KDAQ’s 

authority is included in all prehearings 

and final SIP submittal packages for 

approval by EPA. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky has adequate resources for 

implementation of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 

to approve Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). 

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

Kentucky comply with section 128 of 

the CAA. Section 128 requires at 

128(a)(1) the majority of members of the 

state board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders represent 

the public interest and do not derive 

any significant portion of their income 

from persons subject to permitting or 

enforcement orders under the CAA; and 

128(a)(2) any potential conflicts of 

interest by such board or body, or the 

head of an executive agency with 

similar, powers be adequately disclosed. 

For purposes of section 128(a)(1), 

Kentucky has no boards or bodies with 

authority over air pollution permits or 

enforcement actions. Such matters are 

instead handled by the Director of the 

KDAQ. As such, a ‘‘board or body’’ is 

not responsible for approving permits or 

enforcement orders in Kentucky, and 

the requirements of section 128(a)(1) are 

not applicable. For purposes of section 

128(a)(2), KDAQ’s SIP has been 

updated. On October 3, 2012, EPA took 

final action to approve incorporation of 

KRS Chapters 11A.020, 11A.030, 

11A.040 and Chapters 224.10–020 and 

224.10–100 into the SIP to address the 

conflict of interest requirements of 

section 128. See 77 FR 60307. These 

SIP-approved state statutes establish the 

powers and duties of the cabinet, 

departments within the cabinet, and 

offices and divisions within such 

departments (Chapters 224.10–020 and 

224.10–100), and support sub-element 

(ii) by requiring adequate disclosures of 

potential conflicts (KRS 11A.020. Public 

servant prohibited from certain 

conduct—Exception—Disclosure of 

personal or private interest) and 

otherwise ensuring that public officers 

and servants do not engage in activities 

that may present a conflict of interest 

(KRS 11A.030 Considerations in 

determination to abstain from action on 

official decision—Advisory opinion; and 

KRS 11A.040 Acts prohibited for public 

servant or officer—Exception). With the 

incorporation of these regulations and 

statutes into the Kentucky SIP, EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that the Commonwealth has adequately 

addressed the requirements of section 

128(a)(2), and accordingly has met the 

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

with respect to infrastructure SIP 

requirements. Thus, EPA is proposing 

approval of KDAQ’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source 

Monitoring and Reporting: Section 

110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet 

applicable requirements addressing (i) 

the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to this section, 

which reports shall be available at 

reasonable times for public inspection. 

The Kentucky infrastructure submission 

describes how the major source and 

minor source emission inventory 

programs collect emission data 

throughout the Commonwealth and 

ensure the quality of such data. 

Kentucky meets these requirements 

through Chapter 50 General 

Administrative Procedures, specifically 

401 KAR 50:050 Monitoring. 401 KAR 

50:050, Section 1, Monitoring Records 

and Reporting, states that the cabinet 

may require a facility to install, use, and 

maintain stack gas and ambient air 

monitoring equipment and to establish 

and maintain records, and make 

periodic emission reports at intervals 

prescribed by the cabinet. 401 KAR 

50:050 Monitoring, Section 1, 

Monitoring, Records, and Reporting, 

establishes the requirements for the 

installation, use, and maintenance of 

stack gas and ambient air monitoring 

equipment, and authorizes the cabinet 

to require the owner or operator of any 

affected facility to establish and 

maintain records for this equipment and 

make periodic emission reports at 

intervals prescribed by the cabinet. 

Also, KRS 224.10–100 (23) requires that 

any person engaged in any operation 

regulated pursuant to this chapter file 

with the cabinet reports containing 

information as to location, size, height, 

rate of emission or discharge, and 

composition of any substance 

discharged or emitted into the ambient 

air or into the waters or onto the land 

of the Commonwealth, and such other 

information the cabinet may require. In 

addition, EPA is unaware of any 

provision preventing the use of credible 

evidence in the Kentucky SIP.22

Additionally, Kentucky is required to 

submit emissions data to EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

EPA published the Air Emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

19106 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through EPA’s online 

Emissions Inventory System. States 

report emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and the precursors that form 

them—nitrogen oxides, SO2, ammonia, 

lead, carbon monoxide, particulate 

matter, and volatile organic compounds. 

Many states also voluntarily report 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants. 

Kentucky made its latest update to the 

NEI on November 6, 2014. EPA 

compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA 

is proposing to approve Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(F). 

8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: 

This section requires that states 

demonstrate authority comparable with 

section 303 of the CAA and adequate 

contingency plans to implement such 

authority. Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission identifies air pollution 

emergency episodes and preplanned 

abatement strategies as outlined in the 

following Kentucky regulations in 

Chapter 55 Emergency Episodes, 

specifically: 401 KAR 55:005. 

Significant harm criteria, 401 KAR 

55:010. Episode Criteria, and 401 KAR 

55:015. Episode Declaration. 401 KAR 

55:005. Significant Harm Criteria, 

Section 1, Purpose, defines those levels 

of pollutant concentration which must 

be prevented in order to avoid 

significant harm to the health of 

persons. 401 KAR 55:010. Episodic 

Criteria, defines those levels of pollutant 

concentrations which justify the 

proclamation of an air pollution alert, 

air pollution warning, an air pollution 

emergency. 401 KAR 55:015. Episode 

Declaration, provides for the 

curtailment or reduction of processes or 

operations which emit an air 

contaminant or an air contaminant 

precursor whose criteria has been 

reached and are located in the affected 

areas for which an episode level has 

been declared. 

In addition, KRS 224.10–100 Powers 

and duties of cabinet and KRS 224.10– 

410 Order for discontinuance, 

abatement, or alleviation of condition or 

activity without hearing—Subsequent 

hearing, establish the authority for 

Kentucky’s secretary to issue orders to 

person(s) for discontinuance, abatement, 

or alleviation of any condition or 

activity without hearing because the 

condition or activity presents a danger 

to the health or welfare of the people of 

the state, and for the cabinet to require 

adoption of any remedial measures 

deemed necessary. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP, and state laws are 

adequate for emergency powers related 

to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H), in summary, requires each 

SIP to provide for revisions of such plan 

(i) as may be necessary to take account 

of revisions of such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard 

or the availability of improved or more 

expeditious methods of attaining such 

standard, and (ii) whenever the 

Administrator finds that the plan is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS or to otherwise comply with 

any additional applicable requirements. 

As previously discussed, KDAQ is 

responsible for adopting air quality 

rules and revising SIPs as needed to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS. 

Kentucky has the ability and authority 

to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and 

has provided a number of SIP revisions 

over the years for implementation of the 

NAAQS. 

KDAQ is responsible for adopting air 

quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in Kentucky. 401 KAR Chapter 

53 Ambient Air Quality and Chapter 51 

Attainment and Maintenance of the 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards grant KDAQ the broad 

authority to implement the CAA, and as 

such, provides KDAQ the authority to 

prepare and develop, after proper study, 

a comprehensive plan for the prevention 

of air pollution. These statutes also 

provide KDAQ the ability and authority 

to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and 

KDAQ has provided a number of SIP 

revisions over the years for 

implementation of the NAAQS. 

Additionally, 401 KAR 53:010 outlines 

the ambient air quality standards 

necessary for the protection of the 

public health, the general welfare, and 

the property and people in the 

Commonwealth and states that within 

60 days of promulgation or revision of 

any NAAQS by EPA, the cabinet will 

initiate a process to promulgate or 

review this administrative regulation. 

401 KAR 51:010. Attainment Status 

Designations provides provisions for the 

Cabinet to review applicable data and 

submit to EPA proposed revisions to the 

list of attainment-nonattainment areas. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky adequately 

demonstrates a commitment to provide 

future SIP revisions related to the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(H). 

10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS with respect to the general 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to 

include a program in the SIP that 

provides for meeting the applicable 

consultation requirements of section 

121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, PSD, and 

visibility. EPA’s rationale for each subelement is described below. 

Consultation with government 

officials (121 consultation): Section 

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to 

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments, designated 

organizations and Federal Land 

Managers carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to section 121 relative to consultation. 

