Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57509 

involves a safety zone lasting four 

weeks, for three days a week, that will 

prohibit entry within 500 yards of the 

small boat ‘‘Nessy’’ and all involved 

associated support vessels, while in the 

area encompassing these points: 

46°15′45′′ N., 123°59′39′′ W.; 46°15′24′′ 

N., 123°59′42′′ W.; 46°13′32′′ N., 

123°57′18′′ W.; 46°15′9′′ N., 123°55′24′′ 

W.; and 46°15′54′′ N., 123°58′6′′ W., 

while personnel are conducting the 

removal operations of the DoubleCrested Cormorant. Normally such 

actions are categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph 34(g) of 

Figure 2–1 of Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist and 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, you may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding the Federal Docket 

Management System in the March 24, 

2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 

FR 15086). 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T13–0818 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T13–0818 Safety Zone; Columbia 

River. 

(a) Location. The safety zone covered 

by this rule will cover all navigable 

waters of the Columbia River within 500 

yards of the small boat ‘‘Nessy,’’ and all 

involved associated support vessels, 

while in the area encompassing these 

points: 46°15′45′′ N., 123°59′39′′ W.; 

46°15′24′′ N., 123°59′42′′ W.; 46°13′32′′ 

N., 123°57′18′′ W.; 46°15′9′′ N., 

123°55′24′′ W.; and 46°15′54′′ N., 

123°58′6′′ W. 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in subpart C of 

this part, no person may enter or remain 

in the safety zone created in this section 

or bring, cause to be brought, or allow 

to remain in the safety zone created in 

this section any vehicle, vessel, or object 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port or his designated representative. 

(c) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

may enforce the rules in this section. In 

the navigable waters of the United 

States to which this section applies, 

when immediate action is required and 

representatives of the Coast Guard are 

not present or are not present in 

sufficient force to provide effective 

enforcement of this section, any Federal 

Law Enforcement Officer or Oregon Law 

Enforcement Officer or Washington Law 

Enforcement Officer may enforce the 

rules contained in this section pursuant 

to 46 U.S.C. 70118. In addition, the 

Captain of the Port may be assisted by 

members of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Wildlife Services onboard 

the small boat ‘‘Nessy,’’ and other 

federal, state, or local agencies in 

enforcing this section. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

is effective from September 21, 2016, 

through October 21, 2016. It will be 

enforced when the small boat ‘‘Nessy,’’ 

and all involved associated support 

vessels, are conducting the removal 

operations of the Double-Crested 

Cormorant. The small boat ‘‘Nessy’’ is 

described as a 20-foot black and gray 

aluminum work skiff with an overhead 

light arch. The Coast Guard will inform 

mariners of any change to this period of 

enforcement via Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners. 

Dated: August 17, 2016. 

W. R. Timmons, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Sector Columbia River. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20132 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0429; FRL–9951–16– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; SC; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the 

State of South Carolina, through the 

South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), 

on December 18, 2015, to demonstrate 

that the State meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the 2012 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

The CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. SC DHEC certified 

that the South Carolina SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2012 Annual 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57510 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions States 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

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

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

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

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

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

rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term 

‘‘South Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulation’’ 

or ‘‘Regulation’’ indicates that the cited regulation 

has been approved into South Carolina’s federallyapproved SIP. The term ‘‘South Carolina statute’’ 

indicates cited South Carolina state statutes, which 

are not a part of the SIP unless otherwise indicated. 

2South Carolina’s 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP submission dated December 18, 

2015, is referred to as ‘‘South Carolina’s PM2.5

infrastructure SIP’’ in this action. 

3Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

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

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

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

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

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

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

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

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, title I of the CAA. This proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

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

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

4This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

5As mentioned previously, this element is not 

relevant to this proposed rulemaking. 

PM2.5 NAAQS is implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in South 

Carolina. EPA is proposing to determine 

that portions of South Carolina’s 

infrastructure submission, submitted to 

EPA on December 18, 2015, satisfy 

certain required infrastructure elements 

for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 22, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0429 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: 

Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Bell 

can be reached via electronic mail at 

bell.tiereny@epa.gov or via telephone at 

(404) 562–9088. 

I. Background and Overview 

On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086, 

January 15, 2013), EPA promulgated a 

revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The standard was strengthened from 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3) to 12.0 mg/m3. Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA, States are required 

to submit SIPs meeting the applicable 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) within 

three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS or within such 

shorter period as EPA may prescribe. 

Section 110(a)(2) requires states to 

address basic SIP elements such as 

requirements for monitoring, basic 

program requirements and legal 

authority that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs for the 2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS to EPA no later than December 

14, 2015.1

This rulemaking is proposing to 

approve portions of South Carolina’s 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submissions 2

for the applicable requirements of the 

2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, with the 

exception of the interstate transport 

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

and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), for which 

EPA is not proposing any action in this 

rulemaking regarding these 

requirements. For the aspects of South 

Carolina’s submittal proposed for 

approval in this rulemaking, EPA notes 

that the Agency is not approving any 

specific rule, but rather proposing that 

South Carolina’s already approved SIP 

meets certain CAA requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

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

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

mentioned previously, these 

requirements include basic SIP elements 

such as requirements for monitoring, 

basic program requirements and legal 

authority that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The requirements that are the 

subject of this proposed rulemaking are 

summarized later on and in EPA’s 

September 13, 2013, memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 3

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and 

Other Control Measures 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 4

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

Pollution Transport 

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

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution 

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

Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

Regional Agencies 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source 

Monitoring and Reporting 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers 

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for 

Nonattainment Areas 5

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Visibility Protection 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling 

and Submission of Modeling Data 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57511 

6For 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. 

7See, 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)). 

8EPA 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. 

9See, 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). 

10On 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. 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from South Carolina that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The requirement for states to 

make a SIP submission of this type 

arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

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

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. Section 110(a)(1) addresses the 

timing and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.6 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

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

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.7 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.8 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

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

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.9

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to 

act at different times on various 

elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submission.10

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

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

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

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

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57512 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11For example, implementation of the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (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. 

12EPA 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. 

13 ‘‘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. 14EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

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

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

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 

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

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

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

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

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. On March 17, 2016, EPA 

released a memorandum titled, ‘‘Information on the 

Interstate Transport ‘Good Neighbor’ Provision for 

the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ to provide guidance to states for 

interstate transport requirements specific to the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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.11

EPA notes that interpretation of 

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

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

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

these other types of SIP submissions. 

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

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

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

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

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

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

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

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. Given the potential for ambiguity 

in some of the statutory language of 

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

EPA believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

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

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

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

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.12 EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).13 EPA developed 

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

for any new or revised NAAQS. Within 

this guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

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

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.14 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submissions need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

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

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

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

implementation plan appropriately 

addresses the requirements of section 

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

2013 Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a 

variety of ways by which states can 

appropriately address these substantive 

statutory requirements, depending on 

the structure of an individual state’s 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., 

whether permits and enforcement 

orders are approved by a multi-member 

board or by a head of an executive 

agency). However they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

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

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

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

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

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and new 

source review (NSR) pollutants, 

including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By 

contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions 

that are not required under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are 

merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the 2012 

Annual 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 

implementation plan meets basic 

structural requirements. For example, 

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

other things, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

NSR program and whether the program 

addresses the pollutants relevant to that 

NAAQS. In the context of acting on an 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57513 

15By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

16For 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). 

17EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

18See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

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

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

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) 

(final disapproval of such provisions). 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.15 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

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

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

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

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

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

gives simpler recommendations with 

respect to carbon monoxide than other 

NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

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

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Finally, EPA believes 

that its approach with respect to 

infrastructure SIP requirements is based 

on a reasonable reading of sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA 

provides other avenues and mechanisms 

to address specific substantive 

deficiencies in existing SIPs. These 

other statutory tools allow EPA to take 

appropriately tailored action, depending 

upon the nature and severity of the 

alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) 

authorizes EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ 

whenever the Agency determines that a 

state’s implementation plan is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.16 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.17

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.18

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

South Carolina addressed the elements 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

South Carolina’s December 18, 2015, 

infrastructure SIP submission addresses 

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

(2) as described later in this preamble. 

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

Other Control Measures: Section 

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

implementation plan include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements. Several 

regulations within South Carolina’s SIP 

are relevant to air quality control 

regulations. The regulations described 

later have been federally-approved in 

the South Carolina SIP and include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures. Regulation 61– 

62.5, Standard No. 2, Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and Regulation 61– 

62.1, Definitions and General 

Requirements, provide enforceable 

emission limits and other control 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57514 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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

entitled, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of 

EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend 

Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During 

Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.’’ 

See 80 FR 33840. 

20On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

measures, means, and techniques. 

Section 48–1–50(23) of the 1976 South 

Carolina Code of Laws, as amended, 

(S.C. Code Ann.) provides SC DHEC 

with the authority to ‘‘Adopt emission 

and effluent control regulations 

standards and limitations that are 

applicable to the entire state, that are 

applicable only within specified areas 

or zones of the state, or that are 

applicable only when a specified class 

of pollutant is present.’’ Collectively 

these regulations establish enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means or techniques, for 

activities that contribute to PM2.5

concentrations in the ambient air and 

provide authority for SC DHEC to 

establish such limits and measures as 

well as schedules for compliance to 

meet the applicable requirements of the 

CAA. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that the provisions 

contained in these State regulations and 

State statute are adequate for 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques, as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance to satisfy the 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2(A) for 

the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

State. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during start up, shut down 

and malfunction (SSM) operations at a 

facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and 

the Agency is addressing such state 

regulations in a separate action.19

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of states have such provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 

1987)), and the Agency plans to take 

action in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

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

Monitoring/Data System: Section 

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

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to: (i) 

Monitor, compile, and analyze data on 

ambient air quality, and (ii) upon 

request, make such data available to the 

Administrator. South Carolina’s Air 

Pollution Control Regulations, 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

along with the South Carolina Network 

Description and Ambient Air Network 

Monitoring Plan, provide for an ambient 

air quality monitoring system in the 

State. S.C. Code Ann. § 48–1–50(14) 

provides the Department with the 

necessary authority to ‘‘[c]ollect and 

disseminate information on air and 

water control.’’ Annually, states develop 

and submit to EPA for approval 

statewide ambient monitoring network 

plans consistent with the requirements 

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

annual network plan involves an 

evaluation of any proposed changes to 

the monitoring network, includes the 

annual ambient monitoring network 

design plan and a certified evaluation of 

the agency’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.20 On July 

20, 2015, South Carolina submitted its 

plan to EPA. On November 19, 2015, 

EPA approved South Carolina’s 

monitoring network plan. South 

Carolina’s approved monitoring network 

plan can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0429. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that South Carolina’s SIP and practices 

are adequate for the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system 

requirements related to the 2012 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources: This element 

consists of three sub-elements: 

Enforcement, state-wide regulation of 

new and modified minor sources and 

minor modifications of major sources, 

and preconstruction permitting of major 

sources and major modifications in 

areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as 

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

major source PSD program). These 

requirements are met through 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

and Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 

7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review, 

and 61–62.1, Section II, Permit 

Requirements, of South Carolina’s SIP, 

which pertain to the construction of any 

new major stationary source or any 

modification at an existing major 

stationary source in an area designated 

as attainment or unclassifiable. These 

regulations enable SC DHEC to regulate 

sources contributing to the 2012 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Enforcement: SC DHEC’s abovedescribed, SIP-approved regulations 

provide for enforcement of PM2.5

emission limits and control measures 

through construction permitting for new 

or modified stationary sources. South 

Carolina cites to statute 48–1–50(11), 

which provides SC DHEC the authority 

to administer penalties for violations of 

any order, permit, regulation or 

standards; and 48–1–50(10), which 

authorizes SCDHEC to require and 

approve construction plans for sources 

and inspect the construction thereof for 

compliance with the approved plan. 

Additionally, SCDHEC is authorized 

under 48–1–50(3) and (4) to issue orders 

requiring the discontinuance of the 

discharge of air contaminants into the 

ambient air that create an undesirable 

level, and seek an injunction to compel 

compliance with the Pollution Control 

Act and permits, permit conditions and 

orders. 

PSD Permitting for Major Sources: 

EPA interprets the PSD sub-element to 

require that a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for a particular NAAQS 

demonstrate that the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program in 

place covering the structural PSD 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. A state’s PSD permitting 

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

related to PSD) if EPA has already 

approved or is simultaneously 

approving the state’s implementation 

plan with respect to all structural PSD 

requirements that are due under the 

EPA regulations or the CAA on or before 

the date of the EPA’s proposed action on 

the infrastructure SIP submission. 

For the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

South Carolina’s authority to regulate 

new and modified sources to assist in 

the protection of air quality in South 

Carolina is established in Regulations 

61–62.1, Section II, Permit 

Requirements; 61–62.5, Standard No. 7, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of South Carolina’s SIP. These 

regulations pertain to the construction 

of any new major stationary source or 

any modification at an existing major 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57515 

21More information concerning how the South 

Carolina infrastructure SIP submission currently 

meets applicable requirements for the PSD elements 

(110(a)(2)(C); (D)(i)(I), prong 3; and (J)) can be found 

in the technical support document in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

stationary source in an area designated 

as attainment or unclassifiable. South 

Carolina also cites to 61–62.5, Standard 

No. 7.1, Nonattainment New Source 

Review. South Carolina’s infrastructure 

SIP submission demonstrates that new 

major sources and major modifications 

in areas of the State designated 

attainment or unclassifiable for the 

specified NAAQS are subject to a 

federally-approved PSD permitting 

program meeting all the current 

structural requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA to satisfy the infrastructure 

SIP PSD elements.21

Regulation of minor sources and 

modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also 

requires the SIP to include provisions 

that govern the minor source 

preconstruction program that regulates 

emissions of the 2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Regulation 61–62.1, Section II, 

Permit Requirements governs the 

preconstruction permitting of minor 

modifications and construction of minor 

stationary sources in South Carolina. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

and practices are adequate for 

enforcement of control measures, PSD 

permitting for major sources, and 

regulation of minor sources and 

modifications related to the 2012 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

Pollution Transport: Section 

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

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

Each of these components has two 

subparts resulting in four distinct 

components, commonly referred to as 

‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The first 

two prongs, which are codified in 

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

that prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

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

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

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

prongs, which are codified in section 

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

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

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

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: 

EPA is not proposing any action in this 

rulemaking related to the interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

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

(prongs 1 and 2). EPA will consider 

these requirements in relation to South 

Carolina’s 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure submission in a separate 

rulemaking. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

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

PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this 

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to: A PSD program meeting all 

the current structural requirements of 

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

state contains a nonattainment area that 

has the potential to impact PSD in 

another state) a NNSR program. As 

discussed in more detail previously 

under section 110(a)(2)(C), South 

Carolina’s SIP contains provisions for 

the State’s PSD program that reflect the 

required structural PSD requirements to 

satisfy the requirement of prong 3 and 

a NNSR program at 61–62.5, Standard 

No. 7.1, Nonattainment New Source 

Review. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

is adequate for interstate transport for 

PSD permitting of major sources and 

major modifications related to the 2012 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for section 

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

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

proposing any action in this rulemaking 

related to provisions pertaining to 

visibility protection in other states of 

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

will consider these requirements in 

relation to South Carolina’s 2012 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure 

submission in a separate rulemaking. 

5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution 

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

ensuring compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standards 7 and 7.1 

(q)(2)(iv), Public Participation, requires 

SC DHEC to notify air agencies ‘‘whose 

lands may be affected by emissions’’ 

from each new or modified major source 

if such emissions may significantly 

contribute to levels of pollution in 

excess of a NAAQS in any air quality 

control region outside of South 

Carolina. Additionally, South Carolina 

does not have any pending obligation 

under section 115 and 126 of the CAA. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

and practices are adequate for ensuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement for 

the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

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

requires that each implementation plan 

provide: (i) Necessary assurances that 

the State will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) 

that the state comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and 

(iii) necessary assurances that, where 

the state has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the state has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such plan provisions. EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

SIP as meeting the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E). EPA’s rationale for 

this proposal respecting each 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(E) is 

described in turn later in this preamble. 

With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

and (iii), SC DHEC develops, 

implements and enforces EPA-approved 

SIP provisions in the State. S.C. Code 

Ann. Section 48, Title 1, as referenced 

in South Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submission, provides the SC DHEC’s 

general legal authority to establish a SIP 

and implement related plans. In 

particular, S.C. Code Ann. Section 48– 

1–50(12) grants SC DHEC the statutory 

authority to ‘‘[a]ccept, receive and 

administer grants or other funds or gifts 

for the purpose of carrying out any of 

the purposes of this chapter; [and to] 

accept, receive and receipt for federal 

money given by the Federal government 

under any Federal law to the State of 

South Carolina for air or water control 

activities, surveys or programs.’’ S.C. 

Code Ann. Section 48, Title 2 grants SC 

DHEC statutory authority to establish 

environmental protection funds, which 

provide resources for SC DHEC to carry 

out its obligations under the CAA. 

Specifically, in Regulation 61–30, 

Environmental Protection Fees, SC 

DHEC established fees for sources 

subject to air permitting programs. SC 

DHEC implements the SIP in 

accordance with the provisions of S.C. 

Code Ann § 1–23–40 (the 

Administrative Procedures Act) and S.C. 

Code Ann. Section 48, Title 1. For 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the submission 

states that South Carolina does not rely 

on localities for specific SIP 

implementation. 

The requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

and (iii) are further confirmed when 

EPA performs a completeness 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57516 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

determination for each SIP submittal. 

This provides additional assurances that 

each submittal includes information 

addressing the adequacy of personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under State 

law used to carry out the State’s 

implementation plan and related issues. 

This information is included in all 

prehearings and final SIP submittal 

packages for approval by EPA. 

As evidence of the adequacy of SC 

DHEC’s resources with respect to subelements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a 

letter to South Carolina on April 19, 

2016, outlining 105 grant commitments 

and the current status of these 

commitments for fiscal year 2015. The 

letter EPA submitted to South Carolina 

can be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2014–0429. Annually, states update 

these grant commitments based on 

current SIP requirements, air quality 

planning, and applicable requirements 

related to the NAAQS. There were no 

outstanding issues in relation to the SIP 

for fiscal year 2015, therefore, SC 

DHEC’s grants were finalized and closed 

out. 

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

states comply with section 128 of the 

CAA. Section 128 of the CAA requires 

that states include provisions in their 

SIP to address conflicts of interest for 

state boards or bodies that oversee CAA 

permits and enforcement orders and 

disclosure of conflict of interest 

requirements. Specifically, CAA section 

128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall 

require that at least a majority of any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders shall be subject to 

the described public interest service and 

income restrictions therein. Subsection 

128(a)(2) requires that the members of 

any board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar power to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA, shall also be subject to 

conflict of interest disclosure 

requirements. 

With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), South 

Carolina satisfies the requirements of 

CAA section 128(a)(1) for the South 

Carolina Board of Health and 

Environmental Control, which is the 

‘‘board or body which approves permits 

and enforcement orders’’ under the CAA 

in South Carolina, through S.C. Code 

Ann. Section 8–13–730. S.C. Code Ann. 

Section 8–13–730 provides that 

‘‘[u]nless otherwise provided by law, no 

person may serve as a member of a 

governmental regulatory agency that 

regulates business with which that 

person is associated,’’ and S.C. Code 

Ann. Section 8–13–700(A) which 

provides in part that ‘‘[n]o public 

official, public member, or public 

employee may knowingly use his 

official office, membership, or 

employment to obtain an economic 

interest for himself, a member of his 

immediate family, an individual with 

whom he is associated, or a business 

with which he is associated.’’ S.C. Code 

Ann. Section 8–13–700(B)(1)–(5) 

provides for disclosure of any conflicts 

of interest by public official, public 

member or public employee, which 

meets the requirement of CAA Section 

128(a)(2) that ‘‘any potential conflicts of 

interest . . . be adequately disclosed.’’ 

These State statutes—S.C. Code Ann. 

Sections 8–13–730, 8–13–700(A), and 

8–13–700(B)(1)–(5)—have been 

approved into the South Carolina SIP as 

required by CAA section 128. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina has 

satisfied the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E) 

for implementation of the 2012 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

Monitoring and Reporting: Section 

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

applicable requirements addressing (i) 

the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to this section, 

which reports shall be available at 

reasonable times for public inspection. 

SC DHEC’s infrastructure SIP 

submission describes the establishment 

of requirements for compliance testing 

by emissions sampling and analysis, 

and for emissions and operation 

monitoring to ensure the quality of data 

in the State. SC DHEC uses these data 

to track progress towards maintaining 

the NAAQS, develop control and 

maintenance strategies, identify sources 

and general emission levels, and 

determine compliance with emission 

regulations and additional EPA 

requirements. These SIP requirements 

are codified at Regulation 61–62.1, 

Definitions and General Requirements, 

which provides for emission inventories 

and other emission monitoring and 

reporting requirements for stationary 

sources. R. 61–62.1, Section III, 

Emission Inventory, provides for an 

emission inventory plan that establishes 

reporting requirements for various 

pollutants from permitted facilities on 

annual or three year cycles, depending 

on emission levels and nonattainment 

area status. Further, S.C. Code Ann. 

§ 48–1–22 provides the Department with 

the necessary authority to ‘‘Require the 

owner of operator of any source or 

disposal system to establish and 

maintain such operational records; 

make reports; install, use and maintain 

monitoring equipment or methods; 

samples and analyze emissions or 

discharges in accordance with 

prescribed methods, at locations, 

intervals, and procedures as the 

Department shall prescribe; and provide 

such other information as the 

Department reasonably may require.’’ 

Finally, R. 61–62.1, Section V, Credible 

Evidence, specifies that non-reference 

test data and other information already 

available and utilized for other purposes 

may be used to demonstrate compliance 

or noncompliance with emission 

standards. Accordingly, EPA is unaware 

of any provision preventing the use of 

credible evidence in the South Carolina 

SIP. 

Additionally, South Carolina is 

required to submit emissions data to 

EPA for purposes of the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 

EPA’s central repository for air 

emissions data. EPA published the Air 

Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on 

December 5, 2008, which modified the 

requirements for collecting and 

reporting air emissions data (73 FR 

76539). The AERR shortened the time 

states had to report emissions data from 

17 to 12 months, giving states one 

calendar year to submit emissions data. 

All states are required to submit a 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

every three years and report emissions 

for certain larger sources annually 

through EPA’s online Emissions 

Inventory System. States report 

emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and their associated 

precursors—NOX, SO2, ammonia, lead, 

carbon monoxide, particulate matter, 

and volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. South 

Carolina made its latest update to the 

2011 NEI on April 8, 2014. EPA 

compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

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

chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

South Carolina’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, 

EPA is proposing to approve South 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

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

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

This section of the Act requires that 

states demonstrate authority comparable 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57517 

with section 303 of the CAA and 

adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority. Regulation 

61–62.3, Air Pollution Episodes, 

provides for contingency measures 

when an air pollution episode or 

exceedance may lead to a substantial 

threat to the health of persons in the 

state or region. S.C. Code Ann. Section 

48–1–290 provides SC DHEC, with 

concurrent notice to the Governor, the 

authority to issue an order recognizing 

the existence of an emergency requiring 

immediate action as deemed necessary 

by SC DHEC to protect the public health 

or property. Any person subject to this 

order is required to comply 

immediately. Additionally, S.C. Code 

Ann. Section 1–23–130 provides SC 

DHEC with the authority to establish 

emergency regulations to address an 

imminent peril to public health, or 

welfare, and authorizes emergency 

regulations to protect natural resources 

if any natural resource related agency in 

the State finds that abnormal or unusual 

conditions, immediate need, or the 

State’s best interest require such 

emergency action. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP, State laws, and practices 

are adequate for emergency powers 

related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 

to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

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

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

SIP to provide for revisions of such 

plan: (i) As may be necessary to take 

account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air 

quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard, and (ii) 

whenever the Administrator finds that 

the plan is substantially inadequate to 

attain the NAAQS or to otherwise 

comply with any additional applicable 

requirements. SC DHEC is responsible 

for adopting air quality rules and 

revising SIPs as needed to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS in South Carolina. 

The State has the ability and authority 

to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and 

has provided a number of SIP revisions 

over the years for implementation of the 

NAAQS. S.C. Code Ann. Section 48, 

Title 1, provides SC DHEC with the 

necessary authority to revise the SIP to 

accommodate changes in the NAAQS 

and thus revise the SIP as appropriate. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina 

adequately demonstrates a commitment 

to provide future SIP revisions related to 

the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when 

necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

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

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

South Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS with respect to the general 

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

include a program in the SIP that 

complies with the applicable 

consultation requirements of section 

121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, PSD and 

visibility protection. EPA’s rationale for 

each sub-element is described later in 

this preamble. 

Consultation with government 

officials (121 consultation): Section 

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

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments, designated 

organizations and Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to section 121 relative to consultation. 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

as well as the State’s Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan (which allows for 

consultation between appropriate state, 

local, and tribal air pollution control 

agencies as well as the corresponding 

FLM), provide for consultation with 

government officials whose jurisdictions 

might be affected by SIP development 

activities. South Carolina has SIPapproved state-wide consultation 

procedures for the implementation of 

transportation conformity (see 69 FR 

4245). Implementation of transportation 

conformity as outlined in the 

consultation procedures requires SC 

DHEC to consult with federal, state and 

local transportation and air quality 

agency officials on the development of 

motor vehicle emissions budgets. 

Additionally, S.C. Code Section 48–1– 

50(8) provides SC DHEC with the 

necessary authority to ‘‘Cooperate with 

the governments of the United States or 

other states or state agencies or 

organizations, official or unofficial, in 

respect to pollution control matters or 

for the formulation of interstate 

pollution control compacts or 

agreements.’’ EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with 

government officials related to the 2012 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve South Carolina’s infrastructure 

SIP submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(J) consultation with 

government officials. 

Public notification (127 public 

notification): Regulation 61–62.3, Air 

Pollution Episodes, requires that SC 

DHEC notify the public of any air 

pollution episode or NAAQS violation. 

S.C. Code Ann. § 48–1–60 establishes 

that ‘‘Classification and standards of 

quality and purity of the environment 

[are] authorized after notice and 

hearing.’’ Additionally, Regulation 61– 

62.5, Standard 7.1 (q), Public 

Participation, notifies the public by 

advertisement in a newspaper of general 

circulation in each region in which a 

proposed plant or modifications will be 

constructed of the degree of increment 

consumption that is expected from the 

plant or modification, and the 

opportunity for comment at a public 

hearing as well as the opportunity to 

provide written public comment. An 

opportunity for a public hearing for 

interested persons to appear and submit 

written or oral comments on the air 

quality impact of the plant or 

modification, alternatives to the plant or 

modification, the control technology 

required, and other appropriate 

considerations is also offered. 

EPA also notes that SC DHEC 

maintains a Web site that provides the 

public with notice of the health hazards 

associated with PM2.5 NAAQS 

exceedances, measures the public can 

take to help prevent such exceedances, 

and the ways in which the public can 

participate in the regulatory process. 

See http://www.scdhec.gov/ 

HomeAndEnvironment/Air/ 

MostCommonPollutants/ 

ParticulateMatter/. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate the State’s ability to 

provide public notification related to 

the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when 

necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public 

notification. 

PSD: With regard to the PSD element 

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

is be met by a state’s confirmation in an 

infrastructure SIP submission that the 

state has a SIP-approved PSD program 

meeting all the current structural 

requirements of part C of title I of the 

CAA for all NSR regulated pollutants. 

As discussed in more detail previously 

under the section discussing 

110(a)(2)(C), South Carolina’s SIP 

contains provisions for the State’s PSD 

program that reflect required structural 

PSD requirements to satisfy the PSD 

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

made the preliminary determination 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57518 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

22This regulation has not been incorporated into 

the federally-approved SIP. 

23Title V program regulations are federallyapproved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. 

that South Carolina’s SIP is adequate for 

PSD permitting of major sources and 

major modifications for the PSD element 

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

Visibility protection: EPA’s 2013 

Guidance notes that it does not treat the 

visibility protection aspects of section 

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

the infrastructure SIP approval process. 

SC DHEC referenced its regional haze 

program as germane to the visibility 

component of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA 

recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility protection and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the Act (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). However, there are no newly 

applicable visibility protection 

obligations after the promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has 

determined that states do not need to 

address the visibility component of 

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

submittals so SC DHEC does not need to 

rely on its regional haze program to 

fulfill its obligations under section 

110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS is approvable for the visibility 

protection element of section 

110(a)(2)(J) and that South Carolina does 

not need to rely on its regional haze 

program. 

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

and Submission of Modeling Data: 

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

that SIPs provide for performing air 

quality modeling so that effects on air 

quality of emissions from NAAQS 

pollutants can be predicted and 

submission of such data to the EPA can 

be made. Regulations 61–62.5, Standard 

No. 2, Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

and Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

of the South Carolina SIP specify that 

required air modeling be conducted in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality 

Models, as incorporated into the South 

Carolina SIP. Also, S.C. Code Ann. § 48– 

1–50(14) provides SC DHEC with the 

necessary authority to ‘‘Collect and 

disseminate information on air and 

water control.’’ Additionally, South 

Carolina participates in a regional effort 

to coordinate the development of 

emissions inventories and conduct 

regional modeling for several NAAQS, 

including the 2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS, for the southeastern states. 

Taken as a whole, South Carolina’s air 

quality regulations and practices 

demonstrate that SC DHEC has the 

authority to provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any pollutant for which a NAAQS had 

been promulgated, and to provide such 

information to the EPA Administrator 

upon request. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate the State’s ability to 

provide for air quality modeling, along 

with analysis of the associated data, 

related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 

to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires the owner 

or operator of each major stationary 

source to pay to the permitting 

authority, as a condition of any permit 

required under the CAA, a fee sufficient 

to cover: (i) The reasonable costs of 

reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

S.C. Code Ann. Section 48–2–50 

prescribes that SC DHEC charge fees for 

environmental programs it administers 

pursuant to federal and State law and 

regulations including those that govern 

the costs to review, implement and 

enforce PSD and NNSR permits. 

Regulation 61–30, Environmental 

Protection Fees 22 prescribes fees 

applicable to applicants and holders of 

permits, licenses, certificates, 

certifications, and registrations, 

establishes procedures for the payment 

of fees, provides for the assessment of 

penalties for nonpayment, and 

establishes an appeals process for 

refuting fees. This regulation may be 

amended as needed to meet the funding 

requirements of the State’s permitting 

program. Additionally, South Carolina 

has a federally-approved title V 

program, Regulation 61–62.70, Title V 

Operating Permit Program,23 which fees 

provide for the implementation and 

enforcement of the requirements of PSD 

and NNSR for facilities once they begin 

operating. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

provide for permitting fees related to the 

2012 NAAQS when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve South Carolina’s infrastructure 

SIP submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(L). 

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

participation by affected local entities: 

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

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. Regulation 61–62.5, Standard 

No. 7, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration, of the South Carolina SIP 

requires that SC DHEC notify the public, 

which includes local entities, of an 

application, preliminary determination, 

the activity or activities involved in the 

permit action, any emissions change 

associated with any permit 

modification, and the opportunity for 

comment prior to making a final 

permitting decision. Also, as noted 

previously, S.C. Code Ann. Section 48– 

1–50(8) allows SC DHEC to ‘‘Cooperate 

with the governments of the United 

States or other states or state agencies or 

organizations, officials, or unofficial, in 

respect to pollution control matters or 

for the formulation of interstate 

pollution control compacts or 

agreements.’’ By way of example, SC 

DHEC has recently worked closely with 

local political subdivisions during the 

development of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP, Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan, and Ozone Early 

Action Compacts. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 2012 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility protection 

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

and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

December 18, 2015, SIP submission for 

the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

previously described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

approve these portions of South 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

because these aspects of the submission 

are consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57519 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action for 

the state of South Carolina does not 

have Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian 

Nation Reservation is located within the 

State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the 

Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, 

South Carolina statute 27–16–120, ‘‘all 

state and local environmental laws and 

regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian 

Nation] and Reservation and are fully 

enforceable by all relevant state and 

local agencies and authorities.’’ 

However, EPA has determined that 

because this proposed rule does not 

have substantial direct effects on an 

Indian Tribe because, as noted 

previously, this action is not approving 

any specific rule, but rather proposing 

that South Carolina’s already approved 

SIP meets certain CAA requirements. 

EPA notes this action will not 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, Particulate 

Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: August 9, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20141 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0486; EPA–R01– 

OAR–2008–0223; EPA–R01–OAR–2008– 

0447; EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0358; A–1– 

FRL–9950–96–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Maine, 

New Hampshire, Rhode Island and 

Vermont; Interstate Transport of Air 

Pollution 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(ME DEP), the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

(NH DES), the Rhode Island Department 

of Environmental Management (RI DEM) 

and the Vermont Department of 

Environmental Conservation (VT DEC). 

These SIP revisions address provisions 

of the Clean Air Act that require each 

state to submit a SIP to address 

emissions that may adversely affect 

another state’s air quality through 

interstate transport. The EPA is 

proposing that all four States have 

adequate provisions to prohibit in-state 

emissions activities from significantly 

contributing to, or interfering with the 

maintenance of, the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. The intended 

effect of this action is to propose 

approval of the SIP revisions submitted 

by Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont. This action is 

being taken under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 22, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by EPA–R01–OAR–2008– 

0486 for comments pertaining to our 

proposed action for Maine, EPA–R01– 

OAR–2008–0223 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

New Hampshire, EPA–R01–OAR–2008– 

0447 for comments pertaining to our 

proposed action for Rhode Island, or 

EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0358 for 

comments pertaining to our proposed 

action for Vermont, at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Arnold.Anne@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. 

Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post 

Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts. 

This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS