19526 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

the VISTAS region. Based on its 

conclusion that SO2 reductions would 

result in the greatest visibility 

improvements, North Carolina’s 2007 

regional haze SIP submission focused its 

reasonable progress control analysis on 

emission units that fall within the SO2

area of influence of any Class I area, as 

modeled by VISTAS, and have a one 

percent or greater contribution to the 

sulfate visibility impairment in at least 

one Class I area. See 77 FR 11869. 

Sixteen EGUs subject to the CSA and 

formerly subject to CAIR met North 

Carolina’s reasonable process screening 

criteria. The State subsequently 

concluded in its regional haze SIP 

submission that no additional controls 

beyond CAIR and the CSA were 

reasonable for these units during the 

first implementation period. See 77 FR 

11870, 11872. North Carolina’s longterm strategy relied, in part, on this 

conclusion. 

Ten of the 16 aforementioned units 

have shut down or converted to natural 

gas. The remaining coal-fired units have 

each installed FGD to comply with the 

CSA. Given North Carolina’s focus on 

reducing SO2 emissions to achieve 

reasonable progress and the fact that 

coal-fired EGUs remaining in operation 

are already subject to the most stringent 

SO2 controls available, EPA proposes to 

find that no additional controls are 

necessary for these units to achieve 

reasonable progress during the first 

implementation period. This proposed 

finding and the proposed finding that 

North Carolina’s BART Alternative 

meets the requirements of the Regional 

Haze Rule form the basis for EPA’s 

proposal to convert EPA’s limited 

disapproval of the State’s regional haze 

SIP to a full approval. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to find that North 

Carolina’s regional haze SIP revision 

meets the applicable requirements of the 

CAA and Regional Haze Rule, including 

the requirement that the BART 

Alternative achieve greater reasonable 

progress than would be achieved 

through the installation and operation of 

BART. EPA also proposes to find that 

final approval of this SIP revision would 

correct the deficiencies that led to EPA’s 

limited disapproval of the State’s 

regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012, and 

proposes to convert the EPA’s June 27, 

2012, limited approval to a full 

approval. These proposed actions, if 

finalized, would eliminate the need for 

EPA to issue a FIP to remedy the 

deficiencies in North Carolina’s 

December 17, 2007, SIP submission. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are 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); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon mo NOX ide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 25, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07670 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0696; FRL–9944–54– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; 

Transportation Conformity Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of South 

Carolina, through the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control, on October 13, 

2015. This revision consists of 

transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures related to interagency 

consultation and enforceability of 

certain transportation-related control 

measures and mitigation measures. The 

intended effect of this approval is to 

update the transportation conformity 

criteria and procedures in the South 

Carolina SIP to reorganize previous 

exhibits into a single Memorandum of 

Agreement document as well as to 

update signatories to add the newly 

established Lowcountry Area 

Transportation Study to the list of 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 

created to represent a new urbanized 

area designated as a result of the 2010 

Census. This proposed action is being 

taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 5, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0696 at http://


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19527 

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: 

Kelly Sheckler of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section at the 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. 

Sheckler’s telephone number is 404– 

562–9992. She can also be reached via 

electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

implementation plan revision as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: March 25, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07816 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[4500030113] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Findings on 

Petitions To List Island Marble 

Butterfly, San Bernardino Flying 

Squirrel, Spotless Crake, and 

Sprague’s Pipit as Endangered or 

Threatened Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

findings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12- 

month findings on petitions to list the 

island marble butterfly, the San 

Bernardino flying squirrel, the 

American Samoa population of the 

spotless crake, and the Sprague’s pipit 

as endangered species or threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that listing the island marble butterfly as 

an endangered or threatened species is 

warranted. Currently, however, listing 

the island marble butterfly is precluded 

by higher priority actions to amend the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication 

of this 12-month petition finding, we 

will add the island marble butterfly to 

our candidate species list. We will 

develop a proposed rule to list the 

island marble butterfly as our priorities 

allow. After review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that listing the San Bernardino 

flying squirrel, the American Samoa 

population of the spotless crake, and the 

Sprague’s pipit is not warranted at this 

time. However, we ask the public to 

submit to us any new information that 

becomes available concerning the 

stressors to the San Bernardino flying 

squirrel, the American Samoa 

population of the spotless crake, the 

Sprague’s pipit, or their habitats at any 

time. 

DATES: The findings announced in this 

document were made on April 5, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: These findings are available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov at the following 

docket numbers: 

Species Docket No. 

Island marble butterfly ........................................................................................................................................... FWS–R1–ES–2014–0025. 

San Bernardino flying squirrel ............................................................................................................................... FWS–R8–ES–2016–0046. 

American Samoa population of the spotless crake ............................................................................................... FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0048. 

Sprague’s pipit ....................................................................................................................................................... FWS–R6–ES–2009–0081. 

Supporting information used in 

preparing these findings is available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, by 

contacting the appropriate person, as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any 

new information, materials, comments, 

or questions concerning these findings 

to the appropriate person, as specified 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Species Contact information 

Island marble butterfly .................... Eric V. Rickerson, State Supervisor, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 360–753–9440; eric_rickerson@

fws.gov. 

San Bernardino flying squirrel ........ Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 760–731–9440; mendel_stewart@

fws.gov. 

American Samoa population of the 

Spotless crake.

Mary Abrams, Project Leader, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 808–792–9400; mary_abrams@

fws.gov. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS