11716 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on federal enforcement 

authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 

its authority under the CAA, including, 

for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 

or 213, to enforce the requirements or 

prohibitions of the state plan, 

independently of any state enforcement 

effort. In addition, citizen enforcement 

under section 304 of the CAA is 

likewise unaffected by this, or any, state 

audit privilege or immunity law. 

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 

CAA and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, which 

satisfies certain infrastructure 

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

CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, is not being 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 

1151 or in any other area where EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule will 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: February 19, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04755 Filed 3–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0860; FRL 9943–30– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Base 

Year Emission Inventories for the 2008 

8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) on November 14, 2014, to 

address emission inventory 

requirements for the Sheboygan, 

Wisconsin nonattainment area and the 

Wisconsin portion of the ChicagoNaperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin 

(IL–IN–WI) nonattainment area under 

the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2011 Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides 

of Nitrogen (NOX) emission inventories 

in the November 14, 2014, submittal as 

part of the Wisconsin SIP. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0860 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 11717 

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 

‘‘Regulation’’ indicates that the cited regulation has 

been approved into South Carolina’s federallyapproved SIP. The term ‘‘S.C. Code Ann.’’ indicates 

cited South Carolina state statutes, which are not 

a part of the SIP unless otherwise indicated. 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Doty, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057, 

Doty.Edward@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information 

see the direct final rule, which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

Dated: February 22, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04895 Filed 3–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0151; FRL–9943–34– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Carolina; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

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 May 8, 2014, to demonstrate that the 

State meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. SC DHEC certified 

that the South Carolina SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, 

and maintained in South Carolina. EPA 

is proposing to determine that portions 

of South Carolina’s infrastructure 

submission, submitted to EPA on May 8, 

2014, satisfy certain required 

infrastructure elements for the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0151 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: 

Michele Notarianni, 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. 

Notarianni can be reached via electronic 

mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov or 

the telephone number (404) 562–9031. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Overview 

II. What elements are required under 

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

III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how South 

Carolina addressed the elements of the 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Overview 

On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA 

promulgated a revised primary SO2

NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 

parts per billion based on a 3-year 

average of the annual 99th percentile of 

1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 

requires states to address basic SIP 

elements such as requirements for 

monitoring, basic program requirements 

and legal authority that are designed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

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 SO2

NAAQS, with the exception of the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 

1, 2, and 4). With respect to the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 

1, 2, and 4), EPA is not proposing any 

action today regarding these 

requirements. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS