63448 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS INCOME STATEMENT—PRC FORM CP–01—Continued 

[$ in 000s] 

FY 20xx FY 20xx–1 

Percent 

change 

from 

SPLY 

Percent 

change 

from 

SPLY 

Line (5): Total Competitive Products product-specific costs as shown in the CRA report. 

Line (6): Inframarginal costs calculated as part of total Competitive Products incremental costs. 

Line (7): Sum total of Competitive Products costs (sum of lines 4, 5, and 6). 

Line (8): Difference between Competitive Products total revenues and attributable costs (line 3 less line 6). 

Line (9): Minimum amount of Institutional cost contribution required under 39 CFR 3015.7 of this chapter. 

Line (10): Line 8 less line 9. 

Line (11): Total assumed Federal income tax as calculated under 39 CFR 3060.40. 

Line (12): Line 10 less line 11. 

[FR Doc. 2016–22162 Filed 9–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2016–0478; FRL–9952–49– 

Region 2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New York 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality and Nonattainment New 

Source Review; Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the New York State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) amending 

existing nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) and attainment New 

Source Review (Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, 

PSD) program requirements. 

Specifically, the SIP revision includes 

new requirements pertaining to the 

regulation of particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 2.5 micrometer (PM2.5) and the 

regulation of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 

under New York’s Part 231, ‘‘New 

Source Review for New and Modified 

Facilities;’’ Part 201, ‘‘Permits and 

Registrations;’’ and amendments to Part 

200, ‘‘General Provisions,’’ of Title 6 of 

the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules 

and Regulations of the State of New 

York (6 NYCRR) which will make the 

SIP consistent with existing federal 

requirements. The EPA is also 

proposing to approve certain elements 

of New York SIP revisions submitted to 

demonstrate that the State meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 

lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 17, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2016–0478, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The 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. 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 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: 

Frank Jon, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4085; 

email address: jon.frank@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, references 

to ‘‘EPA,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ are 

intended to mean the Environmental 

Protection Agency. The supplementary 

information is arranged as follows: 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of New York’s 

NSR rule revisions? 

IV. How has the State addressed elements of 

the Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

V. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

On October 12, 2011, the New York 

State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to 

EPA Region 2 a new set of revisions to 

the New York State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This submittal consists of 

revisions to Title 6 of the New York 

Code of Rules and Regulations (6 

NYCRR) Part 231, New Source Review 

for New and Modified Facilities; 6 

NYCRR Part 200, General Provisions; 

and 6 NYCRR Part 201, Permits and 

Certificates. New York undertook this 

rulemaking to comply with EPA’s May 

16, 2008 NSR final rule for the 

regulation of particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). Also, the 

revisions implement EPA’s October 20, 

2010 final rule that establishes the PM2.5

increments, significant impact levels, 

and significant monitoring 

concentrations. This proposed 

rulemaking implements PM2.5

provisions that were not previously 

included in the November 17, 2010 EPA 

SIP approval of Part 231. This SIP 

revision also incorporates provisions 

that conform to EPA’s June 3, 2010 final 

rule for Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under 

its PSD and Title V programs, 

establishing major source applicability 

threshold levels for GHG emissions and 

other conforming changes such as the 

establishment of global warming 

potential values for calculating CO2

equivalents under New York’s PSD and 

Title V programs. 

The EPA is also proposing to approve 

certain elements of New York SIP 

revisions as meeting CAA section 110(a) 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 63449 

requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. NYSDEC 

submitted a SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

on October 13, 2011, as supplemented 

on February 24, 2012; for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS on April 4, 2013; and for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on October 3, 

2013. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

On November 17, 2010, EPA granted 

a partial approval to revisions of the 

New York SIP for 6 NYCRR Parts 200, 

201 and Part 231 submitted by the 

NYSDEC on March 3, 2009. 75 FR 

70140. This partial approval was issued 

with the caveat that EPA was taking no 

action at the time on (1) the PSD 

permitting threshold provisions to the 

extent that those provisions may require 

permits for sources of GHG emissions 

that equal or exceed the 100/250 tons 

per year (tpy) GHG levels but are less 

than the thresholds identified in EPA’s 

final Tailoring Rule at 75 FR 31514, 

31606 (June 3, 2010); and (2) the PSD 

significance level provisions of New 

York’s rule to the extent that those 

provisions may treat as significant GHG 

emissions increases that are less than 

the thresholds identified in the final 

Tailoring Rule. Id. We granted partial 

approval, in part, because in its August 

11, 2010 letter to EPA, New York State 

confirmed to us that they have authority 

to regulate GHGs without any additional 

rulemaking or other administrative 

action. Subsequently, on October 12, 

2011 New York submitted a SIP revision 

request which makes New York’s 

authority to regulate GHG more explicit 

in the regulation itself. In addition, New 

York’s SIP revision request addresses 

additional PM2.5 requirements that were 

not included in the November 17, 2010 

EPA SIP approval. 

Under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), 

states are required to submit SIPs that 

provide for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. The EPA refers to these types 

of SIP submissions as the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. States must make 

infrastructure SIP submissions within 3 

years after the promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS. On November 12, 2008 

(73 FR 66964), EPA promulgated a new 

rolling 3-month average NAAQS for Pb, 

which is 0.15 micrograms per cubic 

meter of air (mg/m3) maximum not to be 

exceeded. On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 

16436), EPA revised the level of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per 

million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. On June 

22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA 

promulgated a revised NAAQS for SO2

at a level of 75 ppb, based on a 3-year 

average of the annual 99th percentile of 

1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 

This proposed action pertains only to 

the portions of the infrastructure SIPs 

submitted for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQs pertaining to 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C); 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 (PSD); and 

110(a)(2)(J). EPA had previously 

approved most elements of New York’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS as fully meeting the 

requirements of section 110(a). See, 

EPA’s final rule ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

New York; Infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS,’’ 80 FR 30939 (June 

1, 2015). However, EPA had deferred 

taking final action on the lead SIP with 

respect to 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

prong 3, and 110(a)(2)(J) elements until 

EPA approved, or simultaneously 

approved, PM2.5 requirements for New 

York’s PSD program. EPA will address 

the other elements of the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2008 ozone, and 2010 SO2

NAAQs in another action. 

EPA’s general approach to the review 

of infrastructure SIP submittals can be 

found in the December 15, 2014 (79 FR 

74046) proposal to approve New York’s 

2008 Pb infrastructure SIP, and will not 

be repeated here. Both the proposed rule 

and final rules for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

can also be found in the docket of this 

rulemaking. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

York’s NSR rule revisions? 

A number of developments have 

arisen since EPA’s receipt of the SIP 

revision package that has affected EPA’s 

review of the 6 NYCRR Part 231 SIP 

revision. These developments are: 

(a) On July 21, 2011, then Assistant 

Administrator Gina McCarthy issued a 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Revised Policy 

to Address Reconsideration of 

Interpollutant Trading Provisions for 

Fine Particles (PM2.5).’’ See http://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2015–07/documents/pm25trade.pdf. 

The memorandum stated that under the 

EPA’s revised policy, the interpollutant 

ratios contained in the preamble to the 

2008 final rule will no longer carry an 

EPA presumptive approval status. 

Accordingly, if a state wishes to 

implement interpollutant trading, the 

state will be expected to develop its 

own separate PM2.5 precursor offset 

ratios that are demonstrated to be 

suitable for addressing the particular 

precursor’s relationship with ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations for 24-hour and 

annual averaging periods that are 

causing violations in that nonattainment 

area. Therefore, since New York has not 

conducted and included such a 

demonstration for the PM2.5 precursor 

offset ratios in the Part 231 SIP 

submittal, these offset ratios cannot 

presumptively be approved into the SIP. 

(b) On January 22, 2013, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia granted an EPA request to 

vacate and remand to the EPA portions 

of two PSD regulations, promulgated in 

2010. These two regulatory provisions 

are the Significant Impact Levels (SILs) 

for PM2.5 promulgated under 40 CFR 

52.21(k)(2) and 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 

the PM2.5 Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC) promulgated 

under 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 

CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c). On December 9, 

2013, the EPA issued a final rule 

vacating these two elements and 

subsequently issued interim guidance 

on May 20, 2014 entitled ‘‘Guidance for 

PM2.5 Permit Modeling.’’ See http://

www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/ 

guide/Guidance_for_PM25_Permit_

Modeling.pdf. The EPA is currently 

drafting regulatory changes to address 

these two aspects of the PSD rule. 

(c) On June 23, 2014, the Supreme 

Court of the United States issued a 

decision addressing the application of 

stationary source permitting 

requirements to greenhouse gases. 

Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 134 

S.Ct. 2427 (2014) In this decision, the 

Supreme Court said that the EPA may 

not treat greenhouse gases as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD or title V 

permit. The Supreme Court also said 

that the EPA could continue to require 

that PSD permits otherwise required, 

based on emissions of conventional 

pollutants, contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). See the EPA guidance dated 

December 19, 2014 on this topic at 

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2015–07/documents/ 

201412step2.pdf. 

In light of the above developments, 

the NYSDEC on July 28, 2016 requested 

the EPA to withdraw specific regulatory 

language that deals with the above 

provisions from the SIP submittal. 

Removal of the above provisions from 

the SIP submittal request is appropriate 

since EPA has or is in the process of 

developing additional guidance/ 

regulations that will address the above 

issues with a timetable as to when the 

SIP revisions are due from the States to 

EPA. The specific provisions of 6 

NYCRR Parts 201 and 231 that New 

York has asked the EPA to be 

withdrawn are: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63450 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP15SE16.007</GPH>

1) PM2.5 Inter-pollutant trading provisions codified in both 6 NYCRR 231-5.5 (b)(3) and 

231-6.6 (b )(3) as follows: 

An emission offset of PM-2.5 (including its precursors S02 and NOx) must at least equal 

(offset ratio of one to one or greater) the corresponding facility potential to emit or 

project emission potential of the same pollutant (subsequent to application of LAER), as 

appropriate, by the applicable offset ratio specified in Subpart 231-13 of this Part. A 

greater offset ratio may be required to provide a net air quality benefit as set forth in this 

section. Inter-pollutant trading may be used (or offsetting direct emissions ofPM-2. 5 

(including its precursors SOl and NOx). Inter-pollutant offset ratios are as follows: 

one ton PM-2.5 offsets 200 tons NOx. one ton PM-2.5 offsets 40 tons SOl, 200 tons 

NOx offsets one ton PM2.5 and 40 tons SOl offsets one ton PM-2.5. The use ofNOx 

and sol to offset one another is not allowed. 

NYSDEC has withdrawn the bold and underlined portion. 

2) 231-10.1(d)- General Provisions for Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) 

An ERC, to be used as an offset, must be the same regulated NSR contaminant as the 

emission increase requiring the ERC, except (or PM-2. 5. An ERC ofPM-2. 5 (including 

its precursors SOz and NOx) may be used as an offset (or direct emissions ofPM-2.5. 

In addition, direct emissions ofPM-2.5 can be used to offset emission o(its precursors. 

These emission offsets must follow the ratio requirements ofsection 231-5.5(b)(3) and 

231-6.6(b)(3) o(this Part. 

NYSDEC has withdrawn the bold and underlined portion. 

3) 231-12.4(a)(1) Exemption and waiver from onsite (i.e., site specific) air quality 

monitoring 

PM2.s ------------------------------------- 4uglm3

, 24-hr average; 

NYSDEC has withdrawn this PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) value 

of 4 ug/m3 from the New York SIP submission and has temporarily replaced with a value 

of 0 (zero) until regulatory changes are made. 

4) 231-12.7 Significant impact levels for facilities located in attainment areas. Specifically, 

forPM2.s 

PM2.s annual average: 0.3 uglm3 

PM2.s 24-hr average: 1.2 uglm3 

NYSDEC has withdrawn these PM2.5 SILs. 
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 63451 

IV. How has the state addressed 

elements of the CAA Section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

New York’s submittals demonstrate 

how the State, where applicable, has a 

plan in place that meets the 

requirements of CAA Section 110 for 

certain elements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The plans 

reference the current New York SIP, the 

New York Codes of Rules and 

Regulations (NYCRR), the New York 

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) 

and the New York Public Officer’s Law 

(POL). The NYCRR, ECL and POL 

referenced in the submittal are publicly 

available. New York’s SIP can be found 

at 40 CFR 52.1670 and is posted on the 

Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

region02/air/sip/ny_reg.htm. 

As discussed in the following 

sections, EPA has reviewed and 

evaluated elements and sub-elements of 

New York’s Infrastructure SIPs for 2008 

Pb, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 SO2 for CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(C); 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

[PSD (Prong 3)]; and 110(a)(2)(J). 

Element 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to 

have a plan that includes a program 

providing for enforcement of all SIP 

measures and the regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source, including a program 

to meet PSD of Air Quality and minor 

source new source review. 

New York’s Infrastructure SIP 

submittals for 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS reference New York’s 

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP15SE16.008</GPH>
63452 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 80 FR 30939 (June 1, 2015). 

§ 19–0305, which provides New York 

with the authority for the enforcement 

of all control measures that have been 

adopted into the SIP. New York also 

references the State’s PSD and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) permitting program contained 

in 6 NYCRR Part 231, ‘‘New Source 

Review for New and Modified 

Facilities,’’ and the State’s permitting 

program contained in 6 NYCRR 201, 

‘‘Permits and Certificates.’’ EPA 

approved New York’s PSD and NNSR 

program into the SIP on November 17, 

2010 (75 FR 70140). New York’s minor 

new source review program is also 

regulated under Part 201. 

EPA has reviewed and evaluated New 

York’s Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

with respect to the requirements of 

element C. 

EPA concludes that the State has 

adequate authority and regulations to 

ensure that SIP-approved control 

measures are enforced for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Under § 19–0311 of the ECL, New York 

has the authority to establish a 

permitting program. New York’s SIPapproved program under Part 231 

includes both PSD permitting 

requirements, which regulate major 

sources in attainment areas, and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

requirements, which regulate major 

sources located in nonattainment areas. 

New York’s Part 231 includes 

permitting requirements for Pb, SO2 and 

the precursors of ozone (i.e., nitrogen 

oxides and volatile organic compounds). 

New York’s permitting regulations are 

set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 201, ‘‘Permits 

and Certificates.’’ Major sources of air 

pollution are covered by State Facility 

permits (Subpart 201–5) and Title V 

permits (Subpart 201- 6). In addition, 

New York has implemented a 

permitting program for minor sources of 

air pollution; these sources are covered 

by minor facility registrations (6 NYCRR 

Subpart 201–4). 

New York’s program ensures that all 

applicable PSD requirements are 

included in PSD permits and are 

incorporated into title V operating 

permits, and that all federallyenforceable requirements are applied 

and enforced. The State’s PSD 

permitting requirements in Part 231 

regulate Pb, SO2, and the precursors of 

ozone. The PSD portion of Part 231 

regulates the construction of proposed 

new or modified facilities that are 

required to demonstrate in their permit 

application that allowable emission 

increases from the facilities, in 

conjunction with all other applicable 

emission increases or reductions 

(including secondary emissions), would 

not, among other things, cause or 

significantly contribute to air pollution 

in violation of any NAAQS or increment 

in any air quality control region. Since 

Pb, SO2, and ozone are NAAQS, the PSD 

provisions of Part 231 are applicable. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) is applicable to 

all NSR pollutants subject to regulation 

under the CAA. See, e.g., CAA section 

165(a)(4). As mentioned in section II, 

above, and as further described in EPA’s 

final rule approving elements of the 

New York Lead Infrastructure SIP,1 EPA 

had deferred taking final action 

approving 110(a)(2)(C) (as well as 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3, and 

110(a)(2)(J)) until EPA approved, or 

simultaneously approved, PM2.5

requirements for New York’s PSD 

program. Because the scope of 

110(a)(2)(C) is comprehensive (covering 

all pollutants subject to regulation 

under the CAA, including GHG), a fully 

approved comprehensive PSD program 

addressing all regulated NSR pollutants 

is needed in order to approve the 

infrastructure SIP for any one pollutant. 

As described in section III of this 

rulemaking, the NYSDEC has requested 

to withdraw specific language from its 

SIP submittal that had affected EPA’s 

review of the 6 NYCRR Part 231 SIP 

revision. Upon final approval of the 

revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 231 into the 

SIP, New York will have addressed all 

regulated pollutants. 

EPA proposes to find that the State 

has adequate authority and regulations 

to ensure the enforcement of emission 

limits and control measures for the 2008 

Pb, 2010 SO2 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

EPA also proposes to find that New 

York has met the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C) regarding regulation of 

minor sources and minor modifications 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 3: 

Interstate Transport, PSD 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air 

Act is divided into two subsections: 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The 

first of these, 110(a)(2)(D)(i), in turn, 

contains four ‘‘prongs’’ the first two of 

which appear in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

the second two of which appear in 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The two prongs in 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require New York’s SIP 

to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the State from 

emitting any air pollutants in amounts 

which will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state with 

respect to any primary or secondary 

NAAQS (prong 1), or interfere with 

maintenance by any other state with 

respect to any primary or secondary 

NAAQS (prong 2). The two prongs in 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the State from emitting any air 

pollutants in amounts which will 

interfere with measures required to be 

included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other state 

under part C to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or 

to protect visibility (prong 4). 

Subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) addresses 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement, and requires SIPs to include 

provisions insuring compliance with 

sections 115 and 126 of the CAA, 

relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(prong 3) for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. EPA has previously taken 

action on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(prongs 1 and 

2) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(prong 4) for 

2008 Pb. EPA has proposed action on 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(prongs 1 and 2) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(prong 4) for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, and will finalize in a 

separate rulemaking. EPA will also 

address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(prongs 1 and 2) 

and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(prong 4) for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS in a separate 

rulemaking. 

To satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

prong 3, New York relies on its PSD 

program to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality within other 

states. New York has affirmed that the 

program remains in effect and continues 

to apply for 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 

2010 SO2. 

As discussed in the preceding section 

regarding 110(a)(2)(C), a state’s PSD 

program must address all pollutants 

subject to regulation under the CAA. 

Upon final approval into the SIP of this 

proposed approval of the revisions to 6 

NYCRR Part 231, New York will have 

addressed all regulated pollutants. 

Element 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation With 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, PSD, and Visibility 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to 

have a plan that meets the applicable 

requirements of CAA section 121 

(relating to consultation), section 127 

(relating to public notification), and part 

C (relating to significant deterioration 

and visibility protection). 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to 

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments and Federal Land 

Managers carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to section 121 relating to consultation. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 63453 

2http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/34985.html. 

In December 2006, New York 

established a SIP Coordinating Council 

consisting of senior policy 

representatives from 19 state agencies 

and authorities, as well as a SIP Task 

Force consisting of officials from 37 

local governments and designated 

organizations of elected officials. New 

York has also participated in the 

consultation process for Regional Haze 

(40 CFR 51.308). EPA proposes to find 

that the 110(a) submittals from New 

York meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with 

government officials for 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, and 2010 SO2. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires 

states to notify the public if the NAAQS 

are exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. New 

York maintains an Air Quality Web 

site 2 for reporting daily air quality to 

the public, including current air quality 

status, air quality forecasts, monitoring 

information, reports and pollutant 

health effects related to air quality 

readings. New York posts warnings on 

the above-referenced Web site and 

issues press releases to local media 

outlets if dangerous conditions are 

expected to occur. In the case of a 

predicted or forecasted air quality 

exceedance, the public is urged to 

follow energy-saving and pollutionreducing steps such as limiting the use 

of appliances and carpooling. EPA 

proposes to find that the 110(a) 

submittals from New York meet the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(J) for public 

notification for 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

and 2010 SO2. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires 

states to meet applicable requirements 

of Part C related to PSD and visibility 

protection. The approvability of a state’s 

PSD program in its entirety is essential 

to approvability of the PSD portion of 

this element. As discussed previously 

concerning approvability of 110(a)(2)(C) 

and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3, a state’s 

PSD program must address all NSR 

pollutants subject to regulation under 

the CAA. Upon final approval into the 

SIP of this proposed approval of the 

revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 231, New 

York will have addressed all regulated 

pollutants for PSD. With respect to the 

visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J), EPA 

believes that the visibility protection 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ within the meaning of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) and that the SIP is 

not required to be revised with respect 

to visibility protection merely due to 

promulgation of, or revision to, these 

NAAQS. Regardless, New York 

submitted and EPA approved New 

York’s Regional Haze SIP. 77 FR 51915 

(Aug. 28, 2012). EPA proposes to find 

that the 110(a) submittals from New 

York meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(J), for PSD, for 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

As requested by New York, EPA is 

proposing to withdraw the above 

specified regulatory sections of 6 

NYCRR Parts 201 and 231 from EPA’s 

review of the SIP submittal. EPA is 

proposing to approve into the SIP the 

remaining revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 

200, 6 NYCRR Part 201 and 6 NYCRR 

Part 231 which became effective under 

NYS law on October 15, 2011, and were 

submitted by the State of New York to 

EPA on October 12, 2011. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

remaining revisions of subparts 200.1 

and 200.9, as effective on October 15, 

2011, and subpart 201–2, as effective 

October 15, 2011. EPA is also proposing 

to approve the remaining revisions to 6 

NYCRR Part 231, as effective on October 

15, 2011. 

EPA is also proposing to approve New 

York’s infrastructure SIP submittals for 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 SO2 for 

110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements, as 

follows: 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

prong 3, and 110(a)(2)(J). 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, we are proposing to 

include in a final rule regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revised versions of 6 NYCRR Part 200, 

6 NYCRR Part 201 and 6 NYCRR Part 

231, which were discussed in section III 

above, and became effective under NYS 

law on October 15, 2011, and were 

submitted by the State of New York to 

EPA on October 12, 2011. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(please contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this preamble for more 

information). 

VII. 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 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 Clean Air Act. 

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 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 Clean Air Act; 

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 rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 6, 2016. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2016–22238 Filed 9–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2016–0078; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BB64 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

for Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina 

(San Fernando Valley Spineflower) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina 

(San Fernando Valley spineflower), a 

plant species from southern California, 

as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). If we finalize this rule 

as proposed, it would extend the Act’s 

protections to this species. This 

document also serves as the 90-day and 

12-month findings on two petitions to 

list C. parryi var. fernandina as an 

endangered species. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

November 14, 2016. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. We must receive requests for 

public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by October 31, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R8–ES–2016–0078, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rules link to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2016– 

0078, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola 

Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93001; 

telephone 805–644–1766; facsimile 

805–644–3958. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Chorizanthe parryi var. 

fernandina’s biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the plant 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the plant, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the plant, which 

may include habitat modification or 

destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this plant and 

existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of 

Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina, 

including the locations of any 

additional populations of this plant. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described above in ADDRESSES. If you 

submit information via http://

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested. Requests must be 

received by the date specified above in 

DATES. Such requests must be sent to the 

address shown above in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings, as 

well as how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations, in the Federal 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS