31454 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Review) defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ requiring review by 

OMB, unless OMB waives such review, 

as any regulatory action that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) Create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

Materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in this Executive 

Order. 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this final rule have been 

examined, and it has been determined 

not to be a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866. VA’s 

impact analysis can be found as a 

supporting document at http://

www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 

hours after the rulemaking document is 

published. Additionally, a copy of the 

rulemaking and its impact analysis are 

available on VA’s website at http://

www.va.gov/orpm, by following the link 

for ‘‘VA Regulations Published From FY 

2004 Through Fiscal Year To Date.’’ 

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory 

action because this rule is not 

significant under E.O. 12866 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in an 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. This final rule would have no 

such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.011—Veterans Dental Care; 64.012— 

Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013— 

Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 

64.014—Veterans State Domiciliary 

Care; 64.015—Veterans State Nursing 

Home Care; 64.026—Veterans State 

Adult Day Health Care; 64.029— 

Purchase Care Program; 64.033—VA 

Supportive Services for Veteran 

Families Program; 64.034—VA Grants 

for Adaptive Sports Programs for 

Disabled Veterans and Disabled 

Members of the Armed Forces; 64.035— 

Veterans Transportation Program; 

64.039—CHAMPVA; 64.040—VHA 

Inpatient Medicine; 64.041—VHA 

Outpatient Specialty Care; 64.042— 

VHA Inpatient Surgery; 64.043—VHA 

Mental Health Residential; 64.044— 

VHA Home Care; 64.045—VHA 

Outpatient Ancillary Services; 64.046— 

VHA Inpatient Psychiatry; 64.047— 

VHA Primary Care; 64.048—VHA 

Mental Health clinics; 64.049—VHA 

Community Living Center; 64.050— 

VHA Diagnostic Care. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug 

abuse, Foreign relations, Government 

contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant 

programs-veterans, Health care, Health 

facilities, Health professions, Health 

records, Homeless, Medical and dental 

schools, Medical devices, Medical 

research, Mental health programs, 

Nursing home care, Philippines, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Scholarships and fellows, 

Travel, Transportation expenses, 

Veterans. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Acting Chief of 

Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, 

approved this document on June 28, 

2018, for publication. 

Dated: July 2, 2018. 

Consuela Benjamin, 

Regulation Development Coordinator, Office 

of Regulation Policy & Management, Office 

of the Secretary, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 17 as 

follows: 

PART 17—MEDICAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read in part as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in 

specific sections. 

* * * * * 

■ 2. Amend § 17.101 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a)(9). 

■ b. Revising the authority citation at 

the end of the section. 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 17.101 Collection or recovery by VA for 

medical care or services provided or 

furnished to a veteran for a nonserviceconnected disability. 

(a) * * * 

(9) Care provided under special 

treatment authorities. (i) 

Notwithstanding any other provisions in 

this section, VA will not seek recovery 

or collection of reasonable charges from 

a third party payer for: 

(A) Hospital care, medical services, 

and nursing home care provided by VA 

or at VA expense under 38 U.S.C. 

1710(a)(2)(F) and (e). 

(B) Counseling and appropriate care 

and services furnished to veterans for 

psychological trauma authorized under 

38 U.S.C. 1720D. 

(C) Medical examination, and hospital 

care, medical services, and nursing 

home care furnished to veteran for 

cancer of the head or neck as authorized 

under 38 U.S.C. 1720E. 

(ii) VA may continue to exercise its 

right to recover or collect reasonable 

charges from third parties, pursuant to 

this section, for the cost of care that VA 

provides to these same veterans for 

conditions and disabilities that VA 

determines are not covered by any of the 

special treatment authorities. 

* * * * * 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1701, 1705, 

1710, 1720D, 1720E, 1721, 1722, 1729) 

[FR Doc. 2018–14573 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0642; FRL–9980– 

50—Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; AL; Section 128 

Board Requirements for Infrastructure 

SIPs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission, submitted by the State 

of Alabama, through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), on October 24, 

2017, and a portion of a December 9, 

2015, infrastructure SIP submission. 

The October 24, 2017 submission 

addresses the general Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) conflict of interest 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31455 

1Alabama’s October 24, 2017 submission became 

state effective on December 8, 2017. 

requirements applicable to Alabama 

state boards or agency personnel with 

respect to the approval of permits or 

enforcement orders. This submission 

also specifically addresses requirements 

for implementation of the following 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS): 1997, 2006, and 2012 Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 2008 8-hour 

Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide (NO2), and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2). The CAA requires that each state 

adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA. Whenever EPA 

promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, 

the CAA requires the state to make a 

new SIP submission establishing that 

the existing SIP meets the various 

applicable requirements, or revising the 

SIP to meet those requirements. This 

type of SIP submission is commonly 

referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. In 

this action, EPA is approving the 

October 24, 2017, submission with 

respect to: The CAA conflict of interest 

requirements; and the related conflict of 

interest infrastructure SIP requirements 

for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5, 2008 

8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In addition, EPA 

is approving a portion of ADEM’s 

December 9, 2015, infrastructure SIP 

submission (as supplemented by the 

October 24, 2017 submission) related to 

the conflict of interest requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This action 

removes EPA’s obligation to promulgate 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address these CAA state board 

requirements for Alabama. 

DATES: This rule will be effective August 

6, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2017–0642. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the 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. EPA requests that 

if at all possible, you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

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

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta C. Ward, 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. The telephone 

number is (404) 562–9140. Ms. Ward 

can be reached via electronic mail at 

ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

States must submit infrastructure SIP 

submissions meeting the applicable 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA within three years after 

EPA’s promulgation of a new or revised 

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

require states to address basic SIP 

requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the new or revised NAAQS. More 

specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides 

the procedural and timing requirements 

for infrastructure SIP submissions. 

Section 110(a)(2) lists specific 

requirements that states must meet for 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP purposes, as 

applicable, related to the newly 

established or revised NAAQS. In 

particular, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

requires states to include provisions in 

their SIP to address the state board 

requirements of section 128. 

EPA is finalizing its proposed 

approval of Alabama’s December 9, 

2015 and October 24, 2017,1

submissions to incorporate into its SIP 

certain regulatory provisions to address 

the state board requirements of section 

128. As a result of the addition of these 

new SIP provisions to meet the 

requirements of section 128, EPA is also 

finalizing approval of these submissions 

as satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

infrastructure requirement for the 1997, 

2006, and 2012 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour 

Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. This final action fully 

addresses the SIP deficiencies related to 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128 

from EPA’s prior disapprovals of 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on 

October 15, 2012 (77 FR 62449), 2008 8- 

hour Ozone NAAQS on April 2, 2015 

(80 FR 17689), 2008 Lead NAAQS on 

October 9, 2015 (80 FR 61111), 2010 

NO2 NAAQS on November 21, 2016 (81 

FR 83142), and 2010 SO2 NAAQS on 

January 12, 2017 (82 FR 3637). Thus, 

this final action also satisfies EPA’s FIP 

obligation with regard to that 

infrastructure SIP requirement for these 

NAAQS based on the prior 

disapprovals. 

EPA proposed to approve Alabama’s 

October 24, 2017, submission related to 

the state board requirements as meeting 

the requirements of section 128, and 

also as meeting the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 8- 

hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS and a portion of the 

December 9, 2015, infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the state board 

requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR) published on February 8, 2018 

(83 FR 5594). The details of Alabama’s 

submissions and the rationale for EPA’s 

actions related to how Alabama 

addressed the requirements of section 

128 and the related infrastructure 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for 

the aforementioned NAAQS are 

explained in the NPR. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received a total of nine sets of 

comments, but only one commenter 

submitted comments that are relevant to 

this action. 

Comment 1: The Commenter contends 

that Alabama’s new provisions related 

to conflicts of interest do not fully 

comply with the CAA section 128 

because the provisions apply to the 

members of applicable boards or bodies, 

rather than to the board or body itself. 

Specifically, the Commenter states: 

‘‘because the 128(a)(1) applies to the 

board itself but [Alabama Rule] 335–1– 

1–.03(1)(h) does not apply to the board 

itself, but rather to its members, 335–1– 

1–.03(1)(h) does not meet the 

requirement of 128(a)(1).’’ The 

Commenter contends that this raises 

concerns about the enforceability of this 

provision. The Commenter expresses 

concern that it could not name the 

board itself as a defendant because the 

provision does not apply to the board, 

and that it could be difficult to enforce 

the conflict of interest provisions 

against individual board members 

because the members each could assert 

they are not the majority. The 

Commenter also expresses concern 

about remedies in such an enforcement 

action, contending that a ‘‘U.S. District 

Judge would have to decide which 

members to remove from the board.’’ 

Therefore, the Commenter suggested 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31456 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

2The Commenter provided a citation to Alabama 

rule 335–1–1–.03(1)(h) in its comments, but the SIP 

submission requests incorporation of Alabama rule 

335–1–1–.03(2)(h). EPA notes that Alabama rule 

335–1–1–.03 does not include a (1)(h), and believes 

the Commenter’s citation was in error. EPA is, 

therefore, citing to 335–1–1–.03(2)(h) in its 

responses to the comments. 

3The U.S. House of Representatives conference 

committee report for the 1977 amendments stated 

that ‘‘it is the responsibility of each state to 

determine the specific requirements to meet the 

general requirements of [section 128].’’ H.R. Rep. 

95–564 (1977), reprinted in Legislative History of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 526–527 

(1978). 

4 In guidance, EPA has recognized that states may 

have a variety of procedures and special concerns 

that may warrant differing approaches to 

implementation of section 128. ‘‘Guidance to States 

for Meeting Conflict of Interest Requirements of 

Section 128,’’ Memorandum from David O. Bickart, 

Deputy General Counsel, to Regional Air Directors, 

March 2, 1978 (‘‘1978 Guidance’’). 

5 1978 Guidance, ‘‘Model Letter from Regional 

Offices to States,’’ at 2–3. 

6See also EPA proposed rule on South Dakota, 79 

FR 71040, 71052, finalized at 80 FR 4799. 

that EPA should only conditionally 

approve the SIP submissions— 

specifically, that EPA approve the 

submissions on the condition that the 

state revise 335–1–1–.03(1)(h) so that it 

applies to the Alabama Environmental 

Management Commission (EMC) as a 

collective entity, rather than to the 

individual members of the EMC. 

EPA’s Response 1: EPA does not agree 

with the Commenter that Alabama Rule 

335–1–1–.03(2)(h) 2 does not satisfy the 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) 

because the provision applies to each 

individual member of the board or body, 

rather than to the board or body itself 

as a whole. Section 128(a)(1) requires 

SIPs to (a) ‘‘contain requirements that 

(1) any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under 

[the CAA] shall have at least a majority 

of members who represent the public 

interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under [the CAA].’’ 

Upon approval, the Alabama SIP will 

contain requirements to ensure that the 

EMC will have at least a majority of 

members who represent the public 

interest and who do not derive a 

significant portion of income from 

regulated entities, and that all of the 

members of the EMC will disclose any 

potential conflicts of interest. This is 

because the EMC is made up of the 

members themselves (there is no 

separate governing board or body) and 

because each member will be 

responsible for meeting all requirements 

of section 128, including the majority 

requirements of section 128(a)(1). By 

electing to make each individual 

member of the EMC directly responsible 

for compliance with section 128 

requirements, Alabama has assured that 

the EMC as a whole will meet these 

requirements. 

Further, EPA notes that the CAA does 

not explicitly require that the provisions 

of section 128(a)(1) apply directly to a 

board or body itself as a distinct entity. 

Ultimately, the requirements of this 

provisions are met if a majority of board 

members meet the public-interest and 

significant-portion-of-income 

requirements. In fact, as noted in the 

notice of proposed approval, 83 FR 

5597, states have some flexibility to 

determine the specific provisions 

needed to satisfy the requirements of 

section 128, so long as the statutory 

requirements are met.3 4 In this instance, 

Alabama determined that requiring each 

member of the board to meet the 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) is an 

appropriate means to assure that the 

EMC as a whole meets the substantive 

requirements. Thus, EPA believes 

Alabama’s approach satisfies the 

majority composition requirements of 

section 128(a)(1), about which the 

commenter expressed concern, and does 

not require any amendment. 

The Commenter also expresses 

concern about potential difficulties with 

pursuing citizen suits as a basis for 

suggesting that Rule 335–1–1–.03(2)(h) 

is not enforceable. Specifically, the 

Commenter suggests that it would be 

unable to name the board itself as a 

defendant, then posits that individual 

board members could say they are not 

the majority, and concludes that a ‘‘U.S. 

District Judge would have to decide 

which members to remove from the 

board.’’ EPA does not agree that being 

unable to seek enforcement against the 

board itself versus the individual 

members will preclude enforcement of 

the requirements in the event of 

potential noncompliance. EPA does not 

believe that Rule 335–1–1–.03(2)(h) 

presents unique enforcement challenges 

or that requiring compliance by each 

member of the EMC, rather than the 

EMC itself, eliminates the opportunity 

for judicial review for non-compliance. 

In particular, the EPA does not agree 

that the only remedy available to a 

federal district court is for the court to 

decide which members to remove from 

the board. For example, the court could 

direct board members to comply with 

the section 128 requirements. 

Comment 2: The Commenter also 

expresses concerns ‘‘with regard to CAA 

128(a)(2)’s obligation to adequately 

disclose potential conflicts of interest, 

[Rule] 335–1–1–.03(1)(h) and [Rule] 

335–1–1–.04(6)’s lack of any specifics as 

to what constitutes adequate disclosure 

can lead to confusion and potential 

lengthy litigation.’’ 

EPA’s Response 2: EPA does not agree 

that omitting an explicit regulatory 

definition or other specification of what 

constitutes adequate disclosure is 

impermissible. EPA notes that the CAA 

itself does not define what constitutes 

‘‘adequately’’ disclosing potential 

conflicts of interest. This means that 

what constitutes adequate disclosure 

may depend upon the specific facts and 

circumstances of a given situation. 

While EPA’s 1978 guidance provides a 

recommended definition for 

‘‘adequately disclosed,’’ this guidance 

also specifies that it does not create a 

requirement that all SIPs must include 

EPA’s suggested definitions verbatim, or 

that states must include any definitions 

in SIPs at all.5 As noted in the proposed 

action, EPA has approved similar state 

law requirements for other states that 

closely track or mirror the explicit 

statutory language of section 128, and 

which do not define ‘‘adequately 

disclosed.’’ 6 Nevertheless, EPA 

concludes that by requiring each 

member of the EMC and the 

management of ADEM to comply with 

applicable federal law and regulations, 

those individuals are required to 

disclose any potential conflicts of 

interest adequately. The determination 

of whether they have done so will turn 

upon the specific facts and 

circumstances of a given situation, per 

the explicit requirement of section 

128(a)(2). Because Alabama’s SIP 

revision meets CAA requirements and is 

consistent with EPA guidance and past 

approvals with respect to the 

requirements of section 128, EPA 

believes that state does not need to 

make the revisions suggested by the 

Commenter. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of ADEM’s Section 335–1– 

1–.03, Organization and Duties of the 

Commission and Section 335–1–1–.04, 

Organization of the Department, state 

effective December 8, 2017, which 

revise Alabama’s SIP to include 

language that mandates members of the 

Alabama Environmental Management 

Commission and the ADEM Director, 

Deputy Director, Division Chiefs, and all 

ADEM personnel meet all requirements 

of the state ethics law and the conflict 

of interest provisions of applicable 

Federal laws and regulations. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31457 

7 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

materials generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 4 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated in the next update to the 

SIP compilation.7

IV. Final Action 

As described above, EPA is taking 

action to approve SIP revisions needed 

to assure that Alabama’s SIP meets the 

state board requirements of section 128 

of the CAA. Approval of Alabama’s 

October 24, 2017 SIP submission, and a 

portion of the December 9, 2015 SIP 

submission also meets the section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 1997, 2006, and 

2012 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 

Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

With this approval, the deficiencies that 

EPA identified in the previous partial 

disapprovals of Alabama’s infrastructure 

SIP submissions related to the state 

board requirements for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 

Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

are resolved. 

V. 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. 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• 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). 

The SIP 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 rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: June 25, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.50 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), adding a new 

heading for ‘‘Chapter No. 335–1–1 

Organization’’ and adding new entries 

for ‘‘Section 335–1–1–.03,’’ and 

‘‘Section 335–1–1–.04’’ at the beginning 

of the table; and 

■ b. In paragraph (e), adding new entries 

for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS,’’ ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ ‘‘110(a)(1) and 

(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS,’’ ‘‘110(a)(1) and 

(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS,’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31458 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State 

effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

Chapter No. 335–1–1 Organization 

Section 335–1–1–.03 .............. Organization and Duties of 

the Commission.

12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Section 335–1–1–.04 .............. Organization of the Department.12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal date/ 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Alabama ................................. 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing the state board 

requirements of sections 

128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

only. 

§ 52.53 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.53 is amended by 

removing paragraphs (a) through (e). 

[FR Doc. 2018–14525 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90; FCC 18–53] 

Connect America Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) addresses the petition for 

reconsideration filed by Alaska 

Communications Systems (ACS) of the 

October 31, 2016 Commission’s ACS 

Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II 

Order. The Commission denies the 

petition. 

DATES: The denial of the petition for 

reconsideration is effective August 6, 

2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Minard, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or 

TTY: (202) 418–0484. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES