Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76637 

whs/directives/corres/pdf/100013_

vol1.pdf). Upon completion of the 

assignment, the identification will be 

retrieved in accordance with Volume 1 

of DoD Manual 1000.13. 

(4) Upon completion of assignments, 

DoDHRA will provide post-assignment 

support to members and reconcile 

funding to close project orders. 

Dated: December 7, 2015. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2015–31152 Filed 12–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–1013] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Delaware River, Between Burlington, 

NJ and Bristol, PA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the BurlingtonBristol Bridge on Route 413, across the 

Delaware River, at mile 117.8, between 

Burlington, NJ and Bristol, PA. This 

deviation restricts the operation of the 

draw span in order to facilitate the 

replacement of the tender control house. 

The drawbridge will not be able to open 

for three days during this project. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

6 a.m. on April 1, 2016, to 6 a.m. on 

April 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG–2015–1013] is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Terrance 

Knowles, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at 

telephone 757–398–6587, email 

Terrance.A.Knowles@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Burlington County Bridge Commission, 

who owns and operates this vertical-lift 

type drawbridge, has requested a 

temporary deviation from the current 

operating regulations set out in Title 33 

Code of Federal Regulations Part 

117.716 to facilitate the replacement of 

the Tender control house. 

The Burlington-Bristol Bridge on 

Route 413, at mile 117.8, across the 

Delaware River, between Burlington NJ 

and Bristol PA, has a vertical clearance 

in the closed position to vessels of 61 

feet above mean high water. 

Under this temporary deviation, the 

Burlington-Bristol Bridge will be closed 

to navigation and unable to open on 

signal from 6 a.m. Friday April 1, 2016 

through Monday April 4, 2016 at 6 a.m. 

The alternate marine closure weekend 

period will be Friday April 8, 2016 at 

6 a.m. through Monday April 11, 2016 

at 6:00 a.m. At all other times, the 

drawbridge will operate in accordance 

with the operating regulations set out in 

33 CFR 117.716. 

Vessels able to pass through the 

bridge in the closed position may do so 

at any time. The bridge will not be able 

to open for emergencies and there is no 

immediate alternate route for vessels to 

pass. 

There are approximately four to six 

vessels per week from four facilities 

whose vertical clearance surpasses the 

closed bridge position, requiring an 

opening of the draw span. The Coast 

Guard has coordinated this tender house 

replacement work with the Delaware 

Pilots Association and will inform the 

other users of the waterway through our 

Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners 

of the change in operating schedule for 

the bridge, so that vessels can arrange 

their transits to minimize any impact 

caused by the temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: December 3, 2015. 

Hal R. Pitts, 

Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard 

District 

[FR Doc. 2015–31114 Filed 12–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805; FRL–9939–77– 

Region 5] 

Wisconsin; Disapproval of 

Infrastructure SIP With Respect to 

Oxides of Nitrogen as a Precursor to 

Ozone Provisions for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is narrowly disapproving 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from Wisconsin 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). The infrastructure 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the structural components of each 

state’s air quality management program 

are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. This 

action pertains specifically to certain 

infrastructure requirements that may be 

satisfied if a state has a fully approved 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting program that 

incorporates all required program 

requirements, including the requirement 

to correctly address oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx) as a precursor to ozone. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Sarah 

Arra, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 

886–9401 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

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

arra.sarah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
76638 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

This rulemaking addresses a January 

24, 2011, submission, supplemented on 

June 29, 2012, from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) intended to address all 

applicable infrastructure requirements 

for the 2006 PM2.5 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. 

This specific rulemaking is only 

taking action on a the specific 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

which may be satisfied if the state 

demonstrates that it has a fully 

approved PSD permitting program that 

incorporates all federal requirements, 

including, as relevant here, the 

requirement to properly regulate NOx as 

a precursor to ozone. The majority of the 

other infrastructure elements were 

approved in a rulemaking dated October 

29, 2012, (77 FR 65478), including 

approvals and a narrow disapproval of 

the remaining PSD requirements in 

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

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

The proposed rulemaking associated 

with this final action was published on 

September 10, 2015 (80 FR 54468). 

During the comment period, which 

ended on October 13, 2015, EPA 

received a comment from the WDNR. A 

synopsis of the comment and EPA’s 

response to the comment are provided 

below. 

Comment: WDNR disagrees with the 

proposed disapproval because the 

program discussed in the disapproval is 

currently being implemented by the 

state and the state is actively working to 

add the needed elements to its rules. 

WDNR also comments that EPA 

previously issued the state a finding of 

failure to submit for the missing PSD 

element and more recently issued a 

disapproval of this element on the same 

basis in a final action on a separate 

infrastructure SIP, and argues that a 

second disapproval is unnecessary. 

Response: EPA understands that 

WDNR is currently implementing the 

requirement to regulate NOx as a 

precursor to ozone as part of the state’s 

PSD program, and that WDNR is 

currently working on revisions to its SIP 

to incorporate this requirement. Because 

of this, EPA did not originally take 

action on this aspect of the PSD program 

during EPA’s evaluation of and final 

action on WDNR’s 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure SIP, which was published 

on October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65478). 

However, the CAA requires EPA to take 

action on SIPs submitted by the state 

within 12 months of the submittal’s 

completion date. EPA has been sued for 

missing this deadline, and under a 

consent decree, must finalize action on 

the state’s SIP submission by November 

30, 2015. Each time a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated, the statute 

requires both the state and EPA to 

reevaluate the adequacy of the states’ 

SIP to satisfy the applicable 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), 

including elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). 

Therefore, disapproval of these elements 

with respect to EPA’s evaluation of the 

state’s 1997 ozone and PM2.5

infrastructure SIPs did not remove the 

requirement for the EPA to evaluate 

these elements anew in future 

infrastructure SIPs, such as this one. 

Because the state’s PSD program does 

not meet all program requirements, and 

therefore does not fully satisfy the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5

infrastructure SIP, EPA must narrowly 

disapprove the state’s SIP submission as 

to that deficiency here. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is disapproving narrow portions 

of the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

submission from Wisconsin certifying 

that its current SIP is sufficient to meet 

required infrastructure elements. 

Specifically, EPA is narrowly 

disapproving the submission with 

respect to the infrastructure elements 

under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS because the state’s PSD 

program fails to properly regulate NOx

as a precursor to ozone. This action 

together with EPA’s October 29, 2012, 

final action partially approving and 

narrowly disapproving these elements 

with respect to other PSD requirements, 

completes final action on Wisconsin’s 

2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP with 

respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action merely disapproves state 

law as not meeting Federal requirements 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule disapproves preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it 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). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

disapproves a state rule, and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the CAA. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76639 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In addition, 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it disapproves 

a state rule. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

action. In reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove 

state choices, based on the criteria of the 

CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 

disapproves certain state requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA 

and will not in-and-of itself create any 

new requirements. Accordingly, it 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. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by February 8, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 23, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.2591 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Approval and Disapproval—In a 

January 24, 2011, submittal, 

supplemented on March 28, 2011, and 

June 29, 2012, Wisconsin certified that 

the State has satisfied the infrastructure 

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

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

approving Wisconsin’s submission 

addressing the infrastructure SIP 

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

(B), (C) with respect to enforcement and 

the GHG permitting threshold PSD 

requirement, (D)(i)(II) with respect to 

the GHG permitting threshold PSD 

requirement and visibility protection, 

(D)(ii), (E) except for state board 

requirements, (F) through (H), (J) except 

for narrow prevention of significant 

deterioration requirements, and (K) 

through (M). We are not finalizing 

action on (D)(i)(I) and the state board 

requirements of (E)(ii). We will address 

these requirements in a separate action. 

We are disapproving narrow portions of 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP 

submission addressing the relevant 

prevention of significant deterioration 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule 

(identifying PM2.5 precursors and the 

regulation of PM2.5 and PM10

condensables in permits) and the 

requirement of NOX as a precursor to 

ozone with respect to section 

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

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–31062 Filed 12–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES