41488 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

contact the person in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document for alternate instructions. We 

accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, you may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding the Federal Docket 

Management System in the March 24, 

2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 

FR 15086). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions concerning the 

meeting or the advance proposed rule, 

please call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, 

Sector Hampton Roads Waterways 

Management Officer, Coast Guard; 

telephone 757–668–5581, email 

Barbara.wilk@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose 

We published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the 

Federal Register on April 19, 2016 (81 

FR 22939), entitled ‘‘Anchorage 

Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape 

Charles, VA.’’ In it we stated our 

intention to hold two public meetings, 

and to publish a notice announcing the 

location and date (81 FR 22940). This 

document is the notice of that meeting. 

In the ANPRM, we stated that the 

Coast Guard is considering amending 

the regulations for Hampton Roads, VA 

and adjacent waters anchorages by 

establishing a new anchorage, near Cape 

Charles, VA on the Lower Chesapeake 

Bay. 

You may view the ANPRM in our 

online docket, in addition to supporting 

documents prepared by the Coast Guard 

(Illustration Contemplated Anchorage 

R), and comments submitted thus far by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov. 

Once there, insert ‘‘USCG–2015–1118’’ 

in the ‘‘Search’’ box and click ‘‘Search.’’ 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments either orally at the meeting or 

in writing. If you bring written 

comments to the meeting, you may 

submit them to Coast Guard personnel 

specified at the meeting to receive 

written comments. These comments 

will be submitted to our online public 

docket. All comments received will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Comments submitted before or after 

the meetings must reach the Coast 

Guard on or before Wednesday, August 

31, 2016. We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the March 24, 2005, issue of the 

Federal Register (70 FR 15086). 

Agenda of Public Meeting 

The agenda includes the following: 

(1) Introduction of panel members. 

(2) Overview of meeting format. 

(3) Background on proposed 

anchorage regulation. 

(4) Comments from interested 

persons. Comments may be delivered in 

written form at the public meeting and 

made part of the docket or delivered 

orally not to exceed 10 minutes. 

Information on Service for Individuals 

With Disabilities 

For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with disabilities 

or to request special assistance at the 

public meeting, contact LCDR Barbara 

Wilk at the telephone number or email 

address indicated under the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document. 

Public Meeting 

The Coast Guard will hold a public 

meeting regarding its ‘‘Anchorage 

Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape 

Charles, VA’’ advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking on Tuesday, July 

19, 2016, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at 

Slover Public Library Meeting Room, 

235 E. Plume St., Norfolk, VA 23510, 

telephone 757–617–7986. The public 

meeting on July 20, 2016, from 6:30 p.m. 

to 8 p.m. will be held at Eastern Shore 

Community College Lecture Hall, 29300 

Lankford Highway, Melfa, VA, 23410. A 

written summary of the meeting and 

comments will be placed in the docket. 

Dated: June 14, 2016. 

Christopher S. Keane, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15033 Filed 6–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0767; FRL–9948–42– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; KY Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Energy 

and Environment Cabinet, Department 

for Environmental Protection, through 

the Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

(KDAQ), on April 26, 2013, to 

demonstrate that the Commonwealth 

meets the infrastructure requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 

2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(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. KDAQ certified 

that the Kentucky SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, 

and maintained in Kentucky. EPA is 

proposing to determine that Kentucky’s 

infrastructure submission, submitted on 

April 26, 2013, addresses certain 

infrastructure elements for the 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 27, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0767 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41489 

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 

‘‘Kentucky Administrative Regulation’’, ‘‘KAR’’, or 

‘‘Regulation’’ indicates that the cited regulation has 

been approved into Kentucky’s federally-approved 

SIP. The term ‘‘Kentucky Revised statute’’ or ‘‘KRS’’ 

indicates cited Kentucky 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. 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Wong, 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) 562–8726. 

Mr. Wong can be reached via electronic 

mail at wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Overview 

On February 9, 2010, EPA published 

a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2

at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), 

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 1- 

hour daily maximum concentrations. 

See 75 FR 6474. Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required 

to submit SIPs meeting the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) within three years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires 

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 for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS to EPA no later than January 

22, 2013.1

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the applicable 

requirements of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

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

of D(i), and (J), the interstate transport 

provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility of prongs 1, 2 and 

4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the 

regulation of minor sources and minor 

modifications under section 

110(a)(2)(C). On March 18, 2015, EPA 

approved Kentucky’s April 26, 2013, 

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 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. 

Therefore, EPA is not proposing any 

action pertaining to these requirements. 

With respect to Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the interstate transport provisions 

pertaining to the contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in other states and 

visibility of prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the regulation of 

minor sources and minor modifications 

under section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA is not 

proposing any action today. EPA will 

act on these provisions in a separate 

action. For the aspects of Kentucky’s 

submittal proposed for approval today, 

EPA notes that the Agency is not 

approving any specific rule, but rather 

proposing that Kentucky’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 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous NAAQS. 

More specifically, 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 basic SIP 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 and in EPA’s September 13, 

2013, memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2).’’ 2

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and 

Other Control Measures 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 3

• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate 

Pollution Transport 

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution 

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and 

Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

Regional Agencies 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source 

Monitoring and Reporting 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers 

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for 

Nonattainment Areas 4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling 

and Submission of Modeling Data 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and 

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 Kentucky that 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

41490 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

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

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

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

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

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

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

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

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

relationship between timing requirement of section 

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

7EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

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

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

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

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

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

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

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

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

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

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

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

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

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

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

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. 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

The requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

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

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

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

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

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.5 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

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

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

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

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

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

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

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

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

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

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.8

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41491 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

11EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

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

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

13EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

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

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.10

EPA notes that interpretation of 

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

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

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

these other types of SIP submissions. 

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

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

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

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

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

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

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

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

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

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

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

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

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

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

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

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

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

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.11 EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).12 EPA developed 

this document to provide states with upto-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

for any new or revised NAAQS. 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.13 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. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

implementation plan appropriately 

addresses the requirements of section 

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

2013 Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a 

variety of ways by which states can 

appropriately address these substantive 

statutory requirements, depending on 

the structure of an individual state’s 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., 

whether permits and enforcement 

orders are approved by a multi-member 

board or by a head of an executive 

agency). However they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 

pollutants, including greenhouse gases. 

By contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions 

that are not required under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are 

merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter 

optional provisions are types of 

provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s 

implementation plan meets basic 

structural requirements. For example, 

section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, 

the requirement that states have a 

program to regulate minor new sources. 

Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state 

has an EPA-approved minor new source 

review program and whether the 

program addresses the pollutants 

relevant to that NAAQS. In the context 

of acting on an infrastructure SIP 

submission, however, EPA does not 

think it is necessary to conduct a review 

of each and every provision of a state’s 

existing minor source program (i.e., 

already in the existing SIP) for 

compliance with the requirements of the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations that pertain 

to such programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

41492 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

14By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

15For 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). 

16EPA 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). 

17See, 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). 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.14 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

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. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

gives simpler recommendations with 

respect to carbon monoxide than other 

NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

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

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 

implementation plan is substantially 

inadequate to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, 

or to otherwise comply with the CAA.15

Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to 

correct errors in past actions, such as 

past approvals of SIP submissions.16

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.17

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Kentucky addressed the elements of the 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

Kentucky’s infrastructure submission 

addresses the provisions of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) in Kentucky 

Administrative Regulations (KAR), Title 

401, and Kentucky Revised Statutes 

(KRS) as described below. 

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

Other Control Measures: Section 

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

implementation plan include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements. Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP submission lists 

several regulations as relevant to air 

quality control regulations in KAR 50 to 

52. Specifically, Regulation 50:010–066 

deal with general administrative 

procedures. Emission limits and other 

control measures, means, and 

techniques as well as schedules and 

timetables for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS are found in Regulation 51, 

Attainment and Maintenance of the 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, and Regulation 52, Permits, 

Registrations, and Prohibitory Rules. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that the cited provisions 

are adequate to protect the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS in the Commonwealth. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

State provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during SSM of operations at 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41493 

18On June 12, 2015, EPA published 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.’’ 

See 80 FR 33840. 

19On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

a facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and 

the Agency is addressing such state 

regulations in a separate action.18

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. KRS 22:10–100, and KAR 

50:050, 51:017 and 052, and 53:005 and 

010, provide KDAQ with the authority 

to collect and disseminate information 

relating to air quality and pollution and 

the prevention, control, supervision, 

and abatement thereof. 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 state’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.19 On July 

1, 2015, Kentucky submitted its 

monitoring network plan to EPA, and on 

October 28, 2015, EPA approved this 

plan. Kentucky’s approved monitoring 

network plan can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0767. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system related to 

the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

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

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources: 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). EPA 

approved the PSD component in a 

previous action and will act on statewide regulation of new and modified 

minor sources and minor modifications 

of major sources in a separate action. 

Today’s action on element C is solely on 

enforcement. 

Enforcement: KDAQ’s approved SIP 

Regulation 50:060, Enforcement, 

provides for enforcement of emission 

limits and control measures and 

construction permitting for new or 

modified stationary sources. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP is adequate for 

insuring compliance with the applicable 

requirements relating to enforcement for 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS. 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for 

Major Sources: With respect to 

Kentucky’s April 26, 2013, 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the PSD permitting requirements for 

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

EPA took final action to approve these 

provisions for the 2010 1-hour NO2

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 the minor source 

preconstruction program that regulates 

emissions of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. EPA is not proposing any 

action in this rulemaking related to the 

regulation of minor sources and minor 

modifications under section 110(a)(2)(C) 

and will consider these requirements in 

relation to Kentucky’s 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS infrastructure submission in a 

separate rulemaking. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Interstate Pollution 

Transport: 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’’). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: 

EPA is not proposing any action in this 

rulemaking related to the interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

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

(prongs 1 and 2) because Kentucky’s 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure 

submission did not address prongs 1 

and 2. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

respect to Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the interstate 

transport requirements for PSD of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), EPA 

took final action to approve Kentucky’s 

April 26, 2013, infrastructure SIP 

submission regarding prong 3 of D(i) for 

the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on March 

18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: EPA is not 

proposing any action in this rulemaking 

related to the interstate transport 

provisions pertaining to visibility 

protection in other states of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) and will 

consider these requirements in relation 

to Kentucky’s 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 

infrastructure submission in a separate 

rulemaking. 

5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate Pollution 

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution: With respect to 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Regulation 52:100, 

Section 6, Public, Affected State, and 

U.S. EPA Review, outlines how 

Kentucky will notify neighboring states 

of potential impacts from new or 

modified sources. EPA is unaware of 

any pending obligations for the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky pursuant to 

sections 115 or 126 of the CAA. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for insuring compliance with 

the applicable requirements relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

41494 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources 

and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

Regional Agencies: 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 Kentucky’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(E). 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 sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP submission describes 

that KRS 224:10–100, Powers and Duties 

of the Cabinet, and KAR 50:038, Air 

Emissions Fees, provide KDAQ with the 

authority to accept and administer laws 

and grants from the federal government 

and from other sources, public and 

private, for carrying out any of its 

functions, including its responsibility to 

implement its SIP. As evidence of the 

adequacy of KDAQ’s resources, EPA 

submitted a letter to Kentucky on March 

12, 2015, outlining section 105 grant 

commitments and the current status of 

these commitments for fiscal year 2014. 

The letter EPA submitted to Kentucky 

can be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2014–0767. Annually, states update 

these grant commitments based on 

current SIP requirements, air quality 

planning, and applicable requirements 

related to the NAAQS. Kentucky 

satisfactorily met all commitments 

agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement 

for fiscal year 2014 therefore Kentucky’s 

grants were finalized. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky has adequate resources and 

authority for implementation of the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

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

states comply with section 128 of the 

CAA. Section 128 of the CAA requires 

that states include provisions in their 

SIP to address conflicts of interest for 

state boards or bodies that oversee CAA 

permits and enforcement orders and 

disclosure of conflict of interest 

requirements. Specifically, CAA section 

128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall 

require that at least a majority of any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders shall be subject to 

the described public interest service and 

income restrictions therein. Subsection 

128(a)(2) requires that the members of 

any board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar power to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA, shall also be subject to 

conflict of interest disclosure 

requirements. For purposes of section 

128(a)(1), Kentucky has no boards or 

bodies with authority over air pollution 

permits or enforcement actions. Such 

matters are instead handled by the 

Secretary of the KDAQ. As such, a 

‘‘board or body’’ is not responsible for 

approving permits or enforcement 

orders in Kentucky, and the 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) are not 

applicable. For purposes of section 

128(a)(2), KDAQ’s SIP has been 

updated. On October 3, 2012, EPA 

finalized approval of Kentucky’s July 

17, 2012, SIP revision requesting 

incorporation of KRS 11A.020, 11A.030, 

11A.040 and KRS 224.10–020 and 

224.10–100 into the SIP to address the 

conflicts of interest disclosure 

requirements of section 128(a)(2). See 77 

FR 60307. With the incorporation of 

these regulations into the Kentucky SIP, 

EPA has previously made the 

determination that the Commonwealth 

has adequately addressed the 

requirements of section 128(a)(2), and 

accordingly is proposing to determine 

that Kentucky has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve KDAQ’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of subelements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii). 

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

Monitoring System: Section 110(a)(2)(F) 

requires SIPs to meet applicable 

requirements addressing (i) the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to this section, 

which reports shall be available at 

reasonable times for public inspection. 

The Kentucky infrastructure submission 

describes how the major source and 

minor source emission inventory 

programs collect emission data 

throughout the Commonwealth and 

ensure the quality of such data. 

Kentucky meets these requirements 

through Chapter 50 General 

Administrative Procedures, specifically 

401 KAR 50:050 Monitoring. 401 KAR 

50:050, Section 1, Monitoring Records 

and Reporting, states that the cabinet 

may require a facility to install, use, and 

maintain stack gas and ambient air 

monitoring equipment and to establish 

and maintain records, and make 

periodic emission reports at intervals 

prescribed by the cabinet. 401 KAR 

50:050 Monitoring, Section 1, 

Monitoring, Records, and Reporting, 

establishes the requirements for the 

installation, use, and maintenance of 

stack gas and ambient air monitoring 

equipment, and authorizes the cabinet 

to require the owner or operator of any 

affected facility to establish and 

maintain records for this equipment and 

make periodic emission reports at 

intervals prescribed by the cabinet. 

Also, KRS 224.10–100 (23) requires that 

any person engaged in any operation 

regulated pursuant to this chapter file 

with the cabinet reports containing 

information as to location, size, height, 

rate of emission or discharge, and 

composition of any substance 

discharged or emitted into the ambient 

air or into the waters or onto the land 

of the Commonwealth, and such other 

information the cabinet may require. 

The monitoring data collected and 

records of operations serve as the basis 

for a source to certify compliance, and 

can be used by Kentucky as direct 

evidence of an enforceable violation of 

the underlying emission limitation or 

standard. Thus, EPA is unaware of any 

provision preventing the use of credible 

evidence in the Kentucky SIP. 

Additionally, Kentucky 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 the precursors that form 

them—NOX, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, 

lead, carbon monoxide, particulate 

matter, and volatile organic compounds. 

Many states also voluntarily report 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants. 

Kentucky made its latest update to the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41495 

2011 NEI on December 23, 2014. EPA 

compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

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

chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA 

is proposing to approve Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

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

This section requires that states 

demonstrate authority comparable with 

section 303 of the CAA and adequate 

contingency plans to implement such 

authority. Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission identifies air pollution 

emergency episodes and preplanned 

abatement strategies as outlined in 

Regulation 55:005, Significant Harm 

Criteria. Regulation 55:010, Episodic 

Criteria, defines pollutant concentration 

levels that justify the proclamation of an 

air pollutant alert, warning, or 

emergency while Regulation 55:015, 

Episode Declaration, authorizes KDAQ 

to curtail or reduce processes or 

operations that emit air pollutants 

whose criteria has been reached and are 

located in the affected areas for which 

an episode level has been declared. 

Conditions justifying the proclamation 

of an air pollution alert, air pollution 

warning, or air pollution emergency 

shall be deemed to exist whenever the 

Cabinet determines that the 

accumulation of air contaminants in any 

place is attaining or has attained levels 

which could, if such levels are 

sustained or exceeded, present a threat 

to the health of the public. In addition, 

KRS 224.10–100 Powers and duties of 

cabinet and KRS 224.10–410 Order for 

discontinuance, abatement, or 

alleviation of condition or activity 

without hearing—Subsequent hearing, 

establish the authority for Kentucky’s 

secretary to issue orders to person(s) for 

discontinuance, abatement, or 

alleviation of any condition or activity 

without hearing because the condition 

or activity presents a danger to the 

health or welfare of the people of the 

state, and for the cabinet to require 

adoption of any remedial measures 

deemed necessary. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP, and state laws are 

adequate for emergency powers related 

to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for emergency powers related 

to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

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

Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary, 

requires each SIP to provide for 

revisions of such plan (i) as may be 

necessary to take account of revisions of 

such national primary or secondary 

ambient air quality standard or the 

availability of improved or more 

expeditious methods of attaining such 

standard, and (ii) whenever the 

Administrator finds that the plan is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS or to otherwise comply with 

any additional applicable requirements. 

KDAQ has the authority for adopting air 

quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in Kentucky, as indicated in 

Regulations 51.010, Attainment Status 

Designations, 53.005, General 

Provisions, and 53:010, Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. KDAQ 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. It 

also 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. Kentucky does not have any 

nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS but has made an 

infrastructure submission for this 

standard, which is the subject of this 

rulemaking. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate a commitment to provide 

future SIP revisions related to the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

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

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2

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 

Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

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

took final action to approve Kentucky’s 

April 26, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2

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. 

110(a)(2)(J) (121 Consultation)— 

Consultation With Government 

Officials: 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. Regulations 50:065, 

Conformity of General Federal Actions, 

50:066, Conformity of Transportation 

Plans, Programs, and Projects, as well as 

Kentucky’s Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan (which allows for 

consultation between 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. Kentucky adopted state-wide 

consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity. Implementation of 

transportation conformity as outlined in 

the consultation procedures requires 

KDAQ to consult with Federal, state and 

local transportation and air quality 

agency officials on the development of 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

SIP. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with government officials 

related to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. 

110(a)(2)(J) (127 Public Notification)— 

Public Notification: These requirements 

are met through Regulation 55:015, 

Episode Declaration, which requires 

that KDAQ notify the public of any air 

pollution alert, warning, or emergency. 

The KDAQ Web site also provides air 

quality summary data, air quality index 

reports and links to more information 

regarding public awareness of measures 

that can prevent such exceedances and 

of ways in which the public can 

participate in regulatory and other 

efforts to improve air quality. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the 

Commonwealth’s ability to provide 

public notification related to the 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

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

110(a)(2)(J)—Visibility Protection: 

EPA’s 2013 Guidance notes that it does 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

41496 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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

not treat the visibility protection aspects 

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

purposes of the infrastructure SIP 

approval process. EPA recognizes that 

states are subject to visibility protection 

and regional haze program requirements 

under Part C of the Act (which includes 

sections 169A and 169B). However, 

there are no newly applicable visibility 

protection obligations after the 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Thus, EPA has determined that 

states do not need to address the 

visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in 

infrastructure SIP submittals. As such, 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that it does not need to 

address the visibility protection element 

of section 110(a)(2)(J) in Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality and 

Modeling/Data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of 

the CAA requires that SIPs provide for 

performing air quality modeling so that 

effects on air quality of emissions from 

NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and 

submission of such data to EPA can be 

made. KAR 50:040, Air Quality Models, 

incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21, 

which specifies that air modeling be 

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix W ‘‘Guideline on Air 

Quality Models. KRS 224.10–100(4) 

authorizes KDAQ to develop and 

conduct a comprehensive program for 

management of air resources in the 

Commonwealth. These provisions 

demonstrate that Kentucky has the 

authority to perform air quality 

modeling and provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, Kentucky 

participates in a regional effort to 

coordinate the development of 

emissions inventories and conduct 

regional modeling for NOX, which 

includes NO2. Taken as a whole, 

Kentucky’s air quality regulations 

demonstrate that KDAQ has the 

authority to provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of the 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

Commonwealth’s ability to provide for 

air quality and modeling, along with 

analysis of the associated data, related 

to the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when 

necessary. 

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

element necessitates that the SIP require 

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. 

Funding for the Kentucky air permit 

program comes from a processing fee, 

submitted by permit applicants, 

required by KAR 50:038, Air Emissions 

Fee, and KRS 224.20–050, Fee for 

Administration of Air Quality Program. 

KDAQ ensures this is sufficient for the 

reasonable cost of reviewing and acting 

upon PSD and NNSR. Additionally, 

Kentucky has a fully approved title V 

operating permit program at KAR 

52:20 20 that cover the cost of 

implementation and enforcement of 

PSD and NNSR permits after they have 

been issued. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices adequately 

provide for permitting fees related to the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS, when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(L). 

13. 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. 

Chapter 77 of KRS, Air Pollution 

Control, and Regulations 50:066, 

Conformity of Transportation Plans, 

Programs and Projects, and 52:100, 

Public, Affected State, and U.S. EPA 

Review, authorize KDAQ to cooperate, 

consult, and enter into agreements with 

other agencies of the state, the Federal 

government, other states, interstate 

agencies, groups, political subdivisions, 

and industries affected by the 

provisions of this act, rules, or policies 

of the department.’’ Furthermore, KDAQ 

has demonstrated consultation with, 

and participation by, affected local 

entities through its work with local 

political subdivisions during the 

developing of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP and Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

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

and (J), the interstate transport 

provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility of prongs 1, 2, and 

4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and the 

regulation of minor sources and minor 

modifications under section 

110(a)(2)(C), EPA is proposing to 

approve that Kentucky’s April 26, 2013, 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS has met the 

above-described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 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); 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 41497 

• 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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 10, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15138 Filed 6–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0366; FRL–9948–20– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur 

Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

for the Flint Hills Resources, LLC Pine 

Bend Refinery (FHR) as submitted on 

May 1, 2015. The revision will 

consolidate existing permanent and 

enforceable SO2 SIP conditions into the 

facility’s joint Title I/Title V SIP 

document. This action highlights 

process modifications necessary to meet 

EPA’s Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards; 

a comprehensive monitoring strategy to 

better quantify SO2 emissions from fuel 

gas-fired emission units; a new 

restrictive flaring procedure for refinery 

process units, and other updates and 

administrative changes. This revision 

results in a modeled reduction in SO2

emissions from FHR and modeled SO2

ambient air concentrations less than half 

of the national ambient air quality 

standards. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 27, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0366 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Maietta, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, 

maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: June 21, 2016. 

Robert Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15035 Filed 6–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0276; FRL–9948–18– 

Region 5] 

Determination of Attainment by the 

Attainment Date; 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards; 

Cleveland, Ohio and St. Louis, 

Missouri-Illinois Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to make a 

determination, under the Clean Air Act, 

that the Cleveland, Ohio and St. Louis, 

Missouri-Illinois areas attained the 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards by the applicable attainment 

date of July 20, 2016. This proposed 

determination for each area is based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ozone monitoring data for 2013–2015. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 27, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0276 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS