### 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 PM 2.5 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 theWisconsin 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 (NO X) 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


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

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, someof 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 hasbeen 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 (SO 2 ) 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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.