This requirement is met through 

provisions in separate implementation 

plans, such as the Regional Haze SIP, 

which provide for continued 

consultation with government officials, 

including the Federal Land Managers 

(FLMs). Kentucky adopted consultation 

procedures in coordination with the 

transportation partners in the 

Commonwealth, for the implementation 

of transportation conformity, which 

includes the development of mobile 

inventories for SIP development. 

Required partners covered by 

Kentucky’s consultation procedures 

include Federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials. Implementation of 

transportation conformity as outlined in 

the consultation procedures requires 

KDAQ to consult with Federal, state and 

local transportation and air quality 

agency officials on the development of 

motor vehicle emissions budgets. Also, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19107 

23This rule is not approved into the federally 

approved SIP. 

24This rule is not approved into the federally 

approved SIP. 

KDAQ notes in its April 26, 2013, SIP 

submission that the following Kentucky 

regulations provide the Commonwealth 

the authority to meet this requirement: 

401 KAR 50:055. General compliance 

requirements; 401 KAR 50:060. 

Enforcement; 401 KAR 50:065. 

Conformity of general federal actions; 

401 KAR 50:066. Conformity of 

Transportation Plans, Programs, and 

Projects; 401 KAR 51:017. Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality; 

and 401 KAR 51:052. Review of new 

sources in or impacting upon 

nonattainment areas. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with 

government officials related to the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary for 

the consultation with government 

officials element of section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Public notification (127 public 

notification): These requirements are 

met through the following Kentucky 

regulations: 401 KAR 51:001. 

Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51; 401 

KAR 51:005. Purpose and General 

Provisions; 401 KAR 51:010. Attainment 

Status Designations; 401 KAR 51:017. 

Prevention of significant deterioration of 

air quality; 401 KAR 51:052. Review of 

new sources in or impacting upon 

nonattainment areas; and 401 KAR 

52:100. Public, Affected State, and US. 

EPA Review. Additionally, Kentucky 

provides air quality information to the 

public via its Web site at: http://

eppcapp.ky.gov/daq/. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate the Commonwealth’s 

ability to provide public notification 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

when necessary for the public 

notification element of section 

110(a)(2)(J). 

PSD: With regard to the PSD element 

of section 110(a)(2)(J), this requirement 

may be met by a state’s confirmation in 

an infrastructure SIP submission that 

new major sources and major 

modifications in the state are subject to 

a PSD program meeting all the current 

structural requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA. As discussed in more 

detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), 

Kentucky’s SIP contains the relevant SIP 

revisions necessary to satisfy the 

structural PSD requirements of this 

element of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP is adequate for the 

PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Visibility protection: EPA’s 2013 

Guidance notes that it does not treat the 

visibility protection aspects of section 

110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of 

the infrastructure SIP approval process. 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility protection and regional haze 

program requirements under Part C of 

the Act (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). However, there are no newly 

applicable visibility protection 

obligations after the promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has 

determined that states do not need to 

address the visibility component of 

110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP 

submittals. As such, EPA has made the 

determination that it does not need to 

address the visibility protection element 

of section 110(a)(2)(J) in Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling 

and Submission of Modeling Data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires 

that SIPs provide for performing air 

quality modeling so that effects on air 

quality of emissions from NAAQS 

pollutants can be predicted and 

submission of such data to the EPA can 

be made. This requirement is met 

through Kentucky regulations 401 KAR 

50:040. Air Quality Models and 401 

KAR 50:050. Monitoring. Additionally, 

Kentucky participates in a regional 

effort to coordinate the development of 

emissions inventories and conduct 

regional modeling for several NAAQS, 

including the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 

for the Southeastern states. Taken as a 

whole, Kentucky’s air quality 

regulations and practices demonstrate 

that KDAQ has the authority to provide 

relevant data for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

Commonwealth’s ability to provide for 

air quality modeling, along with 

analysis of the associated data, related 

to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(K). 

12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: This 

section requires the SIP to direct the 

owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under the CAA, a 

fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable 

costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

Kentucky regulation, 401 KAR 50:038 

Air Emissions Fee,23 provides for the 

assessment of fees necessary to fund the 

state permit program. KDAQ ensures 

this is sufficient for the reasonable cost 

of reviewing and acting upon PSD and 

NNSR permits. Additionally, Kentucky 

has a fully approved title V operating 

permit program at 401 KAR 52:020 Title 

V permits 24 that covers the cost of 

implementation and enforcement of 

PSD and NNSR permits after they have 

been issued. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices adequately 

provide for permitting fees related to the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, when 

necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(L). 

13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation and 

Participation by Affected Local Entities: 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires 

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. This requirement is met 

through provisions in separate 

implementation plans, such as the 

regional haze SIP, which provide for 

continued consultation with 

government officials, including the 

FLMs. Kentucky regulation, 401 KAR 

50:066. Conformity of transportation 

plans, programs, and projects, and the 

interagency consultation process as 

directed by Kentucky’s approved 

Conformity SIP and 40 CFR 93.112 

provide for consultation with local 

groups. More specifically, Kentucky 

adopted state-wide consultation 

procedures for the implementation of 

transportation conformity which 

includes the development of mobile 

inventories for SIP development and the 

requirements that link transportation 

planning and air quality planning in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

Required partners covered by 

Kentucky’s consultation procedures 

include Federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials. The state and local 

transportation agency officials are most 

directly impacted by transportation 

conformity requirements and are 

required to provide public involvement 

for their activities including the analysis 

demonstrating how they meet 

transportation conformity requirements. 

Further, Kentucky’s SO2 infrastructure 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

19108 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1Title XXXIII of the PHS Act is codified at 42 

U.S.C. 300mm to 300mm–61. Those portions of the 

Zadroga Act found in Titles II and III of Public Law 

111–347 do not pertain to the WTC Health Program 

and are codified elsewhere. 

SIP submission notes that the following 

State regulations and State statutes 

provide the Commonwealth the 

authority to meet the requirements of 

this element: 401 KAR 50:066. 

Conformity of transportation plans, 

programs, and projects; 401 KAR 

52:100. Public, Affected State, and US 

EPA Review; and KRS Chapter 77. Air 

Pollution Control. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility protection 

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

and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4) and the 

minor source program requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s April 26, 2013, 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the above 

described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

approve these portions of Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS because these 

aspects of the submission are consistent 

with section 110 of the CAA. 

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 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 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 proposed 

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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, 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 as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 25, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07644 Filed 4–1–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 88 

[NIOSH Docket 094] 

World Trade Center Health Program; 

Petition 010—Peripheral Neuropathy; 

Finding of Insufficient Evidence 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, HHS. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for addition of 

a health condition. 

SUMMARY: On January 5, 2016, the 

Administrator of the World Trade 

Center (WTC) Health Program received 

a petition (Petition 010) to add 

peripheral neuropathy to the List of 

WTC-Related Health Conditions (List). 

Upon reviewing the scientific and 

medical literature, including 

information provided by the petitioner, 

the Administrator has determined that 

the available evidence does not have the 

potential to provide a basis for a 

decision on whether to add peripheral 

neuropathy to the List. The 

Administrator finds that insufficient 

evidence exists to request a 

recommendation of the WTC Health 

Program Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee (STAC), to publish a 

proposed rule, or to publish a 

determination not to publish a proposed 

rule. 

DATES: The Administrator of the WTC 

Health Program is denying this petition 

for the addition of a health condition as 

of April 4, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 

Tusculum Avenue, MS: C–46, 

Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 

818–1629 (this is a toll-free number); 

email NIOSHregs@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

A. WTC Health Program Statutory Authority 

B. Approval to Submit Document to the 

Office of the Federal Register 

C. Petition 010 

D. Administrator’s Determination on Petition 

010 

A. WTC Health Program Statutory 

Authority 

Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 

Health and Compensation Act of 2010 

(Zadroga Act) Public Law 111–347, as 

amended by Public Law 114–113, added 

Title XXXIII to the Public Health 

Service Act (PHS Act) 1 establishing the 

WTC Health Program within the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). The WTC Health 

Program provides medical monitoring 

and treatment benefits to eligible 

firefighters and related personnel, law 

enforcement officers, and rescue, 

recovery, and cleanup workers who 

responded to the September 11, 2001, 

terrorist attacks in New York City, at the 

Pentagon, and in Shanksville, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS