Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 50409 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI: Do not submit this 

information to the EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

II. Proposed Rule 

This proposed action would revise the 

EPA’s regulatory definition of VOC for 

purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the 

NAAQS for ozone under title I of the 

CAA, by adding HFE–347pcf2 to the list 

of compounds excluded from the 

regulatory definition of VOC on the 

basis that this compound makes a 

negligible contribution to tropospheric 

ozone formation. We have explained our 

reasons for this action in the preamble 

to the direct final rule. The regulatory 

text for the proposal is identical to that 

for the direct final rule published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register. For further 

supplementary information, the detailed 

rationale for the proposal and the 

regulatory revisions, see the direct final 

rule published under ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ of the Federal Register. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. It does not contain any 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. 

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. This action removes HFE– 

347pcf2 from the regulatory definition 

of VOC and thereby relieves 

manufacturers, distributers and users of 

the compound from requirements to 

control emissions of the compound. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This proposed rule would 

remove HFE–347pcf2 from the 

regulatory definition of VOC and 

thereby relieves manufacturers, 

distributers and users from 

requirements to control emissions of the 

compound. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. Since HFE–347pcf2 is utilized 

in specific industrial applications where 

children are not present and dissipates 

quickly, there is no exposure or 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

proposed rule would remove HFE– 

347pcf2 from the regulatory definition 

of VOC and thereby relieves 

manufacturers, distributers and users 

from requirements to control emissions 

of the compound. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

This action would remove HFE–347pcf2 

from the regulatory definition of VOC 

and thereby relieves manufacturers, 

distributers and users of the compound 

from requirements to control emissions 

of the compound. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: July 20, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17790 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0209; FRL–9950–00– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Alabama and North 

Carolina; Interstate Transport—2010 

NO2 Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the North Carolina SIP, 

submitted by the North Carolina 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(NC DEQ) on March 24, 2016, and the 

portions of a revision to the Alabama 

State Implementation Plan (SIP), 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50410 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

submitted by the Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management (ADEM) 

on December 9, 2015, addressing the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate 

transport (prongs 1 and 2) infrastructure 

SIP requirements for the 2010 1-hour 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each 

state adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, commonly 

referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve North Carolina’s March 24, 

2016, SIP submission and the portions 

of Alabama’s December 9, 2015, SIP 

submission addressing interstate 

transport requirements for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 31, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– 

OAR–2016–0209 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Lakeman can be reached by telephone at 

(404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by 

states within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states 

to address basic SIP elements such as 

requirements for monitoring, basic 

program requirements, and legal 

authority that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

newly established or revised NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for infrastructure SIPs. 

Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements 

that states must meet for the 

infrastructure SIP requirements related 

to a newly established or revised 

NAAQS. The contents of an 

infrastructure SIP submission may vary 

depending upon the data and analytical 

tools available to the state, as well as the 

provisions already contained in the 

state’s implementation plan at the time 

in which the state develops and submits 

the submission for a new or revised 

NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

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

includes four distinct components, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that 

must be addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

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

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1) and from interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

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

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (prong 3) and 

from interfering with measures to 

protect visibility in another state (prong 

4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs 

to include provisions ensuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act, relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

Through these proposed actions, EPA 

is proposing to approve North Carolina’s 

March 24, 2016, SIP submission and the 

portions of Alabama’s December 9, 

2015, SIP submission addressing 

interstate transport requirements for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. All other applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for 

Alabama and North Carolina for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS will be 

addressed in separate rulemakings. A 

brief background regarding the 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS is provided below. 

On January 22, 2010, EPA established 

a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2

at a level of 100 parts per billion, based 

on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 1- 

hour daily maximum concentrations. 

See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). This 

NAAQS is designed to protect against 

exposure to the entire group of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX). NO2 is the component of 

greatest concern and is used as the 

indicator for the larger group of NOX. 

Emissions that lead to the formation of 

NO2 generally also lead to the formation 

of other NOX. Therefore, control 

measures that reduce NO2 can generally 

be expected to reduce population 

exposures to all gaseous NOX which 

may have the co-benefit of reducing the 

formation of ozone and fine particles 

both of which pose significant public 

health threats. 

States were required to submit 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no 

later than January 22, 2013. For 

comprehensive information on 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS, please refer to the 

Federal Register notice cited above. 

II. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

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

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

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

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

specific elements that ‘‘each such plan’’ 

submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 50411 

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. 

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 25163–65 (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 submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

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

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

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. 

submissions. Although the term 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ does not appear in 

the CAA, EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission from submissions that are 

intended to satisfy other SIP 

requirements under the CAA, such as 

‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment 

plan SIP’’ submissions to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

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

haze SIP’’ submissions required by EPA 

rule to address the visibility protection 

requirements of section 169A of the 

CAA, and nonattainment new source 

review permit program submissions to 

address the permit requirements of 

CAA, Title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.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 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

Title I of the CAA, 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 submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.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 submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to 

infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 

states must meet all of the infrastructure 

SIP requirements in a single SIP 

submission, and whether EPA must act 

upon such SIP submission in a single 

action. Although section 110(a)(1) 

directs states to submit ‘‘a plan’’ to meet 

these requirements, EPA interprets the 

CAA to allow states to make multiple 

SIP submissions separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for the same 

NAAQS. If states elect to make such 

multiple SIP submissions to meet the 

infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA 

can elect to act on such submissions 

either individually or in a larger 

combined action.4 Similarly, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow it to take 

action on the individual parts of one 

larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submission for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submission. For example, EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submission.5

Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) may also arise with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

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

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

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

different pollutants, because the content 

and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.6

EPA notes that interpretation of 

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

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

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

these other types of SIP submissions. 

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

attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP 

submissions must meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50412 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

7EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

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. 

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

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by 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. 

10Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, 

EPA’s interpretation of the CAA with respect to the 

approvability of affirmative defense provisions in 

SIPs has changed. See ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement 

and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to 

SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP 

Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and 

Malfunction,’’ 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a 

result, EPA’s 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no 

longer represents the EPA’s view concerning the 

validity of affirmative defense provisions, in light 

of the requirements of section 113 and section 304. 

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 submission 

may implicate some elements of section 

110(a)(2) but not others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.7 EPA most recently 

issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

on September 13, 2013 (2013 

Guidance).8 EPA developed this 

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

any new or revised NAAQS. Within this 

guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

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

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.9 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). EPA 

interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such 

that infrastructure SIP submissions need 

to address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

implementation plan appropriately 

addresses the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 

2013 Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a 

variety of ways by which states can 

appropriately address these substantive 

statutory requirements, depending on 

the structure of an individual state’s 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., 

whether permits and enforcement 

orders are approved by a multi-member 

board or by a head of an executive 

agency). However they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of Section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

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

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and new 

source review (NSR) pollutants, 

including Greenhouse Gases. By 

contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions 

that are not required under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are 

merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the PM2.5

NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter 

optional provisions are types of 

provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

new source review program and 

whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; 10 (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 SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 50413 

11By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption or affirmative defense 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. 

12For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

13EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the 

CAA 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). 

14See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

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 that it may approve 

an infrastructure SIP submission 

without scrutinizing the totality of the 

existing SIP for such potentially 

deficient provisions and may approve 

the submission even if it is aware of 

such existing provisions.11 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

section 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 

each and every provision of a state’s 

existing SIP against all requirements in 

the CAA and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

gives simpler recommendations with 

respect to carbon monoxide than other 

NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

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

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) 

and (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.12 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.13

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.14

III. What are the prongs 1 and 2 

requirements? 

For each new NAAQS, section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires 

each state to submit a SIP revision that 

contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions activity in the 

state from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in any 

downwind state. EPA sometimes refers 

to these requirements as prong 1 

(significant contribution to 

nonattainment) and prong 2 

(interference with maintenance), or 

conjointly as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provision of the CAA. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires the 

elimination of upwind state emissions 

that significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Alabama and North Carolina addressed 

prongs 1 and 2? 

A. Prong 1 (Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment) for Alabama 

Alabama has concluded that it does 

not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS in any other state for the 

following reasons: (1) There are no areas 

in Alabama or in the surrounding states 

that are designated as nonattainment for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS; (2) monitored 

ambient NO2 concentrations in the State 

and surrounding states are well below 

the 1-hour 2010 NO2 NAAQS; (3) there 

are federal and SIP-approved state 

regulations in place to control NOX

emissions in the State. EPA agrees with 

the State’s conclusion based on the 

rationale discussed below. 

First, there are no designated 

nonattainment areas for the 1-hr NO2

NAAQS. On February 17, 2012, EPA 

designated the entire country as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS, stating that 

‘‘available information does not indicate 

that the air quality in these areas 

exceeds the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS’’ 

(77 FR 9532). 

Second, as part of its December 9, 

2015 submittal, Alabama examined NO2

monitoring data from 2012–2014 in the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50414 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

15On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued 

the NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX and 

providing a mechanism (the NOX Budget Trading 

Program) that states could use to achieve those 

reductions. Affected states were required to comply 

with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004 and 

Phase II beginning in 2007. 

16The federal programs identified by the State 

include New Source Performance Standards (40 

CFR part 60), National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR parts 61 and 63), 

and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 

17North Carolina notes that two new near-road 

NO2 monitors deployed in the State in 2014 show 

measured concentrations well below the 1-hour 

standard. The State believes that this data indicates 

that NOX emissions from mobile sources in North 

Carolina are unlikely to contribute to nonattainment 

or interfere with maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS 

in a downwind state. These monitors were required 

as part of a modified NO2 monitoring network to 

site monitors in locations where maximum NO2

concentrations are expected to occur, including 

within 50 meters of major roadways. 

18EPA approved the CSA emissions caps into 

North Carolina’s SIP on September 26, 2011. See 76 

FR 59250. 19The CSA limits NOX emissions from Duke 

Energy Progress, LLC EGUs and Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC EGUs to 35,000 tons and 25,000 

tons, respectively, beginning on January 1, 2007, 

and tightens the emissions cap on Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC EGUs to 31,000 tons as of January 

1, 2009. 

20North Carolina identifies a number of SIPapproved state regulations that control NOX

emissions within the state as well as some state 

regulations that are not part of the federallyapproved SIP. 

21CSAPR currently caps EGUs in the State at 

specific NOX and SO2 emission budgets through a 

federal implementation plan (FIP). According to 

North Carolina, the State is on track to comply with 

the Phase I emission budgets established under the 

CSAPR FIP. 

State and surrounding states. According 

to this data, the design values during 

this period are well below the 100 ppb 

standard with Georgia and Tennessee 

having the highest design values (49 

ppb). 

Third, in its submittal, Alabama 

identifies SIP-approved regulations at 

Alabama Administrative Code 335–3–8 

that require controls and emission limits 

for certain NOX emitting sources in the 

State. These regulations include the SIPapproved portion of the NOX SIP call 

that requires certain NOX emitting 

sources to comply with a capped NOX

emission budget.15 Alabama also notes 

that it has implemented several federal 

programs that, while not relied upon to 

address its ‘‘good neighbor’’ obligations 

for the NO2 NAAQS, have reduced NOX

emissions within the State.16 Alabama 

also controls NOX emissions at certain 

sources through source-specific 

measures pursuant to its SIP-approved 

permitting regulations at Alabama 

Administrative Code 335–3–14. These 

permitting requirements help ensure 

that no new or modified NOX sources in 

the State subject to these permitting 

regulations will significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

For all the reasons discussed above, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

Alabama does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other 

state and that Alabama’s SIP includes 

adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions sources within the State from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment of this standard in any 

other state. 

B. Prong 2 (Interference With 

Maintenance) for Alabama 

Alabama has concluded that it does 

not interfere with maintenance of the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other 

state. As noted above, NO2 design 

values in the State and in surrounding 

states are well below the standard, 

Alabama’s SIP contains provisions to 

control NOX emissions, and Alabama 

has implemented a number of federal 

programs that have reduced NOX

emissions within the State. For these 

reasons, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that Alabama is not 

interfering with maintenance of the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other 

state and that Alabama’s SIP includes 

adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions sources within the state from 

interfering with maintenance of this 

standard in any other state. 

C. Prong 1 (Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment) for North Carolina 

North Carolina has concluded that it 

does not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS in any other state for several 

reasons, including the following: (1) 

There are no areas in the country 

designated as nonattainment for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS; (2) monitored 

ambient NO2 concentrations in the State 

and in the surrounding states are well 

below the 1-hour 2010 NO2 NAAQS; (3) 

NOX emissions have declined 

significantly and are expected to 

continue to decline through 2017 and 

beyond; and 4) there are federal and 

SIP-approved state regulations in place 

to control NOX emissions. EPA agrees 

with the State’s conclusion based on the 

rationale discussed below. 

First, as noted above, there are no 

designated nonattainment areas for the 

1-hr NO2 NAAQS. 

Second, North Carolina examined 

1-hour NO2 design values based on 

monitoring data collected between 

2012–2014 from NO2 monitors within 

North Carolina and surrounding 

states.17 The design values during this 

period are well below the 100 ppb 

standard with Georgia and Tennessee 

having the highest design values (49 

ppb). 

Third, North Carolina reviewed 1996– 

2011 annual NOX emissions data for the 

State from EPA’s National Emissions 

Inventory and determined that the 

State’s NOX emissions have declined by 

approximately 50 percent during this 

time. North Carolina projects that NOX

emissions from 2011–2017 in the State 

will decline by an additional 39 percent. 

The State also notes that NOX emissions 

from EGUs in North Carolina have 

declined between 2002–2011 primarily 

due to the State’s 2002 Clean 

Smokestack Act (CSA).18 The CSA 

establishes entity-wide caps on total 

annual NOX emissions from investorowned coal-fired electric generating 

units (EGUs) in the State.19

Fourth, in addition to the CSA, North 

Carolina cites to a number of State 

regulations that address additional 

control measures, means, and 

techniques to reduce NOX emissions in 

North Carolina. Several of these 

regulations are SIP-approved, such as 

15A NCAC 2D .0519 (controlling NO2

and NOX emissions from sulfuric acid 

manufacturing plants) and 15A NCAC 

2D .1409 (addressing NOX emissions 

from certain stationary internal 

combustion engines).20 North Carolina 

also identifies a number of federal 

programs such as CSAPR that, while not 

relied upon to address its ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ obligations for the NO2

NAAQS, reduce NOX emissions.21

For all of the reasons discussed above, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

North Carolina does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other 

state and that North Carolina’s SIP 

includes adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions sources within the State from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment of this standard in any 

other state. 

D. Prong 2 (Interference With 

Maintenance) for North Carolina 

North Carolina has concluded that it 

does not interfere with maintenance of 

the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any 

other state. As stated above, NO2 design 

values in the State and in surrounding 

states are well below the standard; NOX

emissions have decreased in the State 

and are projected to decrease further 

through 2017 and beyond; and NOX

emissions are controlled through federal 

and SIP-approved state regulations. For 

these reasons, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that North Carolina is not 

interfering with maintenance of the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 50415 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other 

state and that North Carolina’s SIP 

includes adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions sources within the state from 

interfering with maintenance of this 

standard in any other state. 

V. Proposed Actions 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to approve North Carolina’s March 24, 

2016, SIP revision and the portions of 

Alabama’s December 9, 2015, SIP 

revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely propose to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

do not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ 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); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are 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.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do 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). 

The SIPs are 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 rules do not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will they impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 20, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18151 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0617; A–1–FRL– 

9950–02–Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; VT; Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, 

Nonattainment and Minor New Source 

Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

three State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Vermont. These revisions primarily 

amend several aspects of Vermont’s new 

source review permitting regulations. 

The permitting revisions are part of 

Vermont’s major and minor stationary 

source preconstruction permitting 

programs, and are intended to align 

Vermont’s regulations with the federal 

new source review regulations. The 

revisions also contain amendments to 

other Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements, including updating the 

State’s ambient air quality standards 

and certain emissions limits for sources 

of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. 

This action is being taken in accordance 

with the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 31, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2014–0617 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

mcdonnell.ida@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the ‘‘For 

Further Information Contact’’ section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida 

E. McDonnell, Manager, Air Permits, 

Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05–2), 

Boston, MA 02109–3912, phone number 

(617) 918–1653, fax number (617) 918– 

0653, email McDonnell.Ida@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal 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 action 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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS