Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53309 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action does not apply 

on any Indian reservation land, any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of 

Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it merely disapproves a SIP 

submission as not meeting the CAA. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action merely 

disapproves a SIP submission as not 

meeting the CAA. 

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. The 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 October 11, 2016. 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, and Ozone. 

Dated: July 29, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

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 T—Louisiana 

■ 2. Section 52.996 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.996 Disapprovals. 

(a) The portion of the SIP submitted 

on June 4, 2013 addressing Clean Air 

Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS is disapproved. 

(b) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2016–19148 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0704; FRL–9950–54– 

Region 5] 

Wisconsin; Approval/Disapproval of 

Interstate Transport Requirements for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving elements of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 

from Wisconsin regarding the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

2008 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. This 

action pertains specifically to 

infrastructure requirements concerning 

interstate transport provisions for which 

Wisconsin made a SIP submission that, 

among other things, certified that the 

existing SIP was sufficient to meet the 

interstate transport requirements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0704. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(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 through 

www.regulations.gov or please contact 

the person identified in the ‘‘For Further 

Information Contact’’ section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401, 

arra.sarah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
53310 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

II. What action did EPA propose on the SIP 

submission? 

III. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

This rulemaking addresses CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements in 

an infrastructure SIP submission 

addressing the applicable infrastructure 

requirements with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, submitted by the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) on June 20, 2013, 

and clarified in a letter dated January 

28, 2015. 

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 

commonly refers to such state plans as 

‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ 

This rulemaking takes action on two 

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

requirements which apply to these 

submissions. In particular, section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include 

provisions prohibiting any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one 

state from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS (‘‘prong 

one’’), or interfering with maintenance 

of the NAAQS (‘‘prong two’’), by any 

another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requires that infrastructure SIPs include 

provisions prohibiting any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one 

state from interfering with measures 

required to prevent significant 

deterioration (PSD) of air quality 

(‘‘prong three’’) and to protect visibility 

(‘‘prong four’’) in another state. This 

rulemaking addresses prongs one and 

two of this CAA section. The majority 

of the other infrastructure elements 

were approved in rulemakings on 

September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54725). 

II. What action did EPA propose on the 

SIP submission? 

The proposed rulemaking associated 

with today’s final action was published 

on March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14025). In 

that action, EPA proposed to disapprove 

the Wisconsin SIP for the prong two 

requirement because the WDNR SIP 

submission did not provide an adequate 

technical analysis demonstrating that 

the state’s SIP contained adequate 

provisions prohibiting emissions that 

will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state 

and because EPA’s most recent 

modeling indicated that emissions from 

Wisconsin were projected to contribute 

to projected downwind maintenance 

receptors in another state. EPA also 

proposed to approve the Wisconsin SIP 

for the prong one requirement because, 

although WDNR did not provide 

information or analyses explaining why 

existing SIP provisions are adequate to 

prevent significant contribution to 

nonattainment in downwind states, 

EPA’s independent modeling presented 

in the Notice of Data Availability and 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Update 

Rule indicated that Wisconsin 

emissions were not linked to any 

projected downwind nonattainment 

receptors. Therefore, EPA proposed to 

find that the Wisconsin SIP had 

adequate provisions to prevent such 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

standard. 

III. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

During the comment period, which 

ended on April 15, 2016, EPA did not 

receive any comments on the Wisconsin 

portion of the proposed notice. 

Comments pertaining to Ohio and 

Indiana are addressed in a June 15, 2016 

rulemaking (81 FR 38957). 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA, as proposed, is approving prong 

one and disapproving prong two of a 

required infrastructure element with 

respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

interstate transport, for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The approval is based on the 

June 20, 2013 SIP submission in which 

Wisconsin certified that the current SIP 

is sufficient to meet the CAA 

requirements. The disapproval portion 

of this action triggers an obligation 

under CAA section 110(c) for EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) no later than two years from 

the effective date of this disapproval, if 

EPA has not approved a SIP revision or 

revisions addressing the deficiencies 

identified in this action. The 

disapproval in this action is not tied to 

attainment planning requirements and 

therefore does not start any sanction 

clocks. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the PRA. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Administrator certifies that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the RFA. 

In making this determination, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities. An agency may certify that a 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities if the rule 

relieves regulatory burden, has no net 

burden or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on the small entities 

subject to the rule. This action merely 

proposes to disapprove state law as not 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53311 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children because it proposes to 

disapprove a state rule. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. 

Congressional Review Act 

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 rule 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 October 11, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule 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, 

Ozone. 

Dated: August 1, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

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. 

■ 2. Section 52.2591 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) Approval—In a June 20, 2013, 

submission with a January 28, 2015, 

clarification, Wisconsin certified that 

the state has satisfied the infrastructure 

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

through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. For 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), we are approving 

prong one and disapproving prong two. 

We are not taking action on the 

prevention of significant deterioration 

requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) and the 

state board requirements of (E)(ii). We 

will address these requirements in a 

separate action. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–19025 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0006; FRL–9950– 

62–Region 2] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Jackson Steel Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Jackson Steel Superfund 

site (Site), located in the Village of 

Mineola, Nassau County, New York, 

contains a building formerly used as a 

metal-forming facility. The Site is 

bordered to the north by commercial 

spaces and single-family dwellings, to 

the east by a two-story apartment 

complex, to the south by a daycare 

center and to the west by an office 

building and restaurant. 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Region 2 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion (NOD) of the 

Site from the National Priorities List 

(NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant 

to Section 105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

New York, through the New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC), because EPA 

has determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA have 

been completed at the Site and that the 

soil on the Site and the groundwater 

beneath the Site no longer pose a threat 

to public health or the environment. 

Because elevated concentrations of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are 

present under the slab of the vacant 

Jackson Steel building and the occupied 

daycare center, operation and 

maintenance of the subslab vapor 

intrusion mitigation systems under the 

daycare center, periodic vapor intrusion 

monitoring, and five-year reviews will 

continue. The deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion will be 

effective September 26, 2016 unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

September 12, 2016. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final NOD in the Federal 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES