Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 68481 

7 Id. Proposal Two at 2. 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3) 

requires that competitive products cover an 

‘‘appropriate share’’ of institutional costs. 

‘‘[a]ttributing inframarginal costs to 

products using the existing distribution 

keys is just as reliable as attributing 

marginal costs to products using those 

distribution keys. Id. at 20. 

B. Proposal Two 

In Proposal Two, UPS contends that 

the Postal Service has a ‘‘systematic 

tendency to misclassify costs as fixed.’’ 

Petition at 10. Such fixed costs, which 

are a major component of institutional 

costs, are not attributed to specific 

products.7 UPS asserts that the Postal 

Service’s misclassification of certain 

costs as fixed allows it to ‘‘largely 

ignore’’ such costs when setting the 

prices for its competitive products. 

Petition at 10. Based on UPS’s belief 

that fixed and institutional costs are 

‘‘borne disproportionately’’ by market 

dominant products, it concludes that 

the Postal Service’s systemic 

misclassification of costs as fixed results 

in the improper subsidization of 

competitive products by market 

dominant products, in violation of 39 

U.S.C. 3633(a)(1). Id. Proposal Two at 5. 

Relying on Dr. Neels’ analysis, UPS 

identifies 37 cost pools that it believes 

should be reclassified as wholly or 

partially variable. Id. at 1. UPS contends 

that Dr. Neels’ analysis reveals that over 

$3 billion in costs have been 

misclassified as fixed, and thus, have 

not been properly attributed to 

products. Id. at 8. UPS requests that the 

Commission attribute these reclassified 

costs to specific products based on their 

respective shares of overall attributable 

costs in the prior fiscal year. Id. at 10. 

Using this methodology, UPS estimates 

that over $700 million of costs have not 

been properly attributed to the Postal 

Service’s competitive products. Id. at 8. 

C. Proposal Three 

Unlike Proposals One and Two, 

Proposal Three does not involve issues 

related to the proper attribution of 

variable costs to the Postal Service’s 

products. Rather, in Proposal Three, 

UPS requests that the Commission 

reconsider the ‘‘appropriate share’’ of 

institutional costs that must be covered 

by competitive products. Petition, 

Proposal Three at 1. Pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 3633(b), the Commission is 

required to review the appropriate share 

requirement at least every 5 years to 

determine if the percentage should be 

‘‘retained in its current form, modified, 

or eliminated.’’ The current appropriate 

share, set by the Commission in CY 

2012, is 5.5 percent. See Order 1449 at 

27. 

In light of competitive products’ 

volume growth in recent years, along 

with the Postal Service’s significant 

investments in its competitive business, 

UPS believes that the current 

appropriate share percentage does not 

reflect current market conditions. 

Petition, Proposal Three at 6–14. To 

ensure that the Postal Service competes 

fairly, UPS asserts that the appropriate 

share percentage should be set at a level 

that approximates the fixed costs that a 

private competitor must bear. Id. at 14. 

Accordingly, UPS recommends that the 

appropriate share percentage be set at 

24.6 percent. Id. UPS states that this 

percentage is equal to the average of the 

‘‘previous three years of attributable cost 

shares’’ for competitive products. Id. 

UPS also encourages the Commission to 

adopt a mechanism that would adjust 

the appropriate share percentage each 

year in order to account for the 

fluctuation of postal cost and market 

realities. Id. at 14–15. 

III. Initial Commission Action 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2016–2 for consideration of 

Proposals One and Two as raised by the 

Petition. The Commission holds 

Proposal Three in abeyance until it has 

completed its review of Proposals One 

and Two. As discussed above, Proposals 

One and Two both relate to the proper 

attribution of all variable costs to the 

Postal Service’s products. Given the 

interrelatedness of these two proposals, 

the Commission finds that it is 

appropriate to consider them together in 

this docket. However, as UPS itself 

discussed in its Petition, if Proposals 

One and Two are adopted, unattributed 

costs will decline from $34.2 billion in 

FY 2014 to approximately $17 billion. 

Petition at 11–12. 

Given the potentially significant 

impact that Proposals One and Two 

could have on the size of the Postal 

Service’s unattributed costs, and given 

that Proposal Three relates to the 

portion of these costs that should be 

covered by competitive products, the 

Commission finds that consideration of 

Proposal Three should be delayed until 

the impact of Proposals One and Two 

are known. Both the Commission and 

the mailing community will benefit 

from having this information before 

evaluating UPS’s proposed adjustments 

to the appropriate share requirement. 

Further, the Commission must allocate 

its finite resources across multiple 

priorities. Simultaneously considering 

all three proposals may result in the 

Commission having insufficient 

resources to bring to bear on other 

critical responsibilities. 

Additional information concerning 

the Petition may be accessed via the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.prc.gov. Interested persons may 

submit comments on Proposals One and 

Two in the Petition no later than 

January 20, 2016. Reply comments are 

due no later than March 25, 2016. 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. 

Richardson is designated as an officer of 

the Commission (Public Representative) 

to represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2016–2 for consideration of 

Proposals One and Two from the 

Petition of United Parcel Service, Inc. 

for the Initiation of Proceedings to Make 

Changes to Postal Service Costing 

Methodologies, filed October 8, 2015. 

2. Consideration of Proposal Three 

from the Petition is held in abeyance 

until the Commission has completed its 

review of Proposals One and Two. 

3. Comments are due no later than 

January 20, 2016. Reply comments are 

due no later than March 25, 2016. 

4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Kenneth E. 

Richardson to serve as an officer of the 

Commission (Public Representative) to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this docket. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Stacy L. Ruble, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28127 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0434; FRL–9936–61– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans, Louisiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for Louisiana. These rule 

revisions are the 2007 General 

Revisions, and 2008–2010 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Miscellaneous Rule Revisions to the SIP 

that were submitted by the State of 

Louisiana. The overall intended 

outcome is to make the approved 

Louisiana SIP consistent with current 

Federal and State requirements. This 

action is in accordance with the federal 

Clean Air Act (the Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0434, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Alan Shar at shar.alan@

epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Air Planning 

Section Chief (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012– 

0434. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit electronically any 

information through 

www.regulations.gov or email that you 

consider to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters and any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment 

is considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional information on submitting 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed in the index, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material), and some may not be publicly 

available at either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Alan Shar (6PD–L), telephone (214) 

665–6691, email shar.alan@epa.gov. To 

inspect the hard copy materials, please 

contact Alan Shar. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Background 

On July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977) EPA 

finalized approval of general rule 

revisions to the Louisiana SIP which 

covered the years of 1996–2006. 

We are now proposing to approve two 

revisions to the Louisiana SIP submitted 

to EPA by the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (LDEQ). The first 

submittal is the 2007 general revisions 

submitted to EPA with a letter dated 

August 14, 2009. The second submittal 

is the 2008–2010 miscellaneous rules 

revisions submitted to EPA with a letter 

dated August 29, 2013. 

Evaluation 

The 2008–2010 miscellaneous rules 

revisions apply to Louisiana 

Administrative Code (LAC) 33: III, 

Chapters 7 and 13. The 2007 general 

revisions apply to LAC 33: III, Chapters 

1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, and 

25. The Louisiana rule revisions 

submittals, their corresponding 

Chapters, and our actions are shown in 

Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTALS, THEIR CORRESPONDING CHAPTERS, AND ACTIONS

Submittals Calendar year Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapters acting upon Chapters not 

acting upon 

Miscellaneous rules .................................................... 2008–2010 7, 13 ...........................................................................

General revisions ........................................................ 2007 1, 9, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, and 25 .......................... 2, 5, 6, and 15. 

Certain provisions of the 2007 general 

revisions are not being acted upon here 

because they were withdrawn or we 

plan to act on them separately in the 

future. In a letter dated October 2, 2015 

LDEQ withdrew its revisions to Chapter 

15 from our review. The October 2, 2015 

withdrawal letter is available in this 

docket. The EPA plans to act on SIP 

revisions to Chapters 2, 5, and 6 

separately in the future. 

There is no increase in the amount of 

emissions or number of sources affected 

as a result of ministerial or 

administrative rules revisions 

throughout this notice; therefore, 

section 110(l) of the Act has been 

complied with. 

In 2006, EPA revised the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter. The 

LDEQ adopted revisions to NAAQS for 

particulate matter in LAC 33:III, Chapter 

7. This revision will update the 

Louisiana air quality regulations to 

include the revised NAAQS for 

particulate matter. The revision is 

consistent with the NAAQS for PM2.5

and PM10 standards of 40 CFR 50. See 

71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006), and 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/

criteria.html (URL dated October 5, 

2015). We propose their approval into 

the SIP. 

Currently, the LAC 33:III Chapter 13 

Abrasive Blasting is not in the EPAapproved SIP. The 2007 general 

revisions submittal establishes the 

standards of performance for abrasive 

blasting operations and includes 

provisions concerning requirement to 

control emissions through either 

enclosure or establishment of best 

management practices, maintenance of 

control equipment, recordkeeping 

requirements, and prohibited materials 

and methods that cannot be used in 

abrasive blasting activities 

requirements. The LDEQ later in its 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 68483 

2008–2010 miscellaneous rules 

submittal revised this rule by 

incorporating an updated version of the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) Test Method in 

§ 1327 for taking samples when 

determining the weight percent of fines 

in abrasive materials. Incorporating a 

specific ASTM Test Method in § 1327 

will provide for consistency in the rule 

and facilitate compliance 

determinations. Revisions to LAC 33:III 

Chapter 13 will result in enhancing the 

SIP, and reducing particulate matter 

emissions from abrasive blasting 

operations. We propose their approval 

into the SIP. 

Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 1 

General Provisions concern § 111 

Definitions. The revisions defines the 

term SPOC or the Single Point of 

Contact. The revision is ministerial or 

administrative in nature. We propose its 

approval into the SIP. 

Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 9 

General Regulations on Control of 

Emissions and Emission Standards 

concern § 918 Recordkeeping and 

Annual Reporting and § 919 Emission 

Inventory which require data for 

emission reports be collected annually, 

include air pollutants that a NAAQS has 

been issued for, and the owner or 

operator submit reports to the Office 

Environmental Assessment. The 

revisions are ministerial or 

administrative in nature. We propose 

their approval into the SIP. 

Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 11 

Control of Emissions of Smoke concern 

reporting of opacity exceedances and 

exemptions. The revisions now require 

that reports be submitted to the SPOC 

instead of the Office of Environmental 

Compliance, Emergency and 

Radiological Services Division. The 

revisions are ministerial or 

administrative in nature. We propose 

their approval into the SIP. 

Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 14 

Conformity concern § 1410 Criteria for 

Determining Conformity of General 

Federal Actions and § 1434 Consultation 

that designate the secretary of 

Department of Environmental Quality or 

a designee and assistant secretary of the 

Office of Planning and Programming or 

a designee participate in the conformity 

consultation process. The revisions are 

ministerial or administrative in nature. 

We propose their approval into the SIP. 

Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 21 

Control of Emission of Organic 

Compounds concern §§ 2103, 2108, 

2113, 2116, 2122, 2123, 2132, 2153, and 

2159. See Part B of the TSD for more 

information. The revisions throughout 

this Chapter are ministerial and 

administrative in nature. We propose 

their approval into the SIP. 

Revision to LAC 33:III Chapter 22 

Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides 

concerns § 2201 removing the term ‘‘Air 

Permits Division.’’ This revision is 

ministerial or administrative in nature. 

We propose its approval into the SIP. 

Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 23 

Control of Emissions for Specific 

Industries concern §§ 2301 and 2303 

deleting the terms ‘‘Air Quality 

Assessment Division;’’ and § 2307 

deleting ‘‘the Office of Environmental 

Compliance, Emergency and 

Radiological Services Division’’ when 

submitting the required reports and 

plans. The revision are ministerial or 

administrative in nature. We propose 

their approval into the SIP. 

Revisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 25, 

Subchapter B—Biomedical Waste 

Incineration Rules concern § 2511 

Standards of Performance for 

Biomedical Waste; Subchapter C-Refuse 

Incinerators § 2521 Refuse Incinerators; 

and Subchapter D-Crematories § 2531 

Standards of Performance for 

Crematories. On July 5, 2011 (76 FR 

38977) EPA approved the existing 

provisions of LAC 33:III Chapter 25 into 

the SIP. The revisions reflect the 

updated names of offices or 

departmental organizations that reports 

or test results should be submitted to for 

review and approval. The revisions are 

ministerial or administrative in nature. 

We propose their approval into the SIP. 

Certain provisions of the Louisiana 

SIP are affected by EPA’s June 12, 2015 

National SIP Call (80 FR 33967). Those 

provisions are identified as §§ 1107(A), 

1507(A)(1), 1507(B)(1), 2153(B)(1)(i), 

2201(C)(8), 2307(C)(1), and 2307(C)(2). 

Finally, our proposed approval of 

amendments to LAC 33:III, Chapters 11, 

21, 22, and 23 should not, in any way, 

be construed as explicitly or implicitly 

voiding or minimizing any concerns or 

inadequacies identified in EPA’s 

National SIP Call of June 12, 2015 (80 

FR 33967) with respect to the above 

referenced provisions. We continue to 

expect that issues raised within the 

context of the EPA’s National SIP Call 

to be addressed in a timely fashion. See 

section 110(k)(5) of the Act. 

Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve rule 

revisions to LAC 33:III, Chapter 1, § 111; 

Chapter 7, §§ 701, 703, and 711; Chapter 

9, §§ 918, and 919; Chapter 13, §§ 1323, 

1325, 1327, 1329, 1331, and 1333; 

Chapter 14, §§ 1410, and 1434; Chapter 

21, §§ 2103, 2108, 2113, 2116, 2121, 

2122, 2123, 2132, 2153, and 2159; 

Chapter 22, § 2201; Chapter 23, §§ 2301, 

2302, and 2307; and Chapter 25, 

§§ 2511, 2521, and 2531. 

We are proposing to approve these 

revisions in accordance with sections 

110, and 129 of the Act. 

Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, we are proposing to 

include in a final rule regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revisions to the Louisiana regulations as 

described in the Proposed Action 

section above. We have made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. If a portion of the 

plan revision meets all the applicable 

requirements of this chapter and Federal 

regulations, the Administrator may 

approve the plan revision in part. 42 

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

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices that meet 

the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove 

state choices that do not meet the 

criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

• 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); and 

• 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 proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 27, 2015. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28277 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0456; FRL–9936–56– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; TN; Knox County 

Emissions Statements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

changes to the Tennessee state 

implementation plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Tennessee, through the 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation on behalf of the Knox 

County Department of Air Quality 

Management (County Department), on 

March 14, 2014, and May 14, 2015, that 

require certain sources in Knox County, 

Tennessee, to report actual emissions of 

volatile organic compounds and oxides 

of nitrogen to the County Department 

annually. These changes amend the 

Knox County Air Quality Management 

Regulations in the Knox County portion 

of the Tennessee SIP to reflect the State 

of Tennessee’s SIP-approved emissions 

statement requirements for Knox 

County. This proposed action is being 

taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act and 

its implementing regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0456 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 

0456’’, Air Regulatory Management 

Section (formerly Regulatory 

Development 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. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, 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. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Bell 

can be reached at (404) 562–9088 and 

via electronic mail at 

bell.tiereny@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register. A detailed rationale 

for the approval is set forth in the direct 

final rule and incorporated by reference 

herein. 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 

adverse 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: October 20, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28106 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0552; FRL–9936–70– 

Region 9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District and South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) and South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) from fan-driven natural 

gas-fired central furnaces for residences 

and businesses. We are proposing to 

approve local rules to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

December 7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket ID number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2015–0552, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS