This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

70718 

Vol. 80, No. 220 

Monday, November 16, 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 54 and 79 

[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0127] 

Scrapie in Sheep and Goats 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the 

comment period for our proposed rule 

that would revise completely the scrapie 

regulations, which concern the risk 

groups and categories established for 

individual animals and for flocks, the 

use of genetic testing as a means of 

assigning risk levels to animals, 

movement restrictions for animals 

found to be genetically less susceptible 

or resistant to scrapie, and 

recordkeeping requirements. This action 

will allow interested persons additional 

time to prepare and submit comments. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published on September 

10, 2015 (80 FR 54660–54692) is 

reopened. We will consider all 

comments that we receive on or before 

December 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2007-0127. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2007–0127, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2007-0127 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

Room 1141 of the USDA South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal 

reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Diane Sutton, National Scrapie Program 

Coordinator, Sheep, Goat, Cervid & 

Equine Health Center, Surveillance, 

Preparedness and Response Services, 

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 43, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1235; (301) 851– 

3509. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 10, 2015, we published in 

the Federal Register (80 FR 54660– 

54692, Docket No. APHIS–2007–0127) a 

proposal to revise completely the 

scrapie regulations in 9 CFR parts 54 

and 79, which concern the risk groups 

and categories established for individual 

animals and for flocks, the use of 

genetic testing as a means of assigning 

risk levels to animals, movement 

restrictions for animals found to be 

genetically less susceptible or resistant 

to scrapie, and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

required to be received on or before 

November 9, 2015. We are reopening the 

comment period on Docket No. APHIS– 

2007–0127 for an additional 30 days 

until December 9, 2015. We will also 

consider all comments received between 

November 9, 2015, and the date of this 

notice. This action will allow interested 

persons additional time to prepare and 

submit comments. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

November 2015. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–29179 Filed 11–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0398: FRL–9937–11– 

Region 10] 

Approval of Regional Haze BART 

Alternative Measure: Washington 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) alternative measure for the BP 

Cherry Point Refinery located near 

Ferndale, Washington. The BART 

alternative measure increases the oxides 

of nitrogen (NOX) emission limit from 

the R–1 HC Reactor Heater (R–1 Heater), 

a BART-eligible source currently subject 

to BART emission limits on NOX. To 

offset the increase in NOX emissions 

from this emission unit, the NOX

emission limits on the 1st Stage 

Hydrocracker Fractionator Reboiler (R– 

1 Reboiler), also a BART-eligible source 

subject to BART emission limits on 

NOX, will be reduced. The net effect of 

these changes is a decrease of 10.4 tons 

per year (tpy) of allowable NOX

emissions from sources subject to BART 

at the BP Cherry Point Refinery. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0398, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Steve 

Body, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

AWT–150. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015– 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 70719 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, the EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 2 64 FR at 35715. 

0398. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information, 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle 

WA, 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Body at (206) 553–0782, 

body.steve@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for BART 

Alternative Measures 

III. Washington’s State Implementation Plan 

Revision Submittal 

IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of SIP Revision 

Submittal 

V. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

In the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1977, Congress 

established a program to protect and 

improve visibility in the Nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas. See 

CAA section 169A. Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. 

The EPA promulgated regional haze 

regulations (RHR) in 1999 to implement 

sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. 

These regulations require states to 

develop and implement plans to ensure 

reasonable progress toward improving 

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas 1 1 (Class I areas). See 64 FR 35714 

(July 1, 1999); sec also 70 FR 39104 (July 

6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 

2006). 

Regional haze is impairment of visual 

range or colorization caused by air 

pollution, principally fine particulate, 

produced by numerous sources and 

activities, located across a broad 

regional area. The sources include but 

are not limited to, major and minor 

stationary sources, mobile sources, and 

area sources including nonanthropogenic sources. These sources 

and activities may emit fine particles 

(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 

and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), NOX, and in some cases, 

ammonia and volatile organic 

compounds). Fine particulate can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans, and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. See 64 

FR at 35715. Data from the existing 

visibility monitoring network, the 

‘‘Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments’’ (IMPROVE) 

monitoring network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time in most 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

The average visual range in many Class 

I areas in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds the visual range that would 

exist without manmade air pollution.2

Visibility impairment also varies day-today and by season depending on 

variations in meteorology and emission 

rates. The deciview (dv) is the metric by 

which visibility is measured in the 

regional haze program. A change of 1 dv 

is generally considered the change in 

visual range that the human eye can 

perceive. 

The RHR requires each state’s regional 

haze implementation plan to contain 

emission limitations representing BART 

and schedules for compliance with 

BART for each source subject to BART, 

unless the state demonstrates that an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative measure will achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility conditions. 

II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for 

BART Alternative Measures 

The RHR contains provisions whereby 

a state may choose to implement an 

alternative measure as an alternative to 

BART if the state can demonstrate that 

the alternative measure achieves greater 

reasonable progress toward achieving 

natural visibility conditions than would 

be achieved through the installation, 

operation and maintenance of BART. 

The requirements for alternative 

measures are established at 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2). As explained in the RHR, 

the state must demonstrate that all 

necessary emission reductions will take 

place during the first long term strategy 

period (i.e., by 2018) and that the 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

alternative measure will be surplus to 

those reductions resulting from 

measures adopted to meet requirements 

of the CAA as of the baseline date of the 

SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii) and 

(iv). Sources subject to BART must be in 

compliance with the BART emission 

limitations as expeditiously as practical 

but no later than 5 years after EPA 

approves the implementation plan 

revision. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). 

III. Washington’s State Implementation 

Plan Revision Submittal 

On December 22, 2010, Washington 

submitted to the EPA for approval a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70720 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3Between issuing the original BART Order that 

was incorporated into the SIP and submission of 

BART Order Revision 2, Washington issued BP a 

BART Order Revision 1 in May 2013 (Revision 1). 

Revision 1 removed from the Original BART Order 

the conditions for Boilers #6 and #7, two units that 

were not BART-eligible. Boilers #6 and #7 replaced 

Boilers #1 and #3 that were subject to BART. This 

action resulted in a renumbering of conditions in 

the order. The original BART Order required that 

Boilers #1 and #3 be decommissioned by no later 

than March 27, 2010. Boilers #6 and #7 were subject 

to New Source Review and are not subject to BART. 

The Conditions in the Original BART Order 

applicable to Boilers #6 and #7 were not 

incorporated into the SIP, see 79 FR 33440, and 

Revision 1 was not submitted by Washington to the 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (2010 RH SIP) to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. The SIP 

submittal covers the planning period of 

2008 through 2018 and, among the other 

required elements, includes a BART 

determination for the BP Cherry Point 

Refinery located near Ferndale 

Washington. On June 11, 2014, the EPA 

approved certain BART-related 

provisions of Washington’s 2010 RH 

SIP, including the final BART 

determination for the BP Cherry Point 

Refinery. See 79 FR 33438. That 

approval incorporated by reference 

specified conditions of Administrative 

Order No. 7836 issued by Washington to 

BP Cherry Point Refinery on July 7, 

2010 (Original BART Order). See 40 

CFR 52.2470(d). 

On May 8, 2015, the State submitted 

a revision to the 2010 RH SIP that 

includes a BART alternative measure for 

the BP Cherry Point Refinery. This 

BART alternative measure is contained 

in Administrative Order 7836, Revision 

2-Inclusion of BART Alternative, dated 

May 13, 2015 (Revision 2). The BART 

alternative measure would revise the 

BART emission limits in Conditions 

2.6.1.2 and 2.7.1 of the original BART 

Order that apply to the R1-Heater and 

R1-Boiler, respectively, and are 

currently incorporated by reference into 

the Federally-approved SIP for 

Washington. The current Federallyapproved Condition 2.6.1.2 limits NOX

emissions from the R1-Heater to 3.6 

pounds per hour (lb/hr) based on a 24- 

hour rolling average. Condition 2.5.1.2 

of Revision 2 increases the NOX

emission limit on the R1-Heater to 4.9 

lb/hr based on a 24-hour rolling average. 

To offset the NOX emissions increase 

at the R1-Heater, Revision 2 contains a 

BART alternative measure. Revision 2 

decreases the NOX emission limits for 

the R1-Boiler associated with the 

hydrocracker to reflect the installation 

of ultra-low NOX burners that were 

installed after Washington’s submission 

of the 2010 RH SIP. Condition 2.7.1 of 

the original BART Order currently 

approved in the SIP limits NOX

emissions from the R1-Boiler to 0.07 

pounds per million British thermal 

units (lb/MMBtu) and 56.2 tpy. 

Condition 2.6.2 of Revision 2 reduces 

these limits to 0.05 lb/MMBtu and 9.9 

lb/hr. 

Revision 2 also: (1) Adds language 

clarifying that when an emission unit 

subject to BART is decommissioned and 

permanently taken out of service, the 

BART emission limits no longer apply 

to that unit and, (2) allows the State to 

revise the monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements through 

issuance of a regulatory order, rather 

than through a revision of the BART 

order, provided the revised monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting provide 

equal or better information on the 

compliance status of the emission unit 

in question.3

IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of SIP 

Revision Submittal 

A. BART Alternative Measure 

The EPA evaluated the emission 

reductions associated with the BART 

alternative measure. The BART 

alternative measure revises the 24-hour 

maximum mass emission limit for the 

R–1 Heater, but does not revise the 

concentration limit for this unit. The 

concentration limit remains 26 parts per 

million by volume, dry basis, corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen, based on a 24-hour 

rolling average. However, Washington 

requests approval to revise the 

Federally-approved NOX BART mass 

emission limit on the R1–Heater from 

3.6 lb/hr to 4.9 lb/hr of NOX, reflecting 

an increase in operation of the burners 

from 88 mmBTU/hr to 120 mmBTU/hr. 

This change results in an increase in the 

hourly average mass emission limit from 

the R–1 Heater of 1.3 lb/hr of NOX. The 

increase in annual emissions is 5.7 tons 

of NOX per year. 

The increase in the allowable mass 

NOX emissions from the R–1 Heater is 

offset by a decrease in the emission 

limit for the R–1 Reboiler. This decrease 

results from the installation of ultra-low 

NOX burners on the R–1 Reboiler. The 

emission limit is reduced from the 

current 0.07 lb/MMBtu and 12.8 lb/hr to 

0.05 lb/MMBtu and 9.9 lb/hr. The net 

emission reduction in allowable NOX

emissions as a result of the BART 

alternative measure is 1.6 lb/hr, on a 24- 

hour rolling average. These emission 

reductions are not otherwise required by 

the CAA as of the baseline date of 

Washington’s regional haze SIP and 

thus may be considered surplus. 

These are emission reductions that are 

achieved at the same location and for 

the same visibility impairing pollutant, 

NOX. Thus, because the BART 

alternative measure in Washington’s 

submission results in a greater 

emissions reduction than BART, the 

BART alternative measure is deemed to 

achieve greater reasonable progress. See 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). With reduced NOX

emissions, reduced visibility 

impairment from the formation of 

secondary nitrate would be expected. 

The EPA believes the BART 

alternative measure submitted by 

Washington as a SIP revision meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and 

proposes to approve it. 

B. Decommissioned BART Units 

Condition 9 of Revision 2 is a new 

provision that states the BART 

requirements for an emission unit 

specifically listed in Revision 2 do not 

apply after the BP Cherry Point Refinery 

has certified in writing to Washington 

and the local air pollution authority that 

the named BART emission unit ‘‘has 

been permanently taken out of service 

and dismantled.’’ The State explains in 

its submittal that any replacement unit 

would be subject to new source review 

and would not be subject to BART. 

Ecology’s SIP meets the requirements 

for new source review under 40 CFR 

51.307 and will ensure that new subject 

sources will not have an adverse impact 

on visibility and will be consistent with 

making reasonable further progress 

towards the national visibility goal, as 

applicable. See WAC 173–400–117. 

Although not a BART requirement on 

the BP Cherry Point Refinery, this 

condition results in a clear statement 

that BART requirements no longer apply 

to an emission unit once subject to 

BART that has been permanently taken 

out of service and dismantled. The EPA 

therefore proposes to approve Condition 

9. 

C. Revisions to Monitoring, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

As discussed above, Revision 2 

includes a provision authorizing the 

State to revise the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in Revision 2 in a 

regulatory order. See Revision 2, 

Condition 10. Washington explains that 

any revised monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements approved by 

the State under Condition 10 will need 

to be submitted to, and approved by, the 

EPA as a SIP revision in order to 

become the applicable federallyenforceable monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements. Thus, in the 

interim, both sets of monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements apply to the source and 

must be included in the Title V permit. 

The EPA agrees with this assessment. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 220 / Monday, November 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 70721 

The EPA has a longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that prohibits 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ provisions in 

SIPs if they provide unbounded 

discretion to allow what would amount 

to a case-specific revision of the SIP 

without meeting the statutory 

requirements of the CAA for SIP 

revisions. See 80 FR 33840, 22874–75 

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

(specifically providing that any change 

of a provision to the Washington SIP 

must be submitted by the State for 

approval by the EPA in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.104). Accordingly, the EPA is 

proposing to not approve Condition 10. 

V. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

The EPA proposes to approve the 

BART alternative measure for the BP 

Cherry Point Refinery located near 

Ferndale, Washington by incorporating 

by reference the conditions of Revision 

2 identified below. The EPA proposes to 

remove the BP Cherry Point Refinery, 

BART Compliance Order No. 7836 

currently in the Federally approved SIP 

at 40 CFR 52.2470(d) and replace it with 

provisions of the BP Cherry Point 

Refinery, BART Compliance Order No. 

7836 Revision 2. The EPA is also 

proposing to approve new Condition 9 

of the BART Compliance Order 7836 

Revision 2 relating to decommissioned 

units. The conditions of the BP BART 

Compliance Order Revision 2 that are 

proposed for incorporation by reference 

are: 

Condition 1: 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 

1.2.2; 

Condition 2: 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 

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

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

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

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

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

2.8.6; 

Condition 3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2, 

3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4; 

Condition 4, 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, 

4.1.1.3, 4.1.1.4; 

Condition 5, 5.1, 5.2; 

Condition 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3; 

Condition 7; and 

Condition 9. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In accordance with requirements of 1 

CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to revise 

our incorporation by reference located 

in 40 CFR 52.2470(d)—‘‘EPA-Approved 

State Source-Specific Requirements— 

Washington’’ to reflect the proposed 

approval of the BART alternative 

measure for the BP Cherry Point 

Refinery and the provision relating to 

decommissioned units. Due to the fact 

that the conditions in the original BART 

Order were renumbered in Revision 1, 

which was not submitted as a SIP 

revision, the EPA is proposing to 

remove the original IBR entry for ‘‘BP 

Cherry Point Refinery’’ in its entirety 

and incorporate in its place the 

specified conditions of Revision 2 

included in the docket for this action. 

The end result is that all of the 

conditions in the Original BART order 

remain in the SIP (but with different 

numbers) except as discussed above 

with respect to the BART alternative 

measure and the addition of Condition 

9. The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. The 

SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

reservations in the State or to any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 3, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0710; FRL–9937–09– 

Region 7] 

Approval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans (SIP); State of 

Nebraska; Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

in Regards to Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Prongs 1 and 2 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from the State of 

Nebraska addressing the applicable 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110 for the 2008 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for Ozone (O3). CAA section 

110 requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP to support implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS