Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42765 

pollutant and, thus, is not subject to any 

reasonable further progress 

requirements. Air quality monitoring is 

currently available in the county for 

ozone. A comparison of the Collier 

County data in relation to the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

ozone is indicating that value is well 

within the compliance level. The ozone 

design value for 2011–2013 in Collier 

County is 0.060 parts per million (ppm). 

The proposed SIP revision involves 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), a precursor to ozone. 

For fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 

County-level nitrogen oxide, volatile 

organic compound and ammonia 

emissions were not considered because 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the 

southeastern U.S. tend to be impacted 

most significantly by emissions of direct 

PM2.5 emissions and SO2 emissions. As 

a result of the time involved in the 

chemical and physical transformations 

of the precursor emissions, the primary 

impact of the source cannot be 

explicitly determined but can be 

evaluated in terms of its addition to the 

county and regional emissions from all 

sources in this area. 

The proposed source is currently 

operating in the county and is simply 

moving a relatively short distance (1.6 

miles) within the same general area. 

Emissions of VOC from gasoline 

operations at the relocated source are 

estimated to be the same as VOC 

emissions at the existing facility, even 

when the increased storage capacity at 

the new location is considered. 

Specifically, VOC emissions are 

estimated to be less than 3 tons per 

year—minor in comparison to the 

county total of 31,816 tons per year. 

Since ozone concentration levels are 

currently well below the ambient air 

quality standard of 0.075 ppm, and 

emissions of VOC will not increase as a 

result of the relocation of this source, 

EPA has preliminary determined that 

the variance will not interfere with the 

area’s ability to continue to maintain the 

ozone standards. Thus, EPA has 

preliminarily determined that the 

changes are consistent with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act). 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule, regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the ‘‘Combs Oil Company Source 

Specific Variance’’ order granting 

variance on August 20, 2008. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is proposing to approve a source 

specific SIP revision submitted by the 

Florida DEP on July 31, 2009. The 

revision grants a variance to the Combs 

Oil Company, located in Naples, 

Florida. This source specific revision 

relieves the Combs Oil Company of the 

requirement to comply with the Florida 

rule governing installation and 

operation of vapor collection and 

control systems on loading racks at bulk 

gasoline plants. It should be noted that 

approval of the variance for Combs Oil 

Company only relieves them from the 

requirements of Rule 62–296.418(2)(b)2 

F.A.C., for its new bulk gasoline plant, 

it does not relieve them from any 

requirements established in 40 CFR 

parts 60 and 63. 

IV. 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 a 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 6, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17736 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0185; FRL–9930–87– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alabama; 

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 

in part, and disapprove, the November 

4, 2011, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission, provided by the Alabama 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42766 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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, the term 

‘‘ADEM Administrative Code’’ or ‘‘ADEM Admin. 

Code’’ refers to regulations that have been approved 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM) for inclusion into 

the Alabama 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. ADEM certified 

that the Alabama SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Alabama. With the 

exception of provisions pertaining to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting, which EPA is 

proposing no action through this notice, 

and with the exception of the provisions 

respecting state boards, for which EPA 

is proposing disapproval, EPA is 

proposing to approve Alabama’s 

infrastructure SIP submission provided 

to EPA on November 4, 2011, as 

satisfying the required infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0185, 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–2013– 

0185,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section, (formerly the Regulatory 

Development Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, (formerly the 

Air Planning 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, 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0185. 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 

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, 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, 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 Alabama 

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 

a primary and secondary NAAQS under 

section 109 of the Act. See 43 FR 46246. 

Both the 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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42767 

into Alabama’s federally-approved SIP. The terms 

‘‘Alabama Code’’ or ‘‘Ala. Code’’ indicate Alabama’s 

state statutes, which 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). 

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 

Continued 

Today’s action is proposing to in part 

approve and in part disapprove portions 

of Alabama’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the applicable 

requirements of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

On March 18, 2015, EPA approved 

Alabama’s November 4, 2011, 

infrastructure SIP submission regarding 

the PSD permitting requirements for 

major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

prong 3 of D(i) and (J) for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. Therefore, 

EPA is not proposing any action today 

pertaining to the PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

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

and (J) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. With 

respect to Alabama’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions related to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements respecting 

the section 128 state board 

requirements, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove this element of Alabama’s 

submissions in today’s rulemaking. For 

the aspects of Alabama’s submittal 

proposed for approval today, EPA notes 

that the Agency is not approving any 

specific rule, but rather proposing that 

Alabama’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 

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, 

PSD, and new source review (NSR) 3

• 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate transport 

provisions 

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): 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, 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 Alabama 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42768 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42769 

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, 2001. 

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. 

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). 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.11 EPA issued the 

Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance on 

October 14, 2011.12 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate guidance for the 2008 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 

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 

Alabama addressed the elements of 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

The Alabama 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 

regulations within Alabama’s SIP are 

relevant to air quality control 

regulations. The regulations described 

below have been federally approved in 

the Alabama SIP and include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures. Alabama’s 

infrastructure SIP submission cites 

provisions of the Administrative Code 

that provide ADEM with the necessary 

authority to adopt and enforce air 

quality controls such as Administrative 

Codes 335–3–1–.03, ‘‘Ambient Air 

Quality Standards,’’ 335–3–1.05 

‘‘Sampling and Testing,’’ 335–3–1–.06 

‘‘Compliance Schedule,’’ 335–3–14– 

.03(1)(g) ‘‘Standards for Granting 

Permits’’ and 335–3–4–.15 ‘‘Secondary 

Lead Smelters.’’ EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

provisions contained in these chapters 

and Alabama’s 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42770 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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. ADEM Administrative 

Code, 335–3–1–.03 ‘‘Ambient Air 

Quality Standards,’’ and 335–3–1–.04 

‘‘Monitoring Records and Reporting,’’ 

along with the Alabama Network 

Description and Ambient Air Network 

Monitoring Plan, provide for an ambient 

air quality monitoring system in the 

State. 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 The latest monitoring 

network plan for Alabama was 

submitted on July 17, 2014, and on 

March 6, 2015, EPA approved this plan. 

Alabama’s approved monitoring 

network plan can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0185. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Alabama’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, PSD, and NSR: This 

element consists of three sub-elements; 

enforcement, state-wide 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). To meet 

these obligations, Alabama cited ADEM 

Administrative Codes 335–3–14–.01 

‘‘General Provisions,’’ 335–3–14–.02 

‘‘Permit Procedure,’’ 335–3–14–.03 

‘‘Standards for Granting Permits,’’ 335– 

3–14.04 ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration in Permitting,’’ and 335– 

3–14–.05 ‘‘Air Permits Authorizing 

Construction in or Near Nonattainment 

Areas’’ of Alabama’s SIP. ADEM is able 

to regulate sources of lead through these 

above cited provisions of Alabama’s SIP. 

In this action, EPA is only proposing to 

approve the enforcement and the 

regulation of new minor sources and 

minor modifications aspects of 

Alabama’s section 110(a)(2)(C) 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Enforcement: ADEM’s abovedescribed, SIP-approved regulations 

meet the requirements for enforcement 

of lead emission limits and control 

measures and construction permitting 

for new or modified stationary sources. 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for 

Major Sources: With respect to 

Alabama’s November 4, 2011 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA took final 

action to approve this provision for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS on March 18, 2015. 

See 80 FR 14019. 

Regulation of minor sources and 

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

requires the SIP to include provisions 

that govern a minor source preconstruction program that regulates 

emissions of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

ADEM Administrative Code 335–3–14– 

.03 ‘‘Standards for Granting Permits’’ 

governs the preconstruction permitting 

of modifications and construction of 

minor stationary sources in the State. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’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) Interstate transport 

provisions: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has 

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

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(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 

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, 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 

the 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 suggest that sources that 

emit less than 0.5 tpy or are located 

more than two miles from the state 

border generally appear unlikely to 

contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment in another state. 

Alabama has one lead source that has 

emissions of lead over 0.5 tons per year 

(tpy), but because the source is located 

well beyond two miles from the State 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42771 

19There is one facility in Alabama that has Lead 

emissions greater than 0.5 tpy. The facility is 

Sanders Lead Co, Inc., which is located at 100 

Sanders Rd Troy, AL 36079. This location is about 

45 miles from the Georgia border. 

border,19 EPA believes it is unlikely to 

contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state. Therefore, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP meets the requirements 

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

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

respect to Alabama’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the interstate 

transport requirements for PSD of prong 

3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA took 

final action to approve Alabama’s 

November 4, 2011 infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. 

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 visibility impacts 

from stationary source lead emissions 

are expected to be limited to short 

distances from the source. Lead 

stationary sources in Alabama are 

located distances from Class I areas such 

that visibility impacts are negligible. 

The 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance notes that the lead constituent 

of PM would likely not travel far enough 

to affect Class 1 areas and that the 

visibility provisions of the CAA do not 

directly regulate lead. Accordingly, EPA 

has preliminarily determined that the 

Alabama SIP meets the relevant 

visibility requirements of prong 4 of 

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

5. 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. ADEM Admin. 

Code 335–3–14–.04—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration in Permitting 

describes how Alabama notifies 

neighboring states of potential emission 

impacts from new or modified sources 

applying for PSD permits. This 

regulation requires ADEM to provide an 

opportunity for a public hearing to the 

public, which includes State or local air 

pollution control agencies, ‘‘whose 

lands may be affected by emissions from 

the source or modification’’ in Alabama. 

Additionally, Alabama does not have 

any pending obligation under sections 

115 and 126 of the CAA. Accordingly, 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’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. 

6. 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) 

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 Alabama’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 110(2)(E)(iii) but 

disapprove for element 110(2)(E)(ii). 

EPA’s rationale for today’s proposals 

respecting each section of 110(a)(2)(E) is 

described in turn below. 

To satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), ADEM’s 

infrastructure SIP submission describes 

Alabama Code section 22–28–11, which 

authorizes ADEM to adopt emission 

requirements though regulations that are 

necessary to prevent, abate, or control 

air pollution. Also, Alabama Code 

section 22–28–9 authorizes the 

Department to employ necessary staff to 

carry out responsibilities. The funding 

requirements are met through the 105 

grants and the title V fee process. As 

further evidence of the adequacy of 

ADEM’s resources, EPA submitted a 

letter to Alabama on April 24, 2014, 

outlining 105 grant commitments and 

the current status of these commitments 

for fiscal year 2014. The letter EPA 

submitted to Alabama can be accessed 

at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0185. 

Annually, states update these grant 

commitments based on current SIP 

requirements, air quality planning, and 

applicable requirements related to the 

NAAQS. Alabama satisfactorily met all 

commitments agreed to in the Air 

Planning Agreement for fiscal year 2014, 

therefore Alabama’s grants were 

finalized. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama has 

adequate resources for implementation 

of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

To satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), states must comply with 

the requirements respecting State 

Boards pursuant to section 128 of the 

Act. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that 

the state comply with section 128 of the 

CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP 

contain provisions that provide: (1) The 

majority of members of the state board 

or body which approves permits or 

enforcement orders represent the public 

interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permitting or 

enforcement orders under the CAA; and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by 

such board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed. After reviewing 

Alabama’s SIP, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

State’s implementation plan does not 

contain provisions to comply with 

section 128 of the Act, and thus 

Alabama’s November 4, 2011, 

infrastructure SIP submission does not 

meet the requirements of the Act. While 

Alabama has state statutes that may 

address, in whole or in part, 

requirements related to state boards at 

the state level, these provisions are not 

included in the SIP as required by the 

CAA. Based on an evaluation of the 

federally-approved Alabama SIP, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove Alabama’s 

infrastructure SIP submission as 

meeting the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA for the 2008 

Lead NAAQS. The submitted provisions 

which purport to address 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

are severable from the other portions of 

ADEM’s infrastructure SIP submission, 

therefore, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove those provisions which 

relate only to sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source 

monitoring system: ADEM’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. 

The Alabama infrastructure SIP 

submission also describes how the 

major source and minor source emission 

inventory programs collect emission 

data throughout the State and ensure the 

quality of such data. Alabama meets 

these requirements through ADEM 

Admin. Codes 335–3–1–.04 

‘‘Monitoring, Records, and Reporting,’’ 

and 335–3–12 ‘‘Continuous Monitoring 

Requirements for Existing Sources.’’ 

ADEM Admin. Code 335–3–1–.04, 

details how sources are required as 

appropriate to establish and maintain 

records; make reports; install, use, and 

maintain such monitoring equipment or 

methods and provide periodic emission 

reports as the regulation requires. These 

reports and records are required to be 

compiled, and submitted on forms 

furnished by the State. Additionally, 

ADEM Admin. Code 335–3–12–.02 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42772 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

20ADEM Admin. Code 335–3–12–.02 establishes 

that data reporting requirements for sources 

required to conduct continuous monitoring in the 

state should comply with data reporting 

requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

P. Section 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P includes 

that the averaging period used for data reporting 

should be established by the state to correspond to 

the averaging period specified in the emission test 

method used to determine compliance with an 

emission standard for the pollutant/source category 

in question. 

21This regulation has not been incorporated into 

the federally-approved SIP. 

requires owners and operators of 

emissions sources to ‘‘install, calibrate, 

operate and maintain all monitoring 

equipment necessary for continuously 

monitoring the pollutants.’’ 20 ADEM 

Admin. Code 335–3–1–.13 ‘‘Credible 

Evidence,’’ makes allowances for 

owners and/or operators to utilize ‘‘any 

credible evidence or information 

relevant’’ to demonstrate compliance 

with applicable requirements if the 

appropriate performance or compliance 

test had been performed, for the purpose 

of submitting compliance certification 

and can be used to establish whether or 

not an owner or operator has violated or 

is in violation of any rule or standard. 

Accordingly, EPA is unaware of any 

provision preventing the use of credible 

evidence in the Alabama SIP. 

Additionally, Alabama 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—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonia, Lead, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, and 

volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. Alabama 

made its latest update to the 2013 NEI 

on January 13, 2015. 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 

Alabama’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS. 

8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency episodes: 

This section of the CAA requires that 

states demonstrate authority comparable 

with section 303 of the CAA and 

adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority. ADEM 

Admin. Code 335–3–2 ‘‘Air Pollution 

Emergency’’ provides for the 

identification of air pollution emergency 

episodes, episode criteria, and 

emissions reduction plans. Alabama’s 

compliance with section 303 of the CAA 

and adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority is also met by 

Ala. Code section 22–28–21 ‘‘Air 

Pollution Emergencies.’’ Ala. Code 

section 22–28–21 provides ADEM the 

authority to order the ‘‘person or 

persons responsible for the operation or 

operations of one or more air 

contaminants sources’’ causing 

‘‘imminent danger to human health or 

safety in question to reduce or 

discontinue emissions immediately.’’ 

The order triggers a hearing no later 

than 24-hours after issuance before the 

Environmental Management 

Commission which can affirm, modify 

or set aside the Director’s order. 

Additionally, the Governor can, by 

proclamation, declare, as to all or any 

part of said area, that an air pollution 

emergency exists and exercise certain 

powers in whole or in part, by the 

issuance of an order or orders to protect 

the public health. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP, state laws and practices 

are adequate to satisfy the infrastructure 

SIP obligations for emergency powers 

related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

9. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: 

As previously discussed, ADEM is 

responsible for adopting air quality 

rules and revising SIPs as needed to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS. Alabama 

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. These requirements are met 

through ADEM Administrative Codes 

335–1–1–.03 ‘‘Organization and Duties 

of the Commission,’’ 21 which provides 

ADEM with the authority to establish, 

adopt, promulgate, modify, repeal and 

suspend rules, regulations, or 

environmental standards which may be 

applicable to Alabama or ‘‘any of its 

geographic parts’’ and 335–3–1–.03 

‘‘Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 

which provides ADEM the authority to 

amend, revise, and incorporate the 

NAAQS into its SIP. Alabama currently 

has one area designated nonattainment 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS located in 

Troy, Alabama related to the Sanders 

Lead Company. ADEM submitted an 

attainment demonstration for this area 

on November 9, 2012. EPA approved 

this attainment demonstration on 

January 28, 2014. See 79 FR 4407. 

Accordingly, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate a commitment to provide 

future SIP revisions related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS, when necessary. 

10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with 

government officials, public 

notification, PSD, and visibility 

protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’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 

visibility protection requirements of 

part C of the Act. With respect to 

Alabama’s infrastructure SIP submission 

related to the preconstruction PSD 

permitting requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J), EPA took final action to 

approve Alabama’s November 4, 2011 

2008 Lead NAAQS infrastructure SIP for 

these requirements on March 18, 2015. 

See 80 FR 14019. EPA’s rationale for its 

proposed action regarding applicable 

consultation requirements of section 

121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, and 

visibility protection requirements is 

described below. 

Consultation with government 

officials (121 consultation): Section 

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to 

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments, designated 

organizations and federal land managers 

(FLMs) carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to section 121 relative to consultation. 

ADEM Admin. Code 335–3–1–.03 

‘‘Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ as 

well as its Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan (which allows for 

continued consultation with appropriate 

state, local, and tribal air pollution 

control agencies as well as the 

corresponding FLMs), provide for 

consultation with government officials 

whose jurisdictions might be affected by 

SIP development activities. Specifically, 

Alabama adopted state-wide 

consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity which includes the 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIP development. These consultation 

procedures were developed in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42773 

22This regulation has not been incorporated into 

the federally-approved SIP. 

23Title V program regulations are federally 

approved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. 

coordination with the transportation 

partners in the State and are consistent 

with the approaches used for 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIPs. Required partners covered by 

Alabama’s consultation procedures 

include federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with government officials 

related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when 

necessary. 

Public notification (127 public 

notification): To meet the public 

notification requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J), ADEM cites Alabama Code 

§ 22–28–21 ‘‘Air Pollution Emergencies’’ 

and ADEM Administrative Code 335–3– 

14–.01(7) ‘‘Public Participation,’’ which 

requires that ADEM notify the public of 

any air pollution alert, warning, or 

emergency. The ADEM Web site also 

sites air quality summary data and air 

quality index reports. Alabama 

maintains a public Web site on which 

daily air quality index forecasts and 

summary data are posted. This Web site 

can be accessed at: http://

adem.alabama.gov/programs/air/

airquality.cnt. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’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 Alabama’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

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

Visibility Protection: The 2011 Lead 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes that 

the lead constituent of PM would likely 

not travel far enough to affect Class I 

areas and that the visibility provisions 

of the CAA do not directly regulate lead. 

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 of the CAA do not change. 

EPA thus does not expect states to 

address visibility for this element in 

Lead infrastructure submittals. 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. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve section 110(a)(2)(J) of ADEM’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to visibility. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

State’s ability to meet 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 

visibility protection associated with 

regional haze. EPA has also 

preliminarily determined that it is 

appropriate approve the State’s Lead 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to the visibility aspects of 

section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA is making no 

determinations with respect the PSD 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), 

which will be addressed in a different 

notice. 

11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality 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. ADEM Administrative 

Code 335–3–1–.04 ‘‘Monitoring Records 

and Reporting’’ and 335–3–14–.04 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permitting’’ which incorporates 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix W ‘‘Guideline on Air 

Quality Models,’’ demonstrate that 

Alabama has the authority to provide 

relevant data for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

Additionally, Alabama 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, Alabama’s air 

quality regulations and practices 

demonstrate that ADEM has the 

authority to provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of the Lead NAAQS. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’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 when necessary. 

12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: This 

section requires 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. To satisfy these 

requirements, ADEM’s infrastructure 

SIP submission cites ADEM Admin. 

Code 335–1–6 ‘‘Application Fees,’’ 22

which are State regulations authorized 

by legislation. Also, ADEM has an 

approved Title V program with a fee 

structure established in ADEM Admin. 

Code 335–1–7 ‘‘Air Division Operating 

Permit Fees.’’ 23 The Title V fees cover 

the reasonable cost of implementation 

and enforcement of PSD and NNSR 

permits after they have been issued. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’s SIP and 

practices adequately provide for 

permitting fees related to the Lead 

NAAQS, when necessary. 

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. 

Alabama Administrative Code 335–3– 

14–.01(17) ‘‘Public Participation,’’ 335– 

3–14–.04(6) ‘‘Public Participation,’’ and 

335–3–14–.05(13) ‘‘Public Participation, 

‘‘of the Alabama SIP requires that 

ADEM 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. ADEM worked 

closely with local political subdivisions 

during the development of its 

Transportation Conformity SIP and 

Regional Haze Implementation Plan. 

Required partners covered by Alabama’s 

consultation procedures include federal, 

state and local transportation and air 

quality agency officials. The state and 

local transportation agency officials are 

most directly impacted by 

transportation conformity requirements 

and are required to provide public 

involvement for their activities 

including the analysis demonstrating 

how they meet transportation 

conformity requirements. Alabama has 

worked with the FLMs as a requirement 

of its regional haze rule. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42774 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

local entities related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

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

of (D)(i) and (J), and the state board 

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

EPA is proposing to approve that 

ADEM’s infrastructure SIP submission, 

submitted November 4, 2011, for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS meets the above 

described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

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

Alabama’s infrastructure submission 

because the State’s implementation plan 

does not contain provisions to comply 

with section 128 of the Act, and thus 

Alabama’s November 4, 2011, 

infrastructure SIP submission does not 

meet the requirements of the Act. This 

proposed approval in part and 

disapproval in part, however, does not 

include the PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

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

and (J) because the Agency has taken 

final action on these requirements for 

2008 Lead NAAQS for Alabama in a 

separate rulemaking. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of a CAA Part 

D Plan or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP 

call) starts a sanctions clock. The 

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

provisions (the provisions being 

proposed for disapproval in today’s 

notice) were not submitted to meet 

requirements for Part D or a SIP call, 

and therefore, if EPA takes final action 

to disapprove this submittal, no 

sanctions will be triggered. However, if 

this disapproval action is finalized, that 

final action will trigger the requirement 

under section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the 

date of the disapproval unless the State 

corrects the deficiency, and EPA 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before EPA promulgates such FIP. 

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. 

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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, and Recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 6, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17733 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0163; FRL–9930–75– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Mississippi: 

Miscellaneous Changes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the 

Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ), to EPA 

on July 25, 2010. The SIP revision 

includes multiple changes to 

Mississippi’s SIP to add definitions in 

accordance with federal regulations and 

to implement clarifying language. EPA 

is not proposing to take action on the 

aspects of the SIP revision related to the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) or 

hazardous air pollutants at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0163, 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–2013– 

0163,’’ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS