32324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 165.943—Continued 

[Datum NAD 1983] 

Event Location Event date 

(3) City of Bayfield 4th of July 

Fireworks Display.

All waters of the Lake Superior North Channel in Bayfield, WI within the arc of a circle with a 

radius of no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°48′39′′ N., 

090°48′35′′ W.

On or around 

July 4th. 

(4) Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display.All waters of Siskiwit Bay in Cornucopia, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of no 

more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°51′35′′ N., 091°06′13′′ W.

On or around 

July 4th. 

(5) Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks 

Display.

All waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin, Northern Section in Duluth, MN within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°46′14′′ N., 

092°06′16′′ W.

On or around 

July 4th. 

(6) LaPointe 4th of July Fireworks Display.All waters of Lake Superior in LaPointe, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of no 

more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°46′40′′ N., 090°47′22′′ W.

On or around 

July 4th. 

(7) Two Harbors 4th of July 

Fireworks Display.

All waters of Agate Bay in Two Harbors, MN within the arc of a circle with a radius of no 

more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°46′40′′ N., 090°47′22′′ W.

On or around 

July 4th. 

(8) Point to LaPointe Swim ....... All waters of the Lake Superior North Channel between Bayfield and LaPointe, WI within an 

imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°48′50′′ N., 090°48′44′′ W., moving 

southeast to 46°46′44′′ N., 090°47′33′′ W., then moving northeast to 46°46′52′′ N., 

090°47′17′′ W., then moving northwest to 46°49′03′′ N., 090°48′25′′ W., and finally returning to the starting position.

Early August. 

(9) Lake Superior Dragon Boat 

Festival Fireworks Display.

All waters of Superior Bay in Superior, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of no more 

than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°43′23′′ N., 092°03′45′′ W.

Late August. 

(10) Superior Man Triathlon ...... All waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin, Northern Section in Duluth, MN within an imaginary 

line created by the following coordinates: 46°46′36′′ N., 092°06′06′′ W., moving southeast 

to 46°46′32′′ N., 092°06′01′′ W., then moving northeast to 46°46′45′′ N., 092°05′45′′ W., 

then moving northwest to 46°46′49′′ N., 092°05′49′′ W., and finally returning to the starting 

position.

Late August. 

Dated: May 4, 2015 

A.H. Moore, JR., 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port Duluth. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13932 Filed 6–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0852; FRL–9928–85– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Carolina; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the September 20, 2011, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 

provided by the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC) for 

inclusion into the South Carolina SIP. 

This proposal pertains to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 Lead national 

ambient air quality standards (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 2008 Lead 

NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in South Carolina. With the 

exception of provisions pertaining to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting for which EPA is 

proposing no action through this notice, 

EPA is proposing to approve that South 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submission, provided to EPA on 

September 20, 2011, satisfies the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 8, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0852, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0852,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section (formerly Regulatory 

Development 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. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section (formerly 

Regulatory Development 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. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0852. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32325 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions States 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a 

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be 

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this 

rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, state 

regulations referenced herein as ‘‘Regulation(s)’’ 

have been approved into South Carolina’s federallyapproved SIP. South Carolina statutes, referenced as 

the ‘‘S.C. Code Ann.’’ are not a part of the SIP 

unless otherwise indicated. 

2Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air Regulatory 

Management Section (formerly 

Regulatory Development 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: Zuri 

Farngalo, Air Regulatory Management 

Section (formerly Regulatory 

Development 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) 562–9152. 

Mr. Farngalo can be reached via 

electronic mail at farngalo.zuri@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

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 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated 

primary and secondary NAAQS for Lead 

under section 109 of the Act. See 43 FR 

46246. Both primary and secondary 

standards were set at a level of 1.5 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

measured as Lead in total suspended 

particulate matter (Pb-TSP), not to be 

exceeded by the maximum arithmetic 

mean concentration averaged over a 

calendar quarter. This standard was 

based on the 1977 Air Quality Criteria 

for Lead (USEPA, August 7, 1977). On 

November 12, 2008 (75 FR 81126), EPA 

issued a final rule to revise the primary 

and secondary Lead NAAQS. The 

revised primary and secondary Lead 

NAAQS were revised to 0.15 mg/m3. By 

statute, SIPs meeting the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be 

submitted by states within three years 

after 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 NAAQS. States were required to 

submit such SIPs to EPA no later than 

October 15, 2011, for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS.1

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve South Carolina’s infrastructure 

submission for the applicable 

requirements of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 

with the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources contained in sections 

110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J). 

With respect to South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the provisions pertaining to the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 

of D(i) and (J), EPA approved these 

elements on March 18, 2015 (80 FR 

14019). This action is not approving any 

specific rule, but rather proposing that 

South Carolina’s already approved SIP 

meets certain CAA requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

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

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. In the 

case of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, states 

typically have met the basic program 

elements required in section 110(a)(2) 

through earlier SIP submissions in 

connection with the 1978 Lead NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific 

elements that states must meet for 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements 

related to a newly established or revised 

NAAQS. As mentioned above, these 

requirements include SIP infrastructure 

elements such as modeling, monitoring, 

and emissions inventories that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

requirements that are the subject of this 

proposed rulemaking are listed below 2

and in EPA’s October 14, 2011, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under 

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

2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

5For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

6See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163—65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

7EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

8See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2011 

Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance). 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and new source 

review (NSR).3

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and 

international transport provisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment area 

plan or plan revision under part D. 4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials, public 

notification, and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from South Carolina that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the Lead NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.5 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.6 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.8

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32327 

9On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

11EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ Memorandum 

from Stephen D. Page, October 14, 2011. 

13Although not intended to provide guidance for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA notes, that following the 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA issued 

the ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. This 2013 guidance provides 

recommendations for air agencies’ development and 

the EPA’s review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 

ozone primary and secondary NAAQS, the 2010 

primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, the 2010 

primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 

primary fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, as 

well as infrastructure SIPs for new or revised 

NAAQS promulgated in the future. 

allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to 

act at different times on various 

elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submission.9

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants because the content 

and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.10

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions For 

example, section 172(c)(7) requires that 

attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

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

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD 

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

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

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.11 EPA issued the 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance 12 to provide states with up-todate guidance for Lead infrastructure 

SIPs. Within this guidance, EPA 

describes the duty of states to make 

infrastructure SIP submissions to meet 

basic structural SIP requirements within 

three years of promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions. The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submissions need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.13

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

14For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

15EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

16See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) 

(final disapproval of such provisions). 

17On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator 

signed a final action entitled, ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for 

Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA’s SSM 

Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.’’ The 

prepublication version of this rule is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/

emissions.html. 

18On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

tools allow EPA to take appropriately 

tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes 

EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the 

Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.14 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.15

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.16

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

South Carolina addressed the elements 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

The South Carolina infrastructure 

submission addresses the provisions of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described 

below. 

1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures: Several 

provisions within South Carolina 

Regulations and the 1976 South 

Carolina Code of Laws, as amended, 

(‘‘S.C. Code Ann.’’) are relevant to air 

quality control measures. Section 48–1– 

50(23) of the 1976 South Carolina Code 

of Laws, as amended, (‘‘S.C. Code 

Ann.’’) provides the SC DHEC with the 

authority to ‘‘[a]dopt emission and 

effluent control regulations standards 

and limitations that are applicable to the 

entire State, that are applicable only 

within specified areas or zones of the 

State, or that are applicable only when 

a specified class of pollutant is present. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that the South Carolina’s 

SIP and practices are adequate to protect 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS in the State. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

State provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown and 

malfunction (SSM) of operations at a 

facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and 

the Agency is addressing such state 

regulations in a separate action.17 In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing State rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of states have such provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 

1987)), and the Agency plans to take 

action in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

2. 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system: SIPs are 

required to provide for the 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, the compilation 

and analysis of ambient air quality data, 

and the submission of these data to EPA 

upon request. South Carolina’s Air 

Pollution Control Regulations, 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

along with the South Carolina Network 

Description and Ambient Air Network 

Monitoring Plan, provide for an ambient 

air quality monitoring system in the 

State. S.C. Code Ann. § 48–1–50(14) 

provides the Department with the 

necessary authority to ‘‘[c]ollect and 

disseminate information on air and 

water control.’’ Annually, States 

develop and submit to EPA for approval 

statewide ambient monitoring network 

plans consistent with the requirements 

of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The 

annual network plan involves an 

evaluation of any proposed changes to 

the monitoring network, includes the 

annual ambient monitoring network 

design plan and a certified evaluation of 

the agency’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.18 On July 

3, 2014, South Carolina submitted its 

plan to EPA. On October 8, 2014, EPA 

approved South Carolina’s monitoring 

network plan. South Carolina’s 

approved monitoring network plan can 

be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0852. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system related to 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for 

enforcement, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and new source 

review (NSR): This element consists of 

three sub-elements; enforcement, statewide regulation of new and modified 

minor sources and minor modifications 

of major sources; and preconstruction 

permitting of major sources and major 

modifications in areas designated 

attainment or unclassifiable for the 

subject NAAQS as required by CAA title 

I part C (i.e., the major source PSD 

program). In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that provides for enforcement of 

emission limits and control measures, 

the regulation of minor sources and 

modifications, and the enforcement 

emission limits to assist in the 

protection of air quality in 

nonattainment, attainment or 

unclassifiable areas. To meet these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32329 

obligations, South Carolina cites to 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

and Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 

7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review, 

and Regulation 61–62.1, Section II, 

Permit Requirements, which pertain to 

the construction of any new major 

stationary source or any project at an 

existing major stationary source in an 

area designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable. 

Enforcement: SC DHEC’s abovedescribed, SIP-approved regulations 

provide for enforcement of lead limits 

and control measures and construction 

permitting for new or modified 

stationary sources. Also S.C. Code Ann. 

§ 48–1–50(11) provides the Department 

with the authority to ‘‘Administer 

penalties as otherwise provided herein 

for violations of this chapter, including 

any order, permit, regulation or 

standards.’’ 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for 

Major Sources: With respect to South 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

related to the preconstruction PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA 

approved this element on March 18, 

2015 (80 FR 14019), and thus is not 

proposing any action today regarding 

these requirements. 

Regulation of minor sources and 

modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also 

requires the SIP to include provisions 

that govern the minor source preconstruction program that regulates 

emissions of lead. Regulation 61–62.1, 

Section II, Permit Requirements governs 

the preconstruction permitting of 

modifications and construction of minor 

stationary sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

and practices are adequate for program 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of minor sources and 

modifications related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and (ii) Interstate 

and International transport provisions: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two 

components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(II). Each of these 

components have two subparts resulting 

in four distinct components, commonly 

referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be 

addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that 

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or 

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

insuring compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

infrastructure SIP submissions to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state. The physical 

properties of lead prevent lead 

emissions from experiencing that same 

travel or formation phenomena as PM2.5

and ozone for interstate transport as 

outlined in prongs 1 and 2. More 

specifically, there is a sharp decrease in 

lead concentrations, at least in the 

coarse fraction, as the distance from a 

lead source increases. EPA believes that 

the requirements of prongs 1 and 2 can 

be satisfied through a state’s assessment 

as to whether a lead source located 

within its State in close proximity to a 

state border has emissions that 

contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

neighboring state. For example, EPA’s 

experience with the initial Lead 

designations suggests that sources that 

emit less than 0.5 tons per year (tpy) 

generally appear unlikely to contribute 

significantly to the nonattainment in 

another state. EPA’s experience also 

suggests that sources located more than 

two miles from the state border 

generally appear unlikely to contribute 

significantly to the nonattainment in 

another state. South Carolina has one 

lead source that may potentially emit 

over 0.5 tpy that is currently being 

constructed, Johnson Controls, but it 

will be located well beyond 2 miles 

from the border of neighboring states. 

Thus, EPA believes there are no sources 

in South Carolina that are likely to 

contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state. Therefore, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

respect South Carolina’s infrastructure 

SIP submission related to the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA approved 

this prong on March 18, 2015 (80 FR 

14019), and thus is not proposing any 

action today regarding these 

requirements. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: With 

regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the 

visibility sub-element, referred to as 

prong 4, significant impacts from lead 

emissions from stationary sources are 

expected to be limited to short distances 

from the source. The 2011 Lead 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes that it 

is anticipated that lead emissions will 

contribute only negligibly to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas. Lead 

stationary sources in South Carolina are 

located distances from Class I areas such 

that visibility impacts are negligible. As 

noted above, South Carolina has one 

lead source that may potentially emit 

over 0.5 tpy that is currently being 

constructed, Johnson Controls, but it 

will be located at such a distance from 

Class I areas such that visibility impacts 

would be negligible. Therefore, EPA has 

preliminarily determined that the South 

Carolina SIP meets the relevant 

visibility requirements of prong 4 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and 

International transport provisions: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to 

include provisions insuring compliance 

with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, 

relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement. With regard to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 

South Carolina does not have any 

pending obligation under sections 115 

and 126 of the CAA. Additionally, 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standards 7 and 7.1 

(q)(2)(iv), Public Participation, requires 

SC DHEC to notify air agencies ‘‘whose 

lands may be affected by emissions’’ 

from each new or modified major source 

if such emissions may significantly 

contribute to levels of pollution in 

excess of a NAAQS in any air quality 

control region outside of the South 

Carolina. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

and practices are adequate for insuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

5. 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority: Section 

110(a)(2)(E) requires that each 

implementation plan provide (i) 

necessary assurances that the State will 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out its 

implementation plan, (ii) that the State 

comply with the requirements 

respecting State Boards pursuant to 

section 128 of the Act, and (iii) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

necessary assurances that, where the 

State has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the State has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such plan provisions. EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

SIP as meeting the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E). EPA’s rationale for 

today’s proposal respecting each 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(E) is 

described below. 

With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

and (iii), SC DHEC develops, 

implements and enforces EPA-approved 

SIP provisions in the State. S.C. Code 

Ann. Section 48, Title 1, as referenced 

in SC DHEC’s infrastructure SIP 

submission, provides the Department’s 

general legal authority to establish a SIP 

and implement related plans. 

Specifically, S.C. Code Ann. § 48–1– 

50(12) grants SC DHEC the statutory 

authority to ‘‘[a]ccept, receive and 

administer grants or other funds or gifts 

for the purpose of carrying out any of 

the purposes of this chapter; [and to] 

accept, receive and receipt for Federal 

money given by the Federal government 

under any Federal law to the State of 

South Carolina for air or water control 

activities, surveys or programs.’’ S.C. 

Code Ann. Section 48, Title 2 grants SC 

DHEC statutory authority to establish 

environmental protection funds, which 

provide resources for SC DHEC to carry 

out its obligations under the CAA. 

Additionally, Regulation 61–30, 

Environmental Protection Fees, provides 

SC DHEC with the ability to access fees 

for environmental permitting programs. 

SC DHEC implements the SIP in 

accordance with the provisions of S.C. 

Code Ann § 1–23–40 (the 

Administrative Procedures Act) and S.C. 

Code Ann. Section 48, Title 1. 

The requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

and (iii) are further confirmed when 

EPA performs a completeness 

determination for each SIP submittal. 

This provides additional assurances that 

each submittal provides evidence that 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal 

authority under State Law has been 

used to carry out the State’s 

implementation plan and related issues. 

This information is included in all 

prehearings and final SIP submittal 

packages for approval by EPA. 

EPA also notes that annually, states 

update grant commitments based on 

current SIP requirements, air quality 

planning, and applicable requirements 

related to the NAAQS, including the 

lead NAAQS. On March 11, 2014, EPA 

submitted a letter to South Carolina 

outlining 105 grant commitments and 

current status of these commitments for 

fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA 

submitted to South Carolina can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0852. There were no outstanding issues, 

therefore South Carolina’s grants were 

finalized and closed out. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

South Carolina has adequate resources 

for implementation of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), South 

Carolina satisfies the requirements of 

CAA section 128(a)(1) for the SC Board 

of Health and Environmental Control, 

which is the ‘‘board or body which 

approves permits and enforcement 

orders’’ under CAA programs in South 

Carolina, through S.C. Code Ann. 

Section 8–13–730. S.C. Code Ann. 

Section 8–13–730 provides that 

‘‘[u]nless otherwise provided by law, no 

person may serve as a member of a 

governmental regulatory agency that 

regulates business with which that 

person is associated,’’ and S.C. Code 

Ann. Section 8–13–700(A) which 

provides in part that ‘‘[n]o public 

official, public member, or public 

employee may knowingly use his 

official office, membership, or 

employment to obtain an economic 

interest for himself, a member of his 

immediate family, an individual with 

whom he is associated, or a business 

with which he is associated.’’ S.C. Code 

Ann. Section 8–13–700(B)(1)–(5) 

provides for disclosure of any conflicts 

of interest by public official, public 

member or public employee, which 

meets the requirement of CAA Section 

128(a)(2) that ‘‘any potential conflicts of 

interest . . . be adequately disclosed.’’ 

These state statutes—S.C. Code Ann. 

Sections 8–13–730, 8–13–700(A), and 

8–13–700(B)(1)–(5)—have been 

approved into the South Carolina SIP as 

required by CAA section 128. Thus, 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

and practices are adequate for insuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements relating to state boards for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source 

monitoring system: South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission describes 

the establishment of requirements for 

compliance testing by emissions 

sampling and analysis, and for 

emissions and operation monitoring to 

ensure the quality of data in the State. 

SC DHEC uses these data to track 

progress towards maintaining the 

NAAQS, develop control and 

maintenance strategies, identify sources 

and general emission levels, and 

determine compliance with emission 

regulations and additional EPA 

requirements. These SIP requirements 

are codified at Regulation 61–62.1, 

Definitions and General Requirements, 

which provides for an emission 

inventory plan that establishes reporting 

requirements of the South Carolina SIP. 

South Carolina’s SIP requires owners or 

operators of stationary sources to 

monitor emissions, submit periodic 

reports of such emissions and maintain 

records as specified by various 

regulations and permits, and to evaluate 

reports and records for consistency with 

the applicable emission limitation or 

standard on a continuing basis over 

time. The monitoring data collected and 

records of operations serve as the basis 

for a source to certify compliance, and 

can be used by SC DHEC as direct 

evidence of an enforceable violation of 

the underlying emission limitation or 

standard. Accordingly, EPA is unaware 

of any provision preventing the use of 

credible evidence in the South Carolina 

SIP. 

Additionally, South Carolina is 

required to submit emissions data to 

EPA for purposes of the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 

EPA’s central repository for air 

emissions data. EPA published the Air 

Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on 

December 5, 2008, which modified the 

requirements for collecting and 

reporting air emissions data (73 FR 

76539). The AERR shortened the time 

states had to report emissions data from 

17 to 12 months, giving states one 

calendar year to submit emissions data. 

All states are required to submit a 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

every three years and report emissions 

for certain larger sources annually 

through EPA’s online Emissions 

Inventory System. States report 

emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and their associated 

precursors—NOX, sulfur dioxide, 

ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, 

particulate matter, and VOC. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. South 

Carolina made its latest update to the 

2011 NEI on April 8, 2014. EPA 

compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

South Carolina’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency episodes: 

This section requires that states 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32331 

demonstrate authority comparable with 

section 303 of the CAA and adequate 

contingency plans to implement such 

authority. Regulation 61–62.3, Air 

Pollution Episodes, provides for 

contingency measures when an air 

pollution episode or exceedance may 

lead to a substantial threat to the health 

of persons in the state or region. S.C. 

Code Ann. Section 48–1–290 provides 

SC DHEC, with concurrent notice to the 

Governor, the authority to issue an order 

recognizing the existence of an 

emergency requiring immediate action 

as deemed necessary by SC DHEC to 

protect the public health or property. 

Any person subject to this order is 

required to comply immediately. 

Additionally, S.C. Code Ann. Section 1– 

23–130 provides the Department with 

the authority to establish emergency 

regulations if it finds that an imminent 

peril to public health, safety, or welfare 

requires immediate promulgation of an 

emergency regulation or it finds that 

abnormal or unusual conditions, 

immediate need, or the state’s best 

interest requires immediate 

promulgation of emergency regulations 

to protect or manage natural resources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP, 

state laws and practices are adequate for 

emergency powers related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: 

As previously discussed, SC DHEC is 

responsible for adopting air quality 

rules and revising SIPs as needed to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS. South 

Carolina has the ability and authority to 

respond to calls for SIP revisions, and 

has provided a number of SIP revisions 

over the years for implementation of the 

NAAQS. Additionally, S.C. Code Ann. 

Section 48, Title 1, provides SC DHEC 

with the necessary authority to revise 

the SIP to accommodate changes in the 

NAAQS and thus revise the SIP as 

appropriate. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina adequately demonstrates a 

commitment to provide future SIP 

revisions related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, 

EPA is proposing to approve South 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission 

with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H). 

9. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with 

government officials, public 

notification, and PSD and visibility 

protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

South Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

with respect to the general requirement 

in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a 

program in the SIP that provides for 

meeting the applicable consultation 

requirements of section 121, the public 

notification requirements of section 127; 

and the visibility protection 

requirements of Part C of the Act. With 

respect to South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the PSD permitting requirements, EPA 

approved this sub-element of 

110(a)(2)(J) on March 18, 2015 (80 FR 

14019) and thus is not proposing any 

action today regarding these 

requirements. EPA’s rationale for its 

proposed action regarding applicable 

consultation requirements of section 

121 and the public notification 

requirements of section 127, and 

visibility protection requirements is 

described below. 

110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) 

Consultation with government officials: 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

as well as the State’s Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan, See 77 FR 38509, 

(which allows for consultation between 

appropriate state, local, and tribal air 

pollution control agencies as well as the 

corresponding Federal Land Managers), 

provide for consultation with 

government officials whose jurisdictions 

might be affected by SIP development 

activities. South Carolina adopted statewide consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity, which require SC DHEC to 

consult with federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials on the development of motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that South Carolina’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate consultation 

with government officials related to the 

2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve South Carolina’s infrastructure 

SIP submission with respect to section 

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

government officials. 

110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) 

Public notification: These requirements 

are met through 61–62.3, Air Pollution 

Episodes, which requires that SC DHEC 

notify the public of any air pollution 

episode or NAAQS violation. Regulation 

61–62.5, Standard 7.1 (q), Public 

Participation, notifies the public by 

advertisement in a newspaper of general 

circulation in each region in which a 

proposed plant or modifications will be 

constructed of the degree of increment 

consumption that is expected from the 

plant or modification, and the 

opportunity for comment at a public 

hearing as well as written public 

comment. An opportunity for a public 

hearing for interested persons to appear 

and submit written or oral comments on 

the air quality impact of the plant or 

modification, alternatives to the plant or 

modification, the control technology 

required, and other appropriate 

considerations is also offered. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that South Carolina’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide public notification 

related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when 

necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public 

notification. 

110(a)(2)(J)—Visibility protection: The 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

notes that EPA does not generally treat 

the visibility protection aspects of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for 

purposes of the infrastructure SIP 

approval process. EPA recognizes that 

states are subject to visibility protection 

and regional haze program requirements 

under Part C of the Act (which includes 

sections 169A and 169B). However, in 

the event of the establishment of a new 

primary NAAQS, the visibility 

protection and regional haze program 

requirements under part C do not 

change. Thus, EPA concludes there are 

no new applicable visibility protection 

obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J) as 

a result of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, and 

as such, has made the preliminary 

determination that South Carolina’s SIP 

is adequate as it relates to the visibility 

protection sub-element of section 

110(a)(2)(J). 

10. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and 

modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of 

the CAA requires that SIPs provide for 

performing air quality modeling so that 

effects on air quality of emissions from 

NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and 

submission of such data to the USEPA 

can be made. Regulations 61–62.5, 

Standards No. 2, Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, and Regulation 61–62.5, 

Standard No. 7, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, of the South 

Carolina SIP specify that required air 

modeling be conducted in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W 

‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models.’’ 

These standards demonstrate that South 

Carolina has the authority to provide 

relevant data for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of emissions of lead. 

Additionally, South Carolina supports a 

regional effort to coordinate the 

development of emissions inventories 

and conduct regional modeling for 

several NAAQS, including the 2008 

Lead NAAQS, for the southeastern 

states. Taken as a whole, South 

Carolina’s air quality regulations and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

19This regulation has not been incorporated into 

the federally-approved SIP. 

20Title V program regulations are federallyapproved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. 

practices demonstrate that SC DHEC has 

the authority to provide relevant data 

for the purpose of predicting the effect 

on ambient air quality of any emissions 

of any pollutant for which a NAAQS 

had been promulgated, and to provide 

such information to the EPA 

Administrator upon request. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that South Carolina’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide for air quality and 

modeling, along with analysis of the 

associated data, related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 

to approve South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

11. 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting fees: This 

section requires the SIP to direct the 

owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under the CAA, a 

fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable 

costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

Section 48–2–50 of the South Carolina 

Code prescribes that SC DHEC charge 

fees for environmental programs it 

administers pursuant to federal and 

state law and regulations including 

those that govern the costs to review, 

implement and enforce PSD and NNSR 

permits. Regulation 61–30, 

Environmental Protection Fees 19

prescribes fees applicable to applicants 

and holders of permits, licenses, 

certificates, certifications, and 

registrations, establishes procedures for 

the payment of fees, provides for the 

assessment of penalties for nonpayment, 

and establishes an appeals process for 

refuting fees. This regulation may be 

amended as needed to meet the funding 

requirements of the state’s permitting 

program. Additionally, South Carolina 

has a federally-approved title V 

program, Regulation 61–62.70, Title V 

Operating Permit Program,20 which 

implements and enforces the 

requirements of PSD and nonattainment 

NSR for facilities once they begin 

operating. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that South 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

provide for permitting fees related to the 

2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve South Carolina’s infrastructure 

SIP submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(L). 

12. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/

participation by affected local entities: 

This element 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 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. SC DHEC has 

recently worked closely with local 

political subdivisions during the 

development of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP, Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan, and 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 2008 Lead 

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 the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources contained in section 

110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J), 

EPA is proposing to approve that SC 

DHEC’s infrastructure SIP submission, 

submitted September 20, 2011, for the 

2008 Lead. EPA is proposing to approve 

these portions of South Carolina’s 

infrastructure submission for the 2008 

Lead NAAQS because this submission is 

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, 

S.C. Code Ann. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 2015 / Proposed Rules 32333 

1Title XXXIII of the PHS Act is codified at 42 

U.S.C. 300mm to 300mm–61. Those portions of the 

Zadroga Act found in Titles II and III of Public Law 

111–347 do not pertain to the WTC Health Program 

and are codified elsewhere. 

2See Petition 007. WTC Health Program: Petitions 

Received. http://www.cdc.gov/wtc/received.html. 

3Webber M.P., Moir W., Zeig-Owens R., Glaser 

M.S., Jaber N., Hall C., Berman J., Qayyum B., 

Loupasakis K., Kelly K., and Prezant D.J. [2015]. 

Nested case-control study of selected systemic 

autoimmune diseases in World Trade Center 

rescue/recovery workers. Journal of Arthritis & 

Rheumatology 67(5):1369–1376. 

4 ‘‘Policy and Procedures for Adding Non-Cancer 

Conditions to the List of WTC-Related Health 

Conditions,’’ John Howard, MD, Administrator of 

the WTC Health Program, October 21, 2014. 

http://www.cdc.gov/wtc/pdfs/WTCHP_PP_Adding_

NonCancers_21_Oct_2014.pdf. 

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 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 28, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13947 Filed 6–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 88 

World Trade Center Health Program; 

Petition 007—Autoimmune Diseases; 

Finding of Insufficient Evidence 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, HHS. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for addition of 

a health condition. 

SUMMARY: On April 6, 2015, the 

Administrator of the World Trade 

Center (WTC) Health Program received 

a petition (Petition 007) to add certain 

autoimmune diseases, including 

rheumatoid arthritis and connective 

tissues diseases, to the List of WTCRelated Health Conditions (List). Upon 

reviewing the scientific and medical 

literature, including information 

provided by the petitioner, the 

Administrator has determined that the 

available evidence does not have the 

potential to provide a basis for a 

decision on whether to add certain 

autoimmune diseases to the List. The 

Administrator finds that insufficient 

evidence exists to request a 

recommendation of the WTC Health 

Program Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee (STAC), to publish a 

proposed rule, or to publish a 

determination not to publish a proposed 

rule. 

DATES: The Administrator of the WTC 

Health Program is denying this petition 

for the addition of a health condition as 

of June 8, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 

Tusculum Avenue, MS: C–46, 

Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 

818–1629 (this is a toll-free number); 

email NIOSHregs@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

A. WTC Health Program Statutory Authority 

B. Petition 007 

C. Administrator’s Determination on Petition 

007 

A. WTC Health Program Statutory 

Authority 

Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 

Health and Compensation Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–347), amended the Public 

Health Service Act (PHS Act) to add 

Title XXXIII 1 establishing the WTC 

Health Program within the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

The WTC Health Program provides 

medical monitoring and treatment 

benefits to eligible firefighters and 

related personnel, law enforcement 

officers, and rescue, recovery, and 

cleanup workers who responded to the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in 

New York City, at the Pentagon, and in 

Shanksville, Pennsylvania (responders), 

and to eligible persons who were 

present in the dust or dust cloud on 

September 11, 2001 or who worked, 

resided, or attended school, childcare, 

or adult daycare in the New York City 

disaster area (survivors). 

All references to the Administrator of 

the WTC Health Program 

(Administrator) in this notice mean the 

Director of the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) or his or her designee. 

Pursuant to § 3312(a)(6)(B) of the PHS 

Act, interested parties may petition the 

Administrator to add a health condition 

to the List in 42 CFR 88.1. Within 60 

calendar days after receipt of a petition 

to add a condition to the List, the 

Administrator must take one of the 

following four actions described in 

§ 3312(a)(6)(B) and 42 CFR 88.17: (i) 

Request a recommendation of the STAC; 

(ii) publish a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register to add such health 

condition; (iii) publish in the Federal 

Register the Administrator’s 

determination not to publish such a 

proposed rule and the basis for such 

determination; or (iv) publish in the 

Federal Register a determination that 

insufficient evidence exists to take 

action under (i) through (iii) above. 

B. Petition 007 

On April 6, 2015, the Administrator 

received a petition to add ‘‘autoimmune 

diseases, such as Rheumatoid Arthritis’’ 

to the List (Petition 007).2 The petition 

was submitted by a WTC Health 

Program member who responded to the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in 

New York City. The petitioner indicated 

that she has been diagnosed with 

rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune 

disorder, and is currently receiving 

treatment for a number of other WTCrelated health conditions. The petitioner 

described an article published in the 

Journal of Arthritis and Rheumatology 

by Webber et al. [2015],3 which was 

designed to test the hypothesis that 

acute and chronic 9/11 work-related 

exposures were associated with the risk 

of certain new-onset systemic 

autoimmune diseases. 

C. Administrator’s Determination on 

Petition 007 

The Administrator has established a 

methodology for evaluating whether to 

add non-cancer health conditions to the 

List of WTC-Related Health Conditions, 

published online in the Policies and 

Procedures section of the WTC Health 

Program Web site.4 In accordance with 

the methodology, the Administrator 

directs the WTC Health Program 

Associate Director for Science (ADS) to 

conduct a review of the scientific 

literature to determine if the available 

scientific information has the potential 

to provide a basis for a decision on 

whether to add the condition to the List. 

The literature review includes 

published, peer-reviewed direct 

observational and/or epidemiological 

studies about the health condition 

among 9/11-exposed populations. The 

studies are reviewed for their relevance, 

quantity, and quality to provide a basis 

for deciding whether to propose adding 

the health condition to the List. Where 

the available evidence has the potential 

to provide a basis for a decision, the 

ADS further assesses the scientific and 

medical evidence to determine whether 

a causal relationship between 9/11 

exposures and the health condition is 

supported. A health condition may be 

added to the List if published, peerreviewed direct observational or 

epidemiologic studies provide 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS