58402 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA Approval 

date Federal Register citation Explanation 

*******

May 2013 Regional Haze Progress Report ............... 5/31/2013 8/25/2016 [Insert citation of publication].Includes updated reasonable progress goals for 

North Carolina’s Class I 

areas. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20309 Filed 8–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0169; FRL–9951–29– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; RACM 

Determination for Indiana Portion of 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) and reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) analysis that 

Indiana submitted as part of its 

attainment plan for the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) standard, in 

accordance with Indiana’s request dated 

February 11, 2016. The RACM/RACT 

analysis addresses RACM and RACT for 

the Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton nonattainment area for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. EPA is not acting 

on the portions of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 

that are unrelated to RACM/RACT. 

Other portions of the attainment plan 

have either been addressed or will be 

addressed in future rulemaking actions. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 24, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 26, 2016. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0169 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@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, 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, 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: 

Joseph Ko, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment, Planning and Maintenance 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7947, 

ko.joseph@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. What are EPA’s actions? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

RACM submittal? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

the first national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5. EPA 

promulgated an annual standard of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

(based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations) and a 24- 

hour standard of 65 mg/m3 (based on a 

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations). See 62 FR 

38652. On December 17, 2004, based on 

2001–2003 monitoring data, EPA 

designated the Cincinnati-Hamilton OHKY-IN area (the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area) as nonattainment for the annual 

standard for fine particles, and these 

designations became effective on April 

5, 2005. See 70 FR 944. On July 3, 2008, 

Indiana requested that EPA redesignate 

as attainment its portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area, showing that 

existing permanent and enforceable 

controls would provide for timely 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard 

by the attainment deadline of April 5, 

2010. On September 29, 2011, based on 

2007–2009 monitoring data, EPA made 

a ‘‘clean data determination’’ and 

determination of attainment, indicating 

that the entire area was attaining the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date. See 76 FR 60373. The 

clean data determination suspended all 

further planning SIP revision 

requirements. 

As part of its action approving the 

redesignation of the Indiana and Ohio 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

to attainment, published on December 

23, 2011, EPA found that the states of 

Ohio and Indiana had satisfied the 

remaining applicable requirements, 

including the requirement to submit an 

emission inventory in accordance with 

section 172(c)(3). See 76 FR 80253. The 

redesignation to attainment was based, 

in part, on EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation that Subpart 1 

nonattainment planning requirements, 

including RACM, are not ‘‘applicable’’ 

for purposes of Clean Air Act section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) when an area is 

attaining the NAAQS and, therefore, 

need not be approved into the SIP 

before EPA can redesignate the area. See 

76 FR 80258. 

On July 14, 2015, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

(Sixth Circuit) issued an opinion in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th 

Cir. 2015), vacating EPA’s redesignation 

of the Indiana and Ohio portions of the 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 58403 

1The Court issued its initial decision in the case 

on March 18, 2015, and subsequently issued an 

amended opinion on July 14 after appeals for 

rehearing en banc and panel rehearing had been 

filed. The amended opinion revised some of the 

legal aspects of the Court’s analysis of the relevant 

statutory provisions (section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and 

section 172(c)(1)) but the overall holding of the 

opinion was unaltered. On March 28, 2016, the 

Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari from 

Ohio requesting review of the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision. 

2Subpart 1 RACM requirements at 40 CFR 

51.1010 were not at issue in the D.C. Circuit’s 

remand of the PM2.5 implementation rule in the 

January 2013 Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA decision and are therefore not subject to the 

Court’s remand. Cf. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 

1252–53 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (upholding a substantially 

similar interpretation of Subpart 1 RACM in the 

context of ozone implementation regulations). 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on the basis 

that EPA had not approved subpart 1 

RACM for the area into the SIP.1 The 

Court concluded that ‘‘a State seeking 

redesignation ‘shall provide for the 

implementation’ of RACM/RACT, even 

if those measures are not strictly 

necessary to demonstrate attainment 

with the PM2.5 NAAQS. . . . If a State 

has not done so, EPA cannot ‘fully 

approve[]’ the area’s SIP, and 

redesignation to attainment status is 

improper.’’ Sierra Club, 793 F.3d at 670. 

EPA is adhering to the Court’s 

precedent within the jurisdiction of the 

Sixth Circuit, which does not include 

Indiana. Regardless, on February 11, 

2016, Indiana requested that EPA act on 

the RACM/RACT analysis for its portion 

of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from 

the earlier attainment plan SIP revision 

in order to eliminate any potential 

concern regarding the effect of the Sixth 

Circuit decision. 

II. What are EPA’s actions? 

EPA is approving Indiana’s requested 

SIP submission as providing for all 

reasonably available control measures, 

including reasonably available control 

technology, in accordance with the 

requirements of sections 172(c)(1) and 

189(a)(1)(C). More detail on EPA’s 

rationale is provided below. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

RACM submittal? 

a. Subpart 1 and Subpart 4 RACM 

Requirements 

RACM is required under both Subpart 

1 and Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of 

the CAA. See CAA section 172(c)(1) and 

section 189(a)(1)(C). Section 172(c)(1) 

requires that each attainment plan 

‘‘provide for the implementation of all 

reasonably available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from the 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology), and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ Similar 

language in section 189(a)(1)(C) requires 

RACM for PM2.5 plans. EPA’s current 

implementation guidance interprets 

RACM, including RACT, under section 

172(c)(1) as measures that are both 

reasonably available and necessary to 

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable in the nonattainment area. 

See 40 CFR 51.1010(a).2 A state must 

adopt, as RACM, measures that are 

reasonably available considering 

technical and economic feasibility if, 

considered collectively, they would 

advance the attainment date by one year 

or more. See 40 CFR 51.1010(b). EPA 

has also proposed implementation 

policy that applies a similar 

interpretation to RACM as required 

under section 189(a)(1)(C). 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule (72 

FR 20586) requires that the Subpart 1 

RACM portion of the attainment plan 

SIP revision include the list of potential 

measures that a state considered and 

additional information sufficient to 

show that the state has met all 

requirements for the determination of 

what constitutes RACM in a specific 

nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 

51.1010(a). Any measures that are 

necessary to meet these requirements 

that are not already either federally 

promulgated, part of the SIP, or 

otherwise creditable in SIPs must be 

submitted in enforceable form as part of 

a state’s attainment plan SIP revision for 

the area. As discussed above, a clean 

data determination suspends the 

requirement for a PM2.5 nonattainment 

area to submit an attainment plan SIP 

revision, including RACM, so long as 

the area continues to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). 

b. RACM Based Upon Attainment of the 

NAAQS 

EPA is approving the portion of 

Indiana’s July 3, 2008, requested 

attainment plan SIP revision that 

addresses Subpart 1 RACM for the 

State’s portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area on the basis that it is 

attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS and, therefore, no additional 

emission reduction measures beyond 

the existing measures in the SIP are 

necessary to demonstrate attainment or 

would advance the area’s attainment by 

one year or more. As noted above, EPA 

determined that the area met the 

standard by the April 5, 2010 attainment 

date. See 76 FR 60373. Indiana’s 

submission therefore meets the 

requirements of section 172(c)(1) 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1010. Given the 

similarity of requirements under 

Subpart 4, the submission also meets 

the RACT/RACM requirements of 

section 189(a)(1)(C). 

c. RACM Based Upon the State’s Control 

Evaluation 

Additionally, the portion of Indiana’s 

July 3, 2008 requested attainment plan 

SIP revision that addresses Subpart 1 

RACM for the State’s portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area is approvable 

on the basis that the requested SIP 

revision demonstrates that no additional 

reasonably available controls would 

have advanced the attainment date 

projected therein. 

Indiana determined that existing 

measures and measures planned for 

implementation by 2009 would result in 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area attaining 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

attainment deadline of April 5, 2010. 

Air quality modeling conducted by Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO) indicated that the area would 

attain the annual NAAQS in 2009 based 

upon projected emissions reductions 

from sources within the area after 2005 

(the base year of the nonattainment 

emissions inventory). As discussed in 

Chapter 6.0 of the July 3, 2008 SIP 

submission, the State considered the 

following existing federally enforceable 

measures in projecting the emissions 

inventory used for the 2009 modeling: 

Tier 2 vehicle standards; heavy-duty 

gasoline and diesel highway vehicle 

standards; large non-road diesel engine 

standards; non-road spark-ignition 

engines and recreational engines 

standards; nitrogen oxides (NOX) SIP 

call; and the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). Indiana adopted the NOX SIP 

Call in 2001, and beginning in 2004, this 

rule accounted for a reduction of 

approximately 31% of total NOX

emissions in Indiana compared to 

previous uncontrolled years. Indiana 

adopted a state rule in response to CAIR 

in 2006 which included an annual and 

seasonal NOX trading program, and an 

annual SO2 trading program. 

In addition to the federally 

enforceable measures mentioned above, 

Indiana also considered further Federal 

and statewide control measures that, 

once implemented, would further 

reduce emissions, but that were not 

included in the modeling 

demonstration. The Portable Fuel 

Container (Gas Can) Controls, and the 

Small Non-Road Engine Rules were 

considered as additional Federal 

controls that would reduce emissions. 

The Gas Can Controls Rule was issued 

on February 26, 2007 (71 FR 15830), and 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
58404 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

it was expected to significantly reduce 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

emissions. The Small Non-Road Engine 

Rule was proposed on April 17, 2007, 

and it was expected to result in a 70% 

reduction in hydrocarbon and NOX

emissions and a 20% reduction in 

carbon monoxide from new engines’ 

exhaust, as well as a 70% reduction in 

evaporative emissions. The following 

Indiana statewide VOC controls rules 

were considered: Consumer and 

Commercial Products Rule (326 IAC 8), 

Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings Rule (326 IAC 8– 

14), Automobile Refinishing Operations 

Rule (326 IAC 8–10), and Stage I Vapor 

Recovery Rule (326 IAC 8–4). 

In Indiana’s RACM analysis, which 

appears in chapter 7.0 of the July 3, 

2008, SIP submission, the State 

discusses its evaluation of sources of 

PM2.5 and its precursors within the 

Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area and its determination 

that these sources were meeting Subpart 

1 RACM levels of emissions control. As 

discussed above, a state must show that 

all Subpart 1 RACM (including RACT 

for stationary sources) necessary to 

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable have been adopted and 

must consider the cumulative impact of 

implementing available measures to 

determine whether a particular emission 

reduction measure or set of measures is 

required to be adopted as RACM. 

Potential measures that are reasonably 

available considering technical and 

economic feasibility must be adopted as 

RACM if, considered collectively, they 

would advance the attainment date by 

one year or more. 

Based on the emissions inventory and 

other information, the State identified 

the categories of sources that should be 

evaluated for controls. These categories 

include permitted stationary sources; 

gasoline dispensing facilities; on-road 

mobile sources; non-road and stationary 

internal combustion engines; open 

burning; and home heating with wood. 

Indiana, in conjunction with LADCO, 

conducted attainment test modeling that 

showed that the Indiana portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area would attain 

the current annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 

2009, one year before the attainment 

date deadline of 2010. Indiana evaluated 

candidate control measures for 

feasibility, cost effectiveness, and the 

ability to implement them in the set 

time frame. No additional measures 

were needed to demonstrate attainment 

in an expeditious fashion, since the 

conducted attainment test modeling 

showed that the area would attain the 

fine particles NAAQS by 2009. Indiana’s 

attainment demonstration was validated 

by quality assured monitoring data at 

the end of 2009. Therefore, EPA is 

approving the existing measures as 

meeting the requirements of RACM/ 

RACT. See 72 FR 20586. 

In addition to Indiana’s modeling 

demonstration of expeditious 

attainment and confirmatory monitoring 

data, the primary source for both direct 

PM2.5 and its precursor emissions for 

Indiana’s portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area (Tanners Creek power 

plant owned by American Electric 

Power) was permanently retired on June 

1, 2015. As a result of its retirement, 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 

emissions in the Indiana portion of the 

area have decreased significantly, 

further improving air quality, above and 

beyond what Indiana demonstrated as 

necessary to maintain attainment. 

EPA has reviewed the State’s RACM/ 

RACT analysis and discussion in 

Indiana’s attainment plan SIP revision, 

and agrees with the State’s conclusion 

that no other reasonably available 

measures were available or necessary to 

attain or advance attainment of the 

standard. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the RACM/RACT 

portion of Indiana’s CincinnatiHamilton area attainment plan SIP 

revision as providing adequate RACM/ 

RACT consistent with the provisions of 

40 CFR 51.1010(b), because Indiana has 

demonstrated that no further control 

measures would advance the attainment 

date in the area. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective October 24, 2016 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by September 

26, 2016. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

October 24, 2016. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive 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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 58405 

1Section 302(d) of the CAA includes the Virgin 

Islands in the definition of the term ‘‘State.’’ 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 24, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: August 9, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.776 is amended by 

adding paragraph (y) to read as follows: 

§ 52.776 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(y) Approval-By submittal dated July 

3, 2008, Indiana demonstrated 

satisfaction of the requirements for 

reasonably available control measures 

for its portion of the CincinnatiHamilton OH-KY-IN area. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20312 Filed 8–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2016–0088; FRL–9951–24– 

Region 2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants; Virgin Islands; Sewage 

Sludge Incinerators 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 111(d)/129 negative 

declaration for the Government of the 

United States Virgin Islands, for existing 

sewage sludge incinerator (SSI) units. 

This negative declaration certifies that 

existing SSI units subject to sections 

111(d) and 129 of the CAA do not exist 

within the jurisdiction of United States 

Virgin Islands. The EPA is accepting the 

negative declaration in accordance with 

the requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 24, 2016, without 

further notice, unless the EPA receives 

adverse comment by September 26, 

2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, 

we will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02– 

OAR–016–0088), to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). 

For additional submission methods, 

the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward J. Linky, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Programs 

Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New 

York 10007–1866 at 212–637–3764 or 

by email at Linky.Edward@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. Background 

II. Analysis of State Submittal 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that 

state 1 regulatory agencies implement 

the emission guidelines and compliance 

times using a state plan developed 

under sections 111(d) and 129 of the 

CAA. 

The general provisions for the 

submittal and approval of state plans are 

codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B 

and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Section 

111(d) establishes general requirements 

and procedures on state plan submittals 

for the control of designated pollutants. 

Section 129 requires emission 

guidelines to be promulgated for all 

categories of solid waste incineration 

units, including SSI units. Section 129 

mandates that all plan requirements be 

at least as protective and restrictive as 

the promulgated emission guidelines. 

This includes fixed final compliance 

dates, fixed compliance schedules, and 

Title V permitting requirements for all 

affected sources. Section 129 also 

requires that state plans be submitted to 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES