Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31571 

1For 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. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0472; FRL–9946–20– 

Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for 

Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

as meeting the requirements of Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act) for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) and 2010 sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). CAA section 

110(a)(1) requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, and that EPA act 

on such SIPs. We refer to such SIPs as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs because they are 

intended to address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised NAAQS 

including, but not limited to, legal 

authority, regulatory structure, 

resources, permit programs, monitoring, 

and modeling necessary to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. In addition to our proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of Arizona’s infrastructure SIP, we are 

proposing to reclassify one region of the 

state for SO2 emergency episode 

planning. EPA is also proposing to 

approve Arizona Revised Statutes 

related to conducting air quality 

modeling and providing modeling data 

to EPA into the Arizona SIP. We are 

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 20, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. [EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0472] at http://

www.regulations.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, 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: Tom 

Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3856, 

kelly.thomasp@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. EPA’s Approach to the Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submissions 

II. Background 

A. Statutory Framework 

B. Regulatory Background 

C. Changes to the Application of PSD 

Permitting Requirements With GHGs 

III. State Submittals 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial 

Approvals 

B. Proposed Disapprovals and Partial 

Disapprovals 

C. Proposed Approval of Arizona Revised 

Statutes Into the State SIP 

D. Proposed Reclassification of an Air 

Quality Control Region 

E. Request for Public Comments 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. EPA’s Approach to the Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submissions 

EPA is acting upon several SIP 

submittals from Arizona that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submittal of this type arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submittals ‘‘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 submittals are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submittals, and 

the requirement to make the submittals 

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’’ 

submittal must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submittals made for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submittals. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submittal from submittals 

that are intended to satisfy other SIP 

requirements under the CAA, such as 

‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment 

SIP’’ submittals to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA, ‘‘regional 

haze SIP’’ submittals required by EPA 

rule to address the visibility protection 

requirements of CAA section 169A, and 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

permit program submittals to address 

the permit requirements of CAA, title I, 

part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submittals. 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.1 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 

submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains ambiguities concerning what is 

required for inclusion in an 

infrastructure SIP submittal. 

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 submittals 

for a given new or revised NAAQS. One 

example of ambiguity is that section 

110(a)(2) requires that ‘‘each’’ SIP 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31572 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2See, 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 25163–25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

3EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submittal 

of certain types of SIP submittals in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submittal 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. 

4See, 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). 5On 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. 

6For 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. 

7EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submittals. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submittals. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

8 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. 

submittal 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.2 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submittals to 

address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submittal 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.3 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 submittal. 

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 submittal, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submittal 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 submittals separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for the same 

NAAQS. If states elect to make such 

multiple SIP submittals to meet the 

infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA 

can elect to act on such submittals 

either individually or in a larger 

combined action.4 Similarly, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow it to take 

action on the individual parts of one 

larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submittal for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submittal. For example, EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submittal.5

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submittal 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submittals for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submittal for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants, for example 

because the content and scope of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submittal to 

meet this element might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS 

than for a minor revision to an existing 

NAAQS.6

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submittals required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submittals, EPA also has to identify and 

interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submittals. For 

example, section 172(c)(7) requires that 

attainment plan SIP submittals required 

by part D have to meet the ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ of section 110(a)(2). 

Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP 

submittals 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 submittals required 

by part D would not need to meet the 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 

pertains to the air quality prevention of 

significant deterioration (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 submittal 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 submittal. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submittal, 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 submittals 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 submittals for particular 

elements.7 EPA most recently issued 

guidance for infrastructure SIPs on 

September 13, 2013 (2013 Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance).8 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate guidance for infrastructure SIPs for 

any new or revised NAAQS. Within this 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31573 

9EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submittals 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. Circuit 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. 

10By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submittal 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. 

guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submittals 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 submittals.9 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 submittals need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submittal 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 

submittals. 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 

submittals to ensure that the state’s SIP 

appropriately addresses the 

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

and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure 

SIP 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 

submittals 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 submittals 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, title I of the Act and 

EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural PSD 

program requirements include 

provisions necessary for the PSD 

program to address all regulated sources 

and regulated 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 

Code of Federal Regulations (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 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 submittal focuses on 

assuring that the state’s SIP meets basic 

structural requirements. For example, 

section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, 

the requirement that states have a 

program to regulate minor new sources. 

Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state 

has a SIP-approved minor NSR program 

and whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submittal, 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 submittal 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 submittal 

without scrutinizing the totality of the 

existing SIP for such potentially 

deficient provisions and may approve 

the submittal even if it is aware of such 

existing provisions.10 It is important to 

note that EPA’s approval of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal should not 

be construed as explicit or implicit reapproval of any existing potentially 

deficient provisions that relate to the 

three specific issues just described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submittals is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submittal. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submittal 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 submittal. 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 

Infrastructure SIP 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 submittal 

for any future new or revised NAAQS 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31574 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11For 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,’’ 76 FR 21639, 

April 18, 2011. 

12EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submittals 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). 

13See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submittal 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 

42344, July 21, 2010 (proposed disapproval of 

director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540, 

January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such 

provisions). 

14 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010. The annual NO 

2 standard of 0.053 ppm is listed in ppb for ease 

of comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 

15 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The annual SO 2 

standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of 

comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 

16Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. 

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.11 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submittals.12

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal 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 submittal, 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.13

II. Background 

A. Statutory Framework 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to make a SIP submission within 

3 years after the promulgation of a new 

or revised primary NAAQS. Section 

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

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must include. Many of the 

section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to 

the general information and authorities 

that constitute the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a 

state’s air quality management program 

and SIP submittals that address these 

requirements are referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ These 

infrastructure SIP elements required by 

section 110(a)(2) are as follows: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified 

stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate 

pollution transport. 

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

and international pollution abatement. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local and 

regional government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation 

with government officials, public 

notification, PSD, and visibility 

protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submittal of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submittal deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These two 

elements are: Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent it refers to permit programs 

required under part D (nonattainment 

NSR), and Section 110(a)(2)(I), 

pertaining to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address 

infrastructure for the nonattainment 

NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or 

the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I). 

B. Regulatory Background 

In 2010 EPA promulgated revised 

NAAQS for NO2 and SO2, triggering a 

requirement for states to submit 

infrastructure SIPs. The NAAQS 

addressed by this infrastructure SIP 

proposal include the following: 

• 2010 NO2 NAAQS, which revised 

the primary 1971 NO2 annual standard 

of 53 parts per billion (ppb) by 

supplementing it with a new 1-hour 

average NO2 standard of 100 ppb, and 

retained the secondary annual standard 

of 53 ppb.14

• 2010 SO2 NAAQS, which 

established a new 1-hour average SO2

standard of 75 ppb, retained the 

secondary 3-hour average SO2 standard 

of 500 ppb, and established a 

mechanism for revoking the primary 

1971 annual and 24-hour SO2

standards.15

C. Changes to the Application of PSD 

Permitting Requirements With GHGs 

With respect to Elements (C) and (J), 

EPA interprets the Clean Air Act to 

require each state to make an 

infrastructure SIP submission for a new 

or revised NAAQS that demonstrates 

that the air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program meeting the current 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. The requirements of Element 

D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by 

demonstrating the air agency has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

correctly addressing all regulated NSR 

pollutants. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions.16 The Supreme Court said 

that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Court also said that EPA could continue 

to require that PSD permits, otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). In order to 

act consistently with its understanding 

of the Court’s decision pending further 

judicial action to effectuate the decision, 

EPA is not continuing to apply EPA 

regulations that would require that SIPs 

include permitting requirements that 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31575 

the Supreme Court found 

impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not 

applying the requirement that a state’s 

SIP-approved PSD program require that 

sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs 

are the only pollutant (i) that the source 

emits or has the potential to emit above 

the major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emissions 

increase and a significant net emissions 

increase from a modification (e.g., 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a 

need to revise federal PSD rules in light 

of the Supreme Court opinion. In 

addition, EPA anticipates that many 

states will revise their existing SIPapproved PSD programs in light of the 

Supreme Court’s decision. The timing 

and content of subsequent EPA actions 

with respect to EPA regulations and 

state PSD program approvals are 

expected to be informed by additional 

legal process before the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA 

is not expecting states to have revised 

their PSD programs for purposes of 

infrastructure SIP submissions and is 

only evaluating such submissions to 

assure that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s decision. 

III. State Submittals 

The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has 

submitted several infrastructure SIP 

submittals pursuant to EPA’s 

promulgation of specific NAAQS, 

including: 

• January 18, 2013—‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision under the 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 

2010 NO2 NAAQS.’’ (2013 NO2 I–SIP 

Submittal) 

• July 23, 2013—‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision under the 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 

Implementation of the 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality.’’ (2013 SO2 I–SIP Submittal) 

• December 3, 2015—‘‘Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revisions for 2008 

Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NAAQS under Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2)(D) and Revision for All 

Previous and Future NAAQS under 

CAA Section 11(a)(2)(K).’’ (2015 

Submittal) 

We find that these submittals meet the 

procedural requirements for public 

participation under CAA section 

110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. We are 

proposing to act on all of these 

submittals, except the part of the 2015 

Submittal addressing the 2008 ozone 

standard which will be acted on 

separately. The submittals collectively 

address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the NO2 and SO2

NAAQS as described by this proposed 

rule. We refer to them collectively 

herein as ‘‘Arizona’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals.’’ 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial 

Approvals 

We have evaluated Arizona’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the 

existing provisions of the Arizona SIP 

for compliance with the infrastructure 

SIP requirements (or ‘‘elements’’) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2) and applicable 

regulations in 40 CFR part 51 

(‘‘Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of State 

Implementation Plans’’). The Technical 

Support Document (TSD), which is 

available in the docket to this action, 

includes our evaluation for these 

infrastructure SIP elements, as well as 

our evaluation of various statutory and 

regulatory provisions identified and 

submitted by Arizona. For some 

elements, our analysis refers to older 

TSDs for prior NAAQS, which have also 

been included in the docket. 

Based upon this analysis, we propose 

to approve the 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

Arizona Infrastructure SIP with respect 

to the following Clean Air Act 

requirements: 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures (all jurisdictions, 

both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system (all 

jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new stationary sources 

(ADEQ and Pinal County for both 

pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): 

Interstate Pollution Transport. 

D 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(in part)— 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment, or prongs 1 and 2 (all 

jurisdictions for the NO2 NAAQS). 

D 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (in part)— 

interference with maintenance, or prong 

3 (ADEQ and Pinal County for both 

pollutants). 

D 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)—interstate 

pollution abatement § 126 (ADEQ and 

Pinal County for both pollutants) and 

international air pollution § 115 (all 

jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority, conflict of interest, and 

oversight of local governments and 

regional agencies (all jurisdictions, both 

pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary solderurce 

monitoring and reporting (all 

jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes 

(all jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions (all 

jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation 

with government officials, § 121 (all 

jurisdictions, both pollutants); public 

notification of exceedances, § 127 (all 

jurisdictions, both pollutants); and 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) and visibility protection (ADEQ 

and Pinal County, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling 

and submission of modeling data (all 

jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees (all 

jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities 

(all jurisdictions, both pollutants). 

EPA is taking no action on Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals 

EPA proposes to disapprove Arizona’s 

NO2 and SO2 Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to the following 

infrastructure SIP requirements: 

• 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified 

stationary sources (Maricopa County 

and Pima County, both pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): 

Interstate pollution transport, 

D 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)— 

interference with maintenance, or prong 

3 (Maricopa County and Pima County, 

both pollutants). 

D 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—visibility 

transport or prong 4 (all jurisdictions, 

both pollutants). 

D 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)—interstate 

pollution abatement § 126 (Maricopa 

County and Pima County, both 

pollutants). 

• 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): PSD and 

visibility protection (Maricopa County 

and Pima County, both pollutants) 

As explained more fully in our TSD, 

we are proposing to disapprove the 

Maricopa County and Pima County 

portions of Arizona’s Infrastructure 

Submittals with respect to the PSDrelated requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and the PSD 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(J). The 

Arizona SIP does not fully satisfy the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for PSD permit programs under part C, 

title I of the Act, because Maricopa 

County and Pima County currently 

implement the Federal PSD program in 

40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR 

pollutants, pursuant to delegation 

agreements with EPA. Accordingly, 

although the Arizona SIP remains 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31576 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

17 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152. 

deficient with respect to PSD 

requirements in both the Maricopa 

County and Pima County portions of the 

SIP, these deficiencies are adequately 

addressed in both areas by the federal 

PSD program and do not create new FIP 

obligations. 

We are also proposing to disapprove 

all jurisdictions in Arizona for 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—protecting visibility 

from interstate transport or prong 4. 

Because Arizona relies on a FIP to 

control sources under the Regional Haze 

Rule, they do not meet the requirements 

of this portion of 110(a)(2)(D) for NO2

and SO2. However, because a FIP is 

already in place to meet the 

requirements, no additional FIP 

obligation is triggered by our 

disapproval of this portion of Arizona’s 

infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to 

work with Arizona to incorporate FIP 

emission limits and control technologies 

into the state SIP. 

C. Proposed Approval of Arizona 

Revised Statutes Into the State SIP 

Included in ADEQ’s 2015 Submittal 

was a request to approve Arizona 

Revised Statutes (ARS) § 49–104(A)(3) 

and (B)(1) into the state SIP. Arizona has 

requested that these statutes be included 

in order to meet the air quality modeling 

and data submission requirements of 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, and past and future 

NAAQS, including previous 

Infrastructure SIP disapprovals for the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 ozone, and 2008 lead NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(K) requires states to provide 

for the performance of air quality 

modeling and the submission of air 

quality modeling to EPA upon request. 

On November 5, 2012, EPA disapproved 

110(a)(2)(K) with respect to ADEQ’s 

submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 

FR 66398). EPA again disapproved this 

I–SIP element for the 2008 Pb and 2008 

O3 NAAQS on July 14, 2015 (80 FR 

40906). EPA disapproved those 

submissions because ADEQ, Pima, 

Pinal, and Maricopa Counties did not 

submit adequate provisions or narrative 

information related to the 110(a)(2)(K) 

requirements. 

EPA has reviewed the SIP approved 

provisions, narrative information, and 

ARS §§ 49–104(A)(3) and (B)(1) 

contained within the 2015 Submittal. 

EPA is proposing to approve 

110(a)(2)(K) as described in part A of 

this section, and detailed further in the 

docket for this action, based upon that 

review. EPA is also proposing to 

approve ARS §§ 49–104(A)(3) and (B)(1) 

into the state SIP. If approval of these 

statutes into the Arizona SIP is 

finalized, previous disapprovals for this 

element, found at 77 FR 66398 and 80 

FR 40906, will be corrected. 

D. Proposed Reclassification for 

Emergency Episode Planning 

The priority thresholds for 

classification of air quality control 

regions are listed in 40 CFR 51.150 

while the specific classifications of air 

quality control regions in Arizona are 

listed at 40 CFR 52.121. Consistent with 

the provisions of 40 CFR 51.153, 

reclassification of an air quality control 

region must rely on the most recent 

three years of air quality data. Regions 

classified Priority I, IA, or II are required 

to have SIP-approved emergency 

episode contingency plans, while those 

classified Priority III are not required to 

have plans.17 We interpret 40 CFR 

51.153 as establishing the means for 

states to review air quality data and 

request a higher or lower classification 

for any given region and as providing 

the regulatory basis for EPA to reclassify 

such regions, as appropriate, under the 

authorities of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(G) 

and 301(a)(1). 

For SO2, the Pima Intrastate region is 

classified as Priority II while the Central 

Arizona and Southeast Arizona 

Intrastate regions are classified as 

Priority IA. All other areas of the state 

are Priority III. After reviewing 

Arizona’s 2013–2015 air quality data for 

the Pima air quality control region 

(AQCR), we are proposing to reclassify 

this region from Priority II to priority III, 

thus relieving the AQCR of the 

emergency episode plan requirement for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

The classification thresholds for SO2

are unique in that thresholds are 

prescribed for three different averaging 

periods. The thresholds and ranges for 

Priority II classification are as follows: 

• 3-hour: Greater than 0.5 ppm, 

• 24-hour: 0.10–0.17 ppm, and 

• Annual arithmetic mean: 0.02–0.04 

ppm. 

Areas with ambient air concentrations 

that are below the Priority II threshold 

are classified as Priority III. There is one 

SO2 monitor within the Pima Intrastate 

region, located in Tucson and operated 

and maintained by Pima County. The 

highest SO2 levels at the Tucson 

monitor were 1.1 ppb (.0011 ppm) for 

the 24-hour average and .24 ppb (.00024 

ppm) for the annual arithmetic mean. 

Both occurred in 2013. In addition, the 

highest 1-hour SO2 concentration at the 

Tucson monitor during this period was 

9.6 ppb (.0096 ppm), which occurred in 

2014. Monitored levels in 2015 were 

even lower than the previous two years. 

The highest 1 hour level was 5.1 ppb 

(.0051 ppm) and the annual arithmetic 

mean was .16 ppb (.00016 ppm) While 

there are no 1-hour SO2 classification 

thresholds in 40 CFR 51.150(b), by 

definition these concentrations reinforce 

the fact that 3-hour and 24-hour levels 

have not exceeded the respective 

Priority II classification thresholds 

because they are lower than such 

thresholds. 

Thus, we propose to reclassify the 

Pima Intrastate AQCR to Priority III for 

SO2. Should we finalize this 

reclassification, the Pima Intrastate 

region would no longer be required to 

have an emergency episode contingency 

plan in place for SO2. 

E. Request for Public Comments 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document or 

on other relevant matters. We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposal for the next 30 days. We 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2016 / Proposed Rules 31577 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Approval and promulgation of 

implementation plans, Environmental 

protection, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: April 29, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10985 Filed 5–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0696; FRL–9944–28– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS86 

Technical Amendments to 

Performance Specification 18 and 

Procedure 6 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to make 

several minor technical amendments to 

the performance specifications and test 

procedures for hydrogen chloride (HCl) 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems (CEMS). The EPA is also 

proposing to make several minor 

amendments to the quality assurance 

(QA) procedures for HCl CEMS used for 

compliance determination at stationary 

sources. The performance specification 

(Performance Specification 18) and the 

QA procedures (Procedure 6) were 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 7, 2015. These proposed 

amendments make several minor 

corrections and clarify several aspects of 

these regulations. In the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register, the EPA is amending 

Performance Specification 18 and 

Procedure 6 as a direct final rule 

without a prior proposed rule. If we 

receive no adverse comment, we will 

not take further action on this proposed 

rule. 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

must be received by July 5, 2016. 

Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a 

public hearing on this rule if requested. 

Requests for a hearing must be made by 

May 24, 2016. Requests for a hearing 

should be made to Ms. Candace Sorrell 

via email at sorrell.candace@epa.gov or 

by phone at (919) 541–1064. If a hearing 

is requested, it will be held on June 3, 

2016 at the EPA facility in Research 

Triangle Park, NC. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0696, at http://

www.regulations.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, 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. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

on the https://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure 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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 

EPA WJC West Building, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20004. The Public Reading Room is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Candace Sorrell, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Assessment Division, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS