Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51153 

time as EPA determines that the areas 

meet the CAA requirements for 

redesignation to attainment and takes 

action to redesignate the areas. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0408 (Chicago area) or EPA– 

R05–OAR–2015–0409 (Eagan area), by 

one of the following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Svingen, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4489, 

svingen.eric@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is making an attainment 

determination as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: August 10, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20776 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0715; FRL–9932–73– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District; Employer Based Trip 

Reduction Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

regulation submitted for incorporation 

into the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 

or District) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

regulation, Rule 9410 (Employer Based 

Trip Reduction), establishes 

requirements for employers in the San 

Joaquin Valley to implement programs 

encouraging employees to use 

ridesharing and alternative 

transportation methods to reduce air 

pollution. The effect of this action 

would be to make the requirements of 

Rule 9410 federally enforceable as part 

of the California SIP. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 23, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0715, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at buss.jeffrey@

epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning 

Office (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 

94105. 

4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey 

Buss, Air Planning Section (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 

Francisco, California 94105. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 

0715. 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 

through www.regulations.gov or email 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

anonymous access system, which means 

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 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, 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 EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, 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: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available for viewing 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

docket materials in person, please 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51154 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1The SJV area encompasses over 23,000 square 

miles and includes all or part of eight counties in 

California’s central valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern. 2 ‘‘Eligible employees’’ do not include emergency 

health and safety employees, farm workers, field 

construction workers, on-call employees, part-time 

employees, seasonal employees, and volunteers, 

among others. See Rule 9410, sections 3.19 and 

3.31. 3Rule 9410 defines ETRIP as a ‘‘group of 

measures implemented by an employer, designed to 

provide transportation information, assistance, and/ 

or incentives to employees’’ and intended to 

‘‘reduce mobile source emissions by reducing the 

number of vehicle miles traveled to the worksite.’’ 

Rule 9410, section 3.28. 

schedule an appointment during normal 

business hours with the contact listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (415) 947–4152, email: 

buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. The State Submittal 

III. Evaluation of the State Submittal 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The San Joaquin Valley (SJV) 1 is 

currently designated as nonattainment 

for several of the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated by EPA under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for ozone and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). Specifically, 

the SJV area is designated and classified 

as extreme nonattainment for the 1- 

hour, 1997 8-hour, and 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS; designated and 

classified as serious nonattainment for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; and designated 

and classified as moderate 

nonattainment for the 2006 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. 

Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires 

that all nonattainment areas implement, 

as expeditiously as practicable, 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) including such reductions in 

emissions from existing sources in the 

area as may be obtained through the 

adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably 

available control technology (RACT). 

Additionally, Section 189(a)(1)(C) of the 

Act requires that moderate PM2.5

nonattainment areas implement RACM 

(including RACT) and section 

189(b)(1)(B) requires that serious PM2.5

nonattainment areas implement best 

available control measures (BACM), 

including best available control 

technology (BACT). The SJV area is 

subject to all of these control 

requirements as a result of its 

designations and classifications for the 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. For an ozone 

nonattainment area classified as severe 

or above, section 182(d)(1)(B) also 

provides that a state may, in its 

discretion, submit a SIP revision 

requiring employers to implement 

programs to reduce work-related vehicle 

trips and miles travelled by employees. 

Despite numerous air pollution 

control measures and programs that the 

SJVUAPCD has implemented over the 

years to reduce air pollution, the SJV 

continues to experience some of the 

worst air quality in the nation. See, e.g., 

80 FR 1482 (January 12, 2015) 

(discussing recent PM2.5 air quality 

trends in SJV). As a result, the District 

has increasingly relied upon 

nontraditional emission reduction 

strategies to reduce air pollution in the 

SJV. See, e.g., 79 FR 28650 (May 19, 

2014) (proposed action on SJV Rule 

9610 concerning incentive programs) 

and 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015) (final 

action on SJV Rule 9610). EPA supports 

state efforts to implement nontraditional 

and innovative strategies for reducing 

air pollutant emissions, including 

commuter programs to reduce the 

frequency that employees drive alone to 

work. See, e.g., U.S. EPA, 

Transportation and Climate Division, 

Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, ‘‘Commuter Programs: 

Quantifying and Using Their Emission 

Benefits in SIPs and Conformity’’ 

(February 2014). 

II. The State Submittal 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by CARB. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ............................ 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction ............................................. 12/17/09 05/17/10 

On November 17, 2010, the submittal 

for Rule 9410 was deemed by operation 

of law under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) 

to meet the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix V. There are no 

previous versions of Rule 9410 in the 

SIP. 

The Rule 9410 SIP submittal includes 

Rule 9410 (as adopted December 17, 

2009), the District’s ‘‘Final Staff Report: 

Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip 

Reduction)’’ dated December 17, 2009 

(Final Staff Report), public process 

documentation, and technical support 

materials. CARB and the District 

submitted this rule to satisfy a SIPapproved regulatory commitment in the 

PM2.5 plan for the SJV. See 76 FR 69896 

at 69926 (November 9, 2011) (PM2.5

control measure commitments, codified 

at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(A)(2)). 

The California Health and Safety Code 

specifically authorizes the District to 

adopt rules and regulations to reduce 

vehicle trips and requirements for 

certain businesses employing at least 

100 people to establish rideshare 

programs. See Final Staff Report at 9 

(citing California H&SC sections 

40601(d) and 40612). Consistent with 

these authorities, Rule 9410 requires 

certain employers with at least 100 

‘‘eligible employees’’ 2 at a work site to 

establish programs to reduce employee 

commute-related vehicle travel, referred 

to in the rule as ‘‘employer trip 

reduction implementation plans’’ or 

‘‘ETRIPs.’’ 3 According to the District, 

approximately 36% of employees in the 

SJV are employed at worksites with 100 

or more employees. See Final Staff 

Report at B–6. Employers subject to the 

rule must, among other things, register 

with the SJVUAPCD, submit an ETRIP 

for each worksite to the District, and 

submit annual compliance reports to the 

District. See Rule 9410, sections 6.1, 6.3, 

and 6.5. 

III. Evaluation of the State Submittal 

A. SIP Procedural Requirements 

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

110(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51155 

4Section 3.11 of the rule generally defines 

‘‘commute verification period’’ as ‘‘[a] period of at 

least one week, selected by the employer to 

represent a typical work week,’’ or in certain cases 

a two-week pay period, that does not contain a 

federal, state, or local holiday. 

5EMFAC is the motor vehicle emissions factor 

model that EPA has approved for use in California 

SIPs (78 FR 14533, March 6, 2013). 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and an opportunity to request 

a public hearing was provided 

consistent with EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. 

Both the District and CARB have 

satisfied applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements for reasonable 

public notice and hearing prior to 

adoption and submittal of this SIP 

revision. The District conducted public 

workshops, provided public comment 

periods, and held public hearings prior 

to the adoption of Rule 9410 on 

December 17, 2009. See SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution No. 09–12– 

19 (December 17, 2009). CARB provided 

the required public notice and 

opportunity for public comment prior to 

its public hearing on the plan. See 

CARB Executive Order S–10–001 (May 

17, 2010). 

The SIP submittal includes proof of 

publication for notices of the District 

and CARB public hearings, as evidence 

that all hearings were properly noticed. 

We therefore find that the submittal 

meets the procedural requirements of 

CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l). 

B. Enforceability Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act 

requires that each SIP ‘‘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 of [the Act].’’ 

EPA generally considers a requirement 

to be enforceable if it contains a clear 

statement as to applicability; specifies 

the standard that must be met; states 

compliance timeframes sufficient to 

meet the standard; specifies sufficient 

methods to determine compliance, 

including appropriate monitoring, 

record keeping and reporting 

provisions; and recognizes relevant 

enforcement consequences. See 

‘‘Review of State Implementation Plans 

and Revisions for Enforceability and 

Legal Sufficiency,’’ September 23, 1987 

(‘‘1987 Potter Memo’’) and ‘‘Guidance 

on Enforceability Requirements for 

Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP 

and Section 112 Rules and General 

Permits,’’ January 25, 1995 (‘‘1995 PTE 

Policy’’) at 5, 6. 

Rule 9410 adequately addresses these 

recommendations for enforceability. 

First, section 2.1 of the rule clearly 

states that the requirements of the rule 

‘‘apply to each employer in the [SJV] Air 

Basin with at least 100 Eligible 

Employees at a worksite for at least 16 

consecutive weeks during the 

employer’s previous fiscal year’’ that is 

located: (1) Within an incorporated city 

with a population of at least 10,000; (2) 

within an incorporated city with a 

population of less than 10,000, and 

more than 50 percent of their employees 

work at least 2,040 hours per year; or (3) 

within the unincorporated area of a 

county, and more than 50 percent of 

their employees work at least 2,040 

hours per year (section 2.1). 

Second, sections 5.0 and 6.0 of the 

rule specify the requirements that must 

be met by employers subject to the 

rule—e.g., the requirements to 

implement an ETRIP for each worksite 

with 100 or more ‘‘eligible employees’’ 

(section 5.1); to include in each ETRIP 

measures from several dozen listed 

strategies by specified implementation 

deadlines (section 5.2); to submit to the 

District no later than July 1, 2010 or 

within 180 days after becoming subject 

to the rule a complete ‘‘employer 

registration form’’ containing specific 

types of information about the 

employer’s business (section 6.1); and to 

verify and report commuter activity to 

the District on an annual basis (sections 

6.4 and 6.5). 

Third, sections 6.0 and 8.0 of the rule 

specify appropriate compliance 

timeframes, including deadlines for 

employer registration (section 6.1), 

submittal of the ETRIPs and related 

updates (section 6.3), and submittal of 

annual reports regarding commuter 

activity (section 6.5). 

Finally, section 6.0 of the rule 

specifies sufficient methods to 

determine compliance, including 

requirements for employers to annually 

collect information on the modes of 

transportation used for each eligible 

employee’s commutes to and from work 

for each day of the ‘‘commute 

verification period’’ 4 (section 6.4.1); 

requirements for employers to ‘‘keep 

records of steps taken to implement 

measures . . . included in the ETRIP on 

file for at least five years’’ and to make 

such records available to the District 

and EPA upon request (section 6.3.5); 

and requirements for employers to 

submit annual reports to the District 

containing detailed information about 

the results of their commute 

verifications, implemented ETRIP 

measures, and any updates to an ETRIP 

(section 6.5). 

All of these requirements are 

enforceable against covered employers 

under state law (see Final Staff Report 

at A–13, citing California H&SC sections 

42402–42403) and, upon approval into 

the California SIP, would also be 

enforceable under sections 113 and 304 

of the CAA. 

C. Section 110(l) of the Act 

Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits 

EPA from approving any SIP revision 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

RFP or any other applicable CAA 

requirement. The requirements and 

procedures in Rule 9410 are designed to 

reduce mobile source emissions in the 

SJV by requiring certain businesses to 

implement programs that encourage 

employees to reduce their vehicle trips 

and miles traveled to and from 

worksites. Rule 9410 does not revise any 

requirement in the applicable SIP. We 

propose to determine that our approval 

of Rule 9410 would comply with CAA 

section 110(l) because the proposed SIP 

revision would not interfere with the 

on-going process for ensuring that 

requirements for attainment of the 

NAAQS and other CAA provisions are 

met. 

D. Estimated Emission Reductions 

SJVUAPCD estimates that the ETRIP 

program reduced NOX, VOC and PM2.5

emissions by 0.6, 0.6 and 0.05 tons per 

day (tpd), respectively, in 2014 and will 

further reduce emissions of these 

pollutants by 0.3, 0.4 and 0.06 tpd, 

respectively, in 2023. See Final Staff 

Report at Appendix B, Table B–4. We 

find these emission reduction estimates 

technically sound and generally 

consistent with the planning 

assumptions in the District’s 2008 PM2.5

Plan. See generally id. at Appendix B 

and 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, tables 

B–1, B–2, and B–4. 

We note that Rule 9610 requires each 

employer subject to the rule to submit, 

beginning March 31, 2015, an annual 

compliance report identifying the 

measures the employer implemented 

and the results of the annual commute 

verification surveys distributed to 

employees. See Rule 9410, section 6.5. 

We recommend that the District 

periodically reassess the effectiveness of 

the ETRIP program and update its 

estimates of the associated emissions 

reductions based on these submitted 

reports and using the most recent EPAapproved version of the EMFAC model.5


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, 

EPA is proposing to fully approve the 

submitted rule as a revision to the 

California SIP. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the SJVUAPCD rule described in Table 

1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve 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 Clean Air Act; 

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 proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of 

nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 6, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20750 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805; FRL–9932–64– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Michigan and 

Wisconsin; 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS PSD 

and Visibility Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of state implementation plan 

(SIP) submissions from Michigan 

regarding Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Wisconsin regarding 

visibility infrastructure requirements of 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the 2006 fine particulate matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. The infrastructure 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the structural components of each 

state’s air quality management program 

are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0805 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

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

arra.sarah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the States’ 

SIP submittals as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views these as noncontroversial 

submittals and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS