41498 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Scientist, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

Deborah Bredehoft, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 

Renner Blvd., Lenexa, Kansas 66219, 

(913) 551–7164, Bredehoft.Deborah@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is making this 

determination of attainment as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial action 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 

the rule, no further activity is 

contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn for the affected area and all 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. 

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 the 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. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules and Regulations section of 

this Federal Register. 

Dated: June 15, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

Dated: June 3, 2016. 

Mark Hague, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15049 Filed 6–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0251; FRL–9948–43– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; SC Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide 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 April 30, 2014, to demonstrate that 

the State meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2) national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires 

that each state adopt and submit a SIP 

for the implementation, maintenance 

and enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP submission. SC 

DHEC certified that the South Carolina 

SIP contains provisions that ensure the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS is implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in South 

Carolina. With the exception of 

provisions pertaining to prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) 

permitting, and interstate transport 

provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance and 

visibility in other states, for which EPA 

is proposing no action through this 

rulemaking, EPA is proposing to find 

that South Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submission, provided to EPA on April 

30, 2014, satisfies the required 

infrastructure elements for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 27, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0251 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: 

Richard Wong, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Wong 

can be reached via telephone at (404) 

562–8726 or electronic mail at 

wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Overview 

On February 9, 2010, EPA published 

a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2

at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), 

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 1- 

hour daily maximum concentrations. 

See 75 FR 6474. Pursuant to section 

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

to submit SIPs meeting the 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 

requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41499 

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. 

2Two 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. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

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

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than 

January 22, 2013.1

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve South Carolina’s infrastructure 

SIP submission for the applicable 

requirements of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 

of D(i), and (J) and the interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility (i.e., prongs 1, 2, 

and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)). On 

March 18, 2015, EPA approved South 

Carolina’s April 30, 2014, infrastructure 

SIP submission regarding the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 

of D(i), and (J) for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. Therefore, 

EPA is not proposing any action 

pertaining to these requirements. With 

respect to South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

interstate transport provisions 

pertaining to the contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in other states and 

visibility of prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is not proposing any 

action today. EPA will act on these 

provisions in a separate action. For the 

aspects of South Carolina’s submittal 

proposed for approval today, 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. In the 

case of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous NAAQS. 

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 ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

mentioned above, these requirements 

include SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. The requirements that are 

the subject of this proposed rulemaking 

are listed below 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 (2).’’ 2

• 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 3

• 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 4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and 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 

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 2010 NO2 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 permit program 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

41500 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5For 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. 

6See, 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)). 

7EPA 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. 

8See, 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). 

9On 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. 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

submissions 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.5 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.6 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.7 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.8

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.9

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 

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.10

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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41501 

11EPA 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. 

12 ‘‘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. 

13EPA’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. 

14By 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. 

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.11 EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).12 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.13 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. 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 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, inter alia, 

the requirement that states have a 

program to regulate minor new sources. 

Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state 

has an EPA-approved minor NSR 

program and whether the program 

addresses the pollutants relevant to that 

NAAQS. In the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction 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.14 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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

41502 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

15For 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). 

16EPA 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). 

17See, 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). 

18On 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. 

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.15

Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to 

correct errors in past actions, such as 

past approvals of SIP submissions.16

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.17

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 infrastructure 

submission addresses the provisions of 

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

below. 

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. Regulation 61– 

62.1, Definitions and General 

Requirements, and 61–62.5 (1), Ambient 

Air Quality Standards have been 

federally approved in the South 

Carolina SIP and include enforceable 

emission limitations and other control 

measures for activities that contribute to 

NO2 concentrations in the ambient air. 

South Carolina statute 48–1–50(23) 

authorizes SC DHEC to adopt rules for 

the control of air pollution in order to 

comply with NAAQS. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that the 

cited provisions are adequate for 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques, as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance for the 2010 

1-hour NO2 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 SSM of 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.18

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: SIPs are 

required to provide for the 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, the compilation 

and analysis of ambient air quality data, 

and the submission of these data to EPA 

upon request. Regulation 61–62.5(7), 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

and South Carolina statute 48–1–50(14), 

Powers of department, provide SC 

DHEC with the authority to collect and 

disseminate information relating to air 

quality and pollution and the 

prevention, control, supervision, and 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41503 

19On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

abatement thereof. 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 state’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.19 On July 

20, 2015, South Carolina submitted its 

monitoring network plan to EPA, and on 

November 19, 2015, EPA approved this 

plan. South Carolina’s approved 

monitoring network plan can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2015–

0251. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

and practices are adequate for the 

ambient air quality monitoring and data 

system related to the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program 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). As 

discussed further below, in this action 

EPA is only proposing to approve the 

enforcement, and the regulation of 

minor sources and minor modifications 

aspects of South Carolina’s section 

110(a)(2)(C) infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

Enforcement: SC DHEC cites to its SIP 

approved permit regulations for 

enforcement of NO2 emission limits and 

control measures and construction 

permitting for new or modified 

stationary NO2 sources (Regulations 61– 

62.5(7), Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration, and 61–62.5(7)(1), 

Nonattainment New Source Review, and 

Regulation 61–62.1, Section II, Permit 

Requirements). 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. 

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. 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for 

Major Sources: With respect to South 

Carolina’s April 30, 2014, infrastructure 

SIP submission related to the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA took 

final action to approve these provisions 

for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on 

March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. 

Regulation of Minor Sources and 

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

requires the SIP to include provisions 

that govern the minor source program 

that regulates emissions of the 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS. South Carolina has 

a SIP-approved minor NSR permitting 

program at Regulation 61–62.1, Section 

II, Permit Requirements, that regulates 

the preconstruction permitting of minor 

modifications and construction of minor 

stationary sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

and practices are adequate for program 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of minor sources and 

modifications related to the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 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 have 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) because South 

Carolina’s 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 

infrastructure submission did not 

address prongs 1 and 2. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

respect to South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the interstate transport requirements for 

PSD of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 

3), EPA took final action to approve 

South Carolina’s April 30, 2014, 

infrastructure SIP submission regarding 

prong 3 of D(i) for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 

14019. 

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

proposing any action in this rulemaking 

related to the interstate transport 

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 

South Carolina’s 2010 1-hour NO2

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, outlines 

how South Carolina will notify 

neighboring states of potential impacts 

from new or modified sources. EPA is 

unaware of any pending obligations for 

the State of South Carolina pursuant to 

sections 115 or 126 of the CAA. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that South Carolina’s SIP and practices 

are adequate for insuring compliance 

with the applicable requirements 

relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement for the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 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 

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

today’s proposals respecting each 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

41504 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described in 

turn below. 

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 and S.C. Code 

Ann § 1–23–40 (the Administrative 

Procedures Act), 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. 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 

determination for each SIP submittal. 

This provides additional assurances that 

each submittal provides evidence that 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal 

authority under State law has been 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, EPA submitted a 

letter to South Carolina on April 19, 

2016, outlining section 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–2015–0251. 

Annually, states update these grant 

commitments based on current SIP 

requirements, air quality planning, and 

applicable requirements related to the 

NAAQS. South Carolina satisfactorily 

met all commitments agreed to in the 

Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year 

2015, therefore South Carolina’s grants 

were finalized. 

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 SC 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 South Carolina statute 

8–13–730. This statute 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 statute 8–13

–700(A) states 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.’’ South 

Carolina statute 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.’’ 

State statutes 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. Thus, 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

and practices are adequate for insuring 

compliance with the applicable 

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

relating to state boards for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. 

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

Monitoring System: 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. 

South Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submission describes how the State 

establishes requirements for emissions 

compliance testing and utilizes 

emissions sampling and analysis. It 

further describes how the State ensures 

the quality of its data through observing 

emissions and monitoring operations. 

These infrastructure SIP requirements 

are codified at Section III, Regulation 

61–62.1, Emissions Inventory. South 

Carolina statute 48–1–22 requires 

owners or operators of stationary 

sources to compute emissions, submit 

periodic reports of such emissions and 

maintain records as specified by various 

regulations and permits, and to evaluate 

reports and records for consistency with 

the applicable emission limitation or 

standard on a continuing basis over 

time. The monitoring data collected and 

records of operations serve as the basis 

for a source to certify compliance, and 

can be used by South Carolina as direct 

evidence of an enforceable violation of 

the underlying emission limitation or 

standard. 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 the precursors that form 

them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, 

particulate matter, and volatile organic 

compounds. Many states also 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41505 

voluntarily report emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants. South Carolina 

made its latest update to the 2011 NEI 

on April 1, 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 2010 1-hour NO2 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 requires that states 

demonstrate authority comparable with 

section 303 of the CAA and adequate 

contingency plans to implement such 

authority. South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission identifies 

air pollution emergency episodes and 

preplanned abatement strategies as 

outlined in Regulation 61–62.3, Air 

Pollution Episodes. S.C. Code Ann. 

Section 1–23–130 provides SC DHEC 

with the authority to immediately 

promulgate emergency regulations if it 

finds an imminent peril to public 

health, safety, or welfare, or to protect 

or manage natural resources if it finds 

abnormal or unusual conditions, 

immediate need, or the state’s best 

interest requires immediate 

promulgation of emergency regulations. 

S.C. Code Ann. Section 48–1–50(3) 

provides SCDHEC with the authority to 

issue orders requiring the 

discontinuance of the discharge of air 

contaminants into the ambient air that 

create an undesirable level, resulting in 

pollution in excess of applicable 

standards, and S.C. Code Ann. Section 

48–1–50(4) authorizes SCDHEC to file 

an action in court to seek injunctive 

relief to compel compliance with the 

Pollution Control Act. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

South Carolina’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for emergency powers related 

to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve South Carolina’s infrastructure 

SIP submissions with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

9. 110(a)(2)(H) Future 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 has the authority for adopting 

air quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in South Carolina as indicated 

in South Carolina statute 48–1. This 

Section provides SC DHEC with the 

ability and authority to respond to calls 

for SIP revisions, and South Carolina 

has provided a number of SIP revisions 

over the years for implementation of the 

NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

and practices adequately demonstrate a 

commitment to provide future SIP 

revisions related to the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS when necessary. 

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 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS with respect to the general 

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

include a program in the SIP that 

provides for meeting the applicable 

consultation requirements of section 

121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, and 

visibility protection requirements of 

part C of the Act. With respect to South 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

related to the preconstruction PSD 

permitting requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J), EPA took final action to 

approve South Carolina’s April 30, 

2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP for these requirements 

on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. 

EPA’s rationale for its proposed action 

regarding applicable consultation 

requirements of section 121, the public 

notification requirements of section 127, 

and visibility protection requirements is 

described below. 

110(a)(2)(J) (121 Consultation)— 

Consultation With Government 

Officials: 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(7), 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

South Carolina statute 48–1–50(8), 

Powers of department, as well as South 

Carolina’s Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan (which allows for 

consultation between appropriate state, 

local, and tribal air pollution control 

agencies as well as the corresponding 

FLMs), provide for consultation with 

government officials whose jurisdictions 

might be affected by SIP development 

activities. 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, officials, or unofficial, in 

respect to pollution control matters or 

for the formulation of interstate 

pollution control compacts or 

agreements.’’ South Carolina adopted 

state-wide consultation procedures for 

the implementation of transportation 

conformity. These consultation 

procedures include considerations 

associated with the development of 

mobile inventories for SIPs. 

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. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that South Carolina’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate consultation 

with government officials related to the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when 

necessary. 

110(a)(2)(J) (127 Public Notification)— 

Public Notification: These requirements 

are met through Regulation 61–62.3, Air 

Pollution Episodes, which requires that 

SC DHEC notify the public of any air 

pollution alert, warning, or emergency. 

The SC DHEC Web site also provides air 

quality summary data, air quality index 

reports and links to more information 

regarding public awareness of measures 

that can prevent such exceedances and 

of ways in which the public can 

participate in regulatory and other 

efforts to improve air quality. 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 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

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

notification. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

41506 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

20Title V program regulations are federallyapproved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. 

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 SIP 

submission 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 and 

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. Regulation 61–62.1, 

Definitions and General Requirements, 

61–62–5(2), Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, and 61–62–5(7), Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration, specify that 

required air modeling be conducted in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality 

Models.’’ The state’s permitting and 

reporting requirements provide the 

necessary tools to conduct, evaluate, 

and provide air quality modeling data if 

necessary. 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.’’ These standards 

demonstrate that South Carolina has the 

authority to perform air quality 

monitoring and provide relevant data 

for the purpose of predicting the effect 

on ambient air quality of the 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, South 

Carolina supports a regional effort to 

coordinate the development of 

emissions inventories and conduct 

regional modeling for NOX, which 

includes NO2. Taken as a whole, South 

Carolina’s air quality regulations 

demonstrate that SC DHEC has the 

authority to provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of the 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

and practices adequately demonstrate 

the State’s ability to provide for air 

quality and modeling, along with 

analysis of the associated data, related 

to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when 

necessary. 

12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: This 

element 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. 

Funding for the South Carolina air 

permit program comes from a fees 

submitted by permit applicants under 

Regulation 61–30, Environmental 

Protection Fees, which 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. Also, South Carolina 

statute 48–2–50, Fees, which 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. 

Additionally, South Carolina has a fully 

approved title V operating permit 

program at Regulation 61–62.70, Title V 

Operation Permit Program,20 that covers 

the cost of implementation and 

enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits 

after they have been issued. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that South Carolina’s SIP and practices 

adequately provide for permitting fees 

related to the 2010 NO2 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: 

This element requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

Regulation 61–62.5(7), Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, and South 

Carolina statutes 48–1–50(8) and 1–23– 

40 authorize SC DHEC to cooperate, 

consult, and enter into agreements with 

other agencies of the state, the Federal 

government, other states, interstate 

agencies, groups, political subdivisions, 

and industries affected by the 

provisions of this act, rules, or policies 

of the department.’’ Furthermore, SC 

DHEC has demonstrated consultation 

with, and participation by, affected local 

entities through its work with local 

political subdivisions during the 

development of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP and Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), 

and (J) and the interstate transport 

provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility of prongs 1, 2, and 

4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is 

proposing to approve that South 

Carolina’s April 30, 2014, infrastructure 

SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS has met the above-described 

infrastructure SIP requirements. 

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); 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41507 

• 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 above, 

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, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 10, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15145 Filed 6–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124 and 125 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0145; FRL–9948–35– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF25 

Notice of Extension to Comment 

Period on the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System: 

Applications and Program Updates 

Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Extension of Comment Period. 

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the 

comment period for the notice, 

‘‘National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES): 

Applications and Program Updates.’’ In 

response to stakeholder requests, EPA is 

extending the comment period for an 

additional 15 days, from July 18, 2016 

to August 2, 2016. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

notice that was published on May 18, 

2016 (81 FR 31344), is extended. 

Comments must be received on or 

before August 2, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2016–0145, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 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: Erin 

Flannery-Keith, Water Permits Division, 

Office of Wastewater Management, Mail 

Code 4203M, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566–0689; 

flannery-keith.erin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

18, 2016 EPA published in the Federal 

Register (81 FR 31344) a proposed rule 

that would make targeted revisions to 

the NPDES regulations. These revisions 

would make the regulations consistent 

with the 1987 CWA Amendments and 

with applicable judicial decisions. 

These revisions would delete certain 

regulatory provisions that are no longer 

in effect and clarify the level of 

documentation that permit writers must 

provide for permitting decisions. EPA is 

also asking for public comments on 

potential ways to enhance public notice 

and participation in the permitting 

process. CWA section 402 established 

the NPDES permitting program and 

gives EPA authority to write regulations 

to implement the NPDES program. 33 

U.S.C. 1342(a)(1), (2). The proposed 

rule, as initially published in the 

Federal Register, provided for written 

comments to be submitted to EPA on or 

before July 18, 2016 (a 60-day public 

comment period). Since publication, 

EPA has received a request for 

additional time to submit comments. 

EPA is extending the public comment 

period for 15 days until August 2, 2016. 

Dated: June 17, 2016. 

Joel Beauvais, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Water. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15134 Filed 6–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS