11726 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

adequately provide for permitting fees 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(L). 

13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/

participation by affected local entities: 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires 

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. Regulation 61–62.5, Standard 

No. 7, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration, of the South Carolina SIP 

requires that SC DHEC notify the public, 

which includes local entities, of an 

application, preliminary determination, 

the activity or activities involved in the 

permit action, any emissions change 

associated with any permit 

modification, and the opportunity for 

comment prior to making a final 

permitting decision. Also, as noted 

above, S.C. Code Ann. Section 48–1– 

50(8) allows SC DHEC to ‘‘Cooperate 

with the governments of the United 

States or other states or state agencies or 

organizations, officials, or unofficial, in 

respect to pollution control matters or 

for the formulation of interstate 

pollution control compacts or 

agreements.’’ By way of example, SC 

DHEC has recently worked closely with 

local political subdivisions during the 

development of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP, Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan, and Ozone Early 

Action Compacts. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(M). 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility protection 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

May 8, 2014, SIP submission for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the above 

described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

approve these portions of South 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

because these aspects of the submission 

are consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject 

to review by the Office of Management and 

Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104– 

4); 

• does not have Federalism implications as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 

43255, August 10, 1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or safety 

risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 

FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action subject 

to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent with 

the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 

FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action for 

the state of South Carolina does not 

have Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian 

Nation Reservation is located within the 

State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the 

Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, 

South Carolina statute 27–16–120, ‘‘all 

state and local environmental laws and 

regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian 

Nation] and Reservation and are fully 

enforceable by all relevant state and 

local agencies and authorities.’’ 

However, EPA has determined that 

because this proposed rule does not 

have substantial direct effects on an 

Indian Tribe because, as noted above, 

this action is not approving any specific 

rule, but rather proposing that South 

Carolina’s already approved SIP meets 

certain CAA requirements. EPA notes 

today’s action will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 19, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04728 Filed 3–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0664; FRL–9943–32– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; 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 Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(IEPA) on September 3, 2014, to address 

emission inventory requirements for the 

Illinois portions of the ChicagoNaperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin 

and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois ozone 

nonattainment areas under the 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard. The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires emission inventories for all 

ozone nonattainment areas. The 

emission inventories contained in 

Illinois’ September 3, 2014, submission 

meet this CAA requirement. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0664 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 11727 

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 

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 IEPA’s SIP 

revision 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. 2016–04877 Filed 3–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0205; FRL–9943–27– 

Region 8] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Redesignation 

Request and Associated Maintenance 

Plan for Billings, MT 2010 SO2

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On December 14, 2015, the 

State of Montana submitted a request for 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to redesignate the Billings, 

Montana, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) nonattainment area to 

attainment and to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a maintenance plan for the 

area. In response to this submittal, the 

EPA is proposing to take the following 

actions: Determine that the Billings SO2

nonattainment area is attaining the 2010 

SO2 primary NAAQS; approve 

Montana’s plan for maintaining 

attainment of the 2010 SO2 primary 

NAAQS in the area; and redesignate the 

Billings SO2 nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 2010 SO2 primary 

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2015–0205, at http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. 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: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–7104, clark.adam@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

the EPA through www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS