45428 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: May 10, 2016. 

Sterling Rideout, Acting Regional Director, 

Mid-Continent Region. 

[FR Doc. 2016–16657 Filed 7–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0142] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Regulations; Special 

Anchorage Areas, Marina del Rey 

Harbor, California 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; reopen comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is re-opening 

the comment period for its 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNPRM), published in May 

2014. The Coast Guard is proposing to 

amend the shape and reduce the size of 

the special anchorage in Marina del Rey 

Harbor, California. Additionally, we 

propose to clarify the language in the 

note section of the existing regulation. 

Because the date of the public meeting 

was not published in the Federal 

Register until after the meeting was 

held, the Coast Guard is providing an 

additional opportunity for public 

comment. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

August 15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments identified by docket number 

USCG–2014–0142 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions concerning the 

proposed rule, please call or email 

Lieutenant Junior Grade Colleen Patton, 

Waterways Management Branch, 

Eleventh Coast Guard District, 

telephone 510–437–5984, email 

Colleen.M.Patton@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose 

We published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register on May 28, 2014 (79 FR 30509), 

entitled ‘‘Anchorage Regulations: 

Special Anchorage Areas, Marina del 

Rey Harbor, California.’’ The NPRM 

proposed to disestablish the special 

anchorage area. In response to 

comments received, we have issued a 

supplemental NPRM (81 FR 10156, 

February 29, 2016) to retain the special 

anchorage, but amend the shape and 

reduce the size of the anchorage to 

remove the anchorage area from a 

location where it could endanger vessel 

traffic. 

Because the date of the public 

meeting was not published in the 

Federal Register until after the meeting 

was held, we have concluded that 

additional comments would aid this 

rulemaking. Therefore, we are 

publishing this document to reopen the 

comment period. 

You may view the SNPRM, in our 

online docket, in addition to supporting 

documents prepared by the Coast Guard 

and comments submitted thus far by 

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

Once there, insert ‘‘USCG–2014–0142’’ 

in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box and click 

‘‘Search.’’ 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments to the docket 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). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold another 

public meeting, but will consider 

holding one in response to a request 

from the public. You may submit a 

request for a meeting either by 

submitting a comment to the docket or 

by writing to Eleventh Coast Guard 

District at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that a 

meeting would aid this rulemaking, we 

will hold one at a time and place 

announced by a later notice. 

Reopening the Comment Period 

The comment period for the SNPRM 

published in February 2016 ended April 

30, 2016. In order to give the public a 

chance to make additional comments, 

the Coast Guard is reopening the 

comment period on our SNPRM. All 

comments must reach the public docket 

at the address found in ADDRESSES on or 

before August 15, 2016. 

Dated: June 10, 2016. 

J.A. Servidio, 

RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eleventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2016–16713 Filed 7–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0431; FRL– 9948–98– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval/Disapproval; 

Alabama; Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

in part and disapprove in part portions 

of the April 23, 2013, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 

submitted by the State of Alabama, 

through the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM), 

for inclusion into the Alabama SIP. This 

proposal pertains to the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) 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. ADEM certified 

that the Alabama SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, 

and maintained in Alabama. With the 

exception of provisions respecting state 

boards, which EPA is proposing to 

disapprove, and interstate transport, 

which EPA is not proposing any action 

at this time, EPA is proposing to 

determine that portions of Alabama’s 

infrastructure SIP submission provided 

to EPA on April 23, 2013, satisfy the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0431 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45429 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions States 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

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

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

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

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

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

rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term 

‘‘ADEM Administrative Code (Admin. Code r).’’ 

indicates that the cited regulation has either been 

approved, or submitted for approval into Alabama’s 

federally-approved SIP. The term ‘‘Alabama Code’’ 

(Ala. Code) indicates cited Alabama 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. This 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 previously, this element is not 

relevant to this proposed rulemaking. 

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 

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: 

Michele Notarianni, 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. Ms. 

Notarianni can be reached via electronic 

mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov or 

via telephone at (404) 562–9031. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Overview 

On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA 

revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an 

hourly standard of 75 parts per billion 

(ppb) based on a 3-year average of the 

annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. Pursuant to 

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

required to submit SIPs meeting the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 

requires states to address basic SIP 

elements such as requirements for 

monitoring, basic program requirements 

and legal authority that are designed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

2, 2013.1

This action is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s infrastructure SIP submission 

for the applicable requirements of the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, with the 

exception of interstate transport 

provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility protection 

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

and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4) and the state 

board requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). With respect to the 

interstate transport provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) and 

the visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4), EPA 

is not proposing any action at this time 

regarding these requirements. With 

respect to Alabama’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to section 

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

the section 128 state board 

requirements, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove this element of Alabama’s 

submission in this rulemaking. For the 

aspects of Alabama’s submittal 

proposed for approval today, EPA notes 

that the Agency is not approving any 

specific rule, but rather proposing that 

Alabama’s already approved SIP meets 

certain CAA requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

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

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. 

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 previously, these 

requirements include basic SIP elements 

such as requirements for monitoring, 

basic program requirements and legal 

authority that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The requirements of section 

110(a)(2) are summarized later on 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 110(a)(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 Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

45430 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 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. 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from Alabama that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2

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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45431 

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 United States (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. 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

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

different pollutants because the content 

and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.10

EPA notes that interpretation of 

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

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

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

these other types of SIP submissions. 

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

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

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

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

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

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

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

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

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

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

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

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

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

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

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

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

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

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.11 EPA 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 new 

source review (NSR) pollutants, 

including greenhouse gases (GHGs). 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 

fine particulate matter (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, among 

other things, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

NSR 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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

45432 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 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). 

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 

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 

Alabama addressed the elements of the 

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

‘‘Infrastructure’’ provisions? 

Alabama’s infrastructure SIP 

submission addresses the provisions of 

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

later on. 

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. Several 

regulations within Alabama’s SIP are 

relevant to air quality control 

regulations. The regulations described 

later on have been federally approved in 

the Alabama SIP and include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures. ADEM Admin. 

Code r. 335–3–1–.03—Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, authorizes ADEM to 

adopt rules for the control of air 

pollution in order to comply with 

NAAQS, including those necessary to 

obtain EPA approval under section 110 

of the CAA. ADEM Admin. Code r. 335– 

3–1–.06—Compliance Schedule, sets the 

schedule for compliance with the State’s 

Air Pollution Control rules and 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45433 

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. 

20For more information on EPA’s analysis of 

Alabama’s infrastructure SIP in connection with the 

current PSD-related infrastructure requirements, see 

the Technical Support Document in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

regulations to be consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA. ADEM 

Admin. Code r. 335–3–1–05—Sampling 

and Testing Methods, details the 

authority and means with which ADEM 

can require testing and emissions 

verification. Also, the following ADEM 

Administrative Code rules regulate stack 

height: 335–3–14–03(2)—Stack Heights, 

subparagraphs (d) and (e), 335–3–15– 

02(9)—Stack Heights, subparagraphs (d) 

and (e), and 335–3–16–.02(10)—General 

Provisions, subparagraphs (d) and (e). 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’s SIP 

satisfies Section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

State provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during SSM of operations at 

a facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and 

the Agency is addressing such state 

regulations in a separate action.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: Section 

110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, 

compile, and analyze data on ambient 

air quality, and (ii) upon request, make 

such data available to the 

Administrator. ADEM Admin. Code r. 

335–3–1–.04—Monitoring, Records, and 

Reporting, requires sources to submit 

emissions monitoring reports as 

prescribed by the Director of ADEM. 

Pursuant to this regulation, these 

sources collect air monitoring data, 

quality assure the results, and report the 

data to EPA. ADEM Admin. Code r. 

335–3–1–.05—Sampling and Testing 

Methods, details the authority and 

means through which ADEM can 

require testing and emissions 

verification. ADEM Admin. Code r. 

335–3–14–.04—Air Permits Authorizing 

Construction in Clean Air: Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Permitting 

(PSD), describes the State’s use of 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

purposes of permitting new facilities 

and assessing major modifications to 

existing facilities. 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, and includes 

the annual ambient monitoring network 

design plan and a certified evaluation of 

the agency’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.19 On July 

22, 2015, Alabama submitted its plan to 

EPA. On November 19, 2015, EPA 

approved Alabama’s monitoring 

network plan. Alabama’s approved 

monitoring network plan can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0431. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for the ambient 

air quality monitoring and data system 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs 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). ADEM’s 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 

SIP submission cited a number of SIP 

provisions to address these 

requirements. Specifically, the 

submission cited ADEM Admin. Code r. 

335–3–14–.01—General Provisions, 

335–3–14–.02,—Permit Procedure, 335– 

3–14–.03—Standards for Granting 

Permits, 335–3–14–.04—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration in Permitting 

and 335–3–14–.05—Air Permits 

Authorizing Construction in or Near 

Nonattainment Areas. Collectively, 

these provisions of Alabama’s SIP 

regulate the construction of any new 

major stationary source or any 

modification at an existing major 

stationary source in an area designated 

as nonattainment, attainment or 

unclassifiable. 

Enforcement: ADEM’s abovedescribed, SIP-approved regulations 

provide for enforcement of SO2

emission limits and control measures 

through construction permitting for new 

or modified stationary sources. Note 

also that ADEM has authority to issue 

enforcement orders and assess penalties 

(see Ala. Code sections 22–22A–5, 22– 

28–10 and 22–28–22). 

PSD Permitting for Major Sources: 

EPA interprets the PSD sub-element to 

require that a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for a particular NAAQS 

demonstrate that the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program in 

place covering the structural PSD 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. A state’s PSD permitting 

program is complete for this subelement (and prong 3 of D(i) and J 

related to PSD) if EPA has already 

approved or is simultaneously 

approving the state’s implementation 

plan with respect to all structural PSD 

requirements that are due under the 

EPA regulations or the CAA on or before 

the date of the EPA’s proposed action on 

the infrastructure SIP submission. 

For the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 

Alabama’s authority to regulate new and 

modified sources to assist in the 

protection of air quality in Alabama is 

established in the Alabama 

Administrative Code Chapters 335–3– 

14–.01—General Provisions, 335–3–14– 

.02—Permit Procedure, 335–3–14–.03— 

Standards for Granting Permits, 335–3– 

14–.04—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration in Permitting, and 335–3– 

14–.05—Air Permits Authorizing 

Construction in or Near Nonattainment 

Areas. Alabama’s SIP contains the 

current structural requirements of part C 

of title I of the CAA to satisfy the 

infrastructure SIP PSD elements.20

As such, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP satisfies this PSD 

element for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

Regulation of minor sources and 

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

requires the SIP to include provisions 

that govern the minor source program 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

45434 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

21Title V program regulations are federallyapproved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. 

22This regulation has not been incorporated into 

the federally-approved SIP. 

that regulates emissions of the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. ADEM Admin. Code 

r. 335–3–14–.01 General Provisions, 

335–3–14–.02 Permit Procedure, and 

335–3–14–.03—Standards for Granting 

Permits govern the preconstruction 

permitting of modifications and 

construction of minor stationary 

sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for program 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of minor sources and 

modifications, and preconstruction 

permitting of modifications and 

construction of minor stationary 

sources, and minor modifications of 

major stationary sources related to the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) 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 has two 

subparts resulting in four distinct 

components, commonly referred to as 

‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The first 

two prongs, which are codified in 

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

that prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

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

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

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

prongs, which are codified in section 

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

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

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

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). 

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 Alabama’s 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 

submission did not address prongs 1 

and 2. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

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

PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this 

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to: A PSD program meeting 

current structural requirements of part C 

of title I of the CAA, or (if the state 

contains a nonattainment area that has 

the potential to impact PSD in another 

state) a NNSR program. As discussed in 

more detail previously under section 

110(a)(2)(C), Alabama’s SIP contains 

provisions for the State’s PSD program 

that reflect the required structural PSD 

requirements to satisfy the requirement 

of prong 3. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP satisfies section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) for PSD 

permitting of major sources and major 

modifications related to interstate 

transport for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

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 the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 

4) and will consider these requirements 

in relation to Alabama’s 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS infrastructure submission 

in a separate rulemaking. 

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

International Transport Provisions: 

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

include provisions ensuring compliance 

with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, 

relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement. ADEM Admin. 

Code r. 335–3–14–.04—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration in Permitting 

describes how Alabama notifies 

neighboring states of potential emission 

impacts from new or modified sources 

applying for PSD permits. This 

regulation requires ADEM to provide an 

opportunity for a public hearing to the 

public, which includes state or local air 

pollution control agencies, ‘‘whose 

lands may be affected by emissions from 

the source or modification’’ in Alabama. 

Additionally, Alabama does not have 

any pending obligation under sections 

115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for ensuring compliance with 

the applicable requirements relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

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 Alabama’s 

infrastructure SIP submission as 

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

respect to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

(regarding state boards), EPA is 

proposing to disapprove this subelement. EPA’s rationale respecting each 

sub-element is described in turn later 

on. 

In support of EPA’s proposal to 

approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 

(iii), ADEM’s infrastructure submission 

demonstrates that it is responsible for 

promulgating rules and regulations for 

the NAAQS, emissions standards, 

general policies, a system of permits, fee 

schedules for the review of plans, and 

other planning needs as authorized at 

Ala. Code section 22–28–11 and section 

22–28–9. As evidence of the adequacy 

of ADEM’s resources with respect to 

sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA 

submitted a letter to Alabama on April 

19, 2016, outlining 105 grant 

commitments and current status of these 

commitments for fiscal year 2015. The 

letter EPA submitted to Alabama can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0431. Annually, states update these 

grant commitments based on current SIP 

requirements, air quality planning, and 

applicable requirements related to the 

NAAQS. There were no outstanding 

issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal 

year 2015, therefore, Alabama’s grants 

were finalized and closed out. 

Alabama’s funding is also met through 

the state’s title V fee program at ADEM 

Admin. Code r. 335–1–7—Air Division 

Operating Permit Fees 21 and ADEM 

Admin. Code r. 335–1–6—Application 

Fees.22 In addition, the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when 

EPA performs a completeness 

determination for each SIP submittal. 

This determination ensures that each 

submittal provides evidence that 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal 

authority under state law has been used 

to carry out the state’s implementation 

plan and related issues. Alabama’s 

authority to implement provisions of the 

State’s implementation plan is included 

in all prehearings and final SIP 

submittal packages for approval by EPA. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama has 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45435 

23ADEM Admin. Code r. 335–3–12–.02 

establishes that data reporting requirements for 

sources required to conduct continuous monitoring 

in the state should comply with data reporting 

requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

P. Section 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P includes 

that the averaging period used for data reporting 

should be established by the state to correspond to 

the averaging period specified in the emission test 

method used to determine compliance with an 

emission standard for the pollutant/source category 

in question. 

adequate authority and resources for 

implementation of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

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

SIPs comply with section 128 of the 

CAA. Section 128 requires that SIPs 

contain provisions to provide that: (1) 

The majority of members of the state 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permitting or 

enforcement orders under the CAA; and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by 

such board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed. After reviewing 

Alabama’s SIP, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

State’s implementation plan does not 

contain provisions to comply with 

section 128 of the Act, and thus 

Alabama’s April 23, 2013, infrastructure 

SIP submission does not meet the 

requirements of the Act. While Alabama 

has state statutes that may address, in 

whole or part, requirements related to 

state boards at the state level, these 

provisions are not included in the SIP 

as required by the CAA. Based on an 

evaluation of the federally-approved 

Alabama SIP, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove Alabama’s certification that 

its SIP meets the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA for the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The submitted 

provisions which purport to address 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) are severable from the 

other portions of ADEM’s infrastructure 

SIP submission, therefore, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove those 

provisions which relate only to subelement 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

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

Monitoring and Reporting: 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. 

ADEM’s infrastructure SIP submission 

describes the establishment of 

requirements for compliance testing by 

emissions sampling and analysis, and 

for emissions and operation monitoring 

to ensure the quality of data in the State. 

The Alabama infrastructure SIP 

submission also describes how the 

major source and minor source emission 

inventory programs collect emission 

data throughout the State and ensure the 

quality of such data. Alabama meets 

these requirements through ADEM 

Admin. Code r. 335–3–1–.04— 

Monitoring, Records, and Reporting, and 

335–3–12—Continuous Monitoring 

Requirements for Existing Sources. 

ADEM Admin. Code r. 335–3–1–.04, 

details how sources are required as 

appropriate to establish and maintain 

records; make reports; install, use, and 

maintain such monitoring equipment or 

methods; and provide periodic emission 

reports as the regulation requires. 

Additionally, ADEM Admin. Code r. 

335–3–12–.02 requires owners and 

operators of emissions sources to 

‘‘install, calibrate, operate and maintain 

all monitoring equipment necessary for 

continuously monitoring the 

pollutants.’’ 23 ADEM Admin. Code r. 

335–3–1–.13—Credible Evidence, makes 

allowances for owners and/or operators 

to utilize ‘‘any credible evidence or 

information relevant’’ to demonstrate 

compliance with applicable 

requirements if the appropriate 

performance or compliance test had 

been performed, for the purpose of 

submitting compliance certification and 

can be used to establish whether or not 

an owner or operator has violated or is 

in violation of any rule or standard. 

Accordingly, EPA is unaware of any 

provision preventing the use of credible 

evidence in the Alabama SIP. 

Additionally, Alabama is required to 

submit emissions data to EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through EPA’s online 

Emissions Inventory System. States 

report emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and the precursors that form 

them—NOX, SO2, ammonia, lead, 

carbon monoxide, particulate matter, 

and volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. Alabama 

made its latest update to the 2011 NEI 

on May 7, 2013. EPA compiles the 

emissions data, supplementing it where 

necessary, and releases it to the general 

public through the Web site http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

eiinformation.html. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

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. Ala. Code sections 22–28–22, 

22–28–14 and 22–28–21 grant ADEM 

authority to adopt regulations for the 

purpose of protecting human health, 

welfare and the environment as required 

by section 303 of the CAA. ADEM 

Admin. Code r. 335–3–2,—Air Pollution 

Emergency, provides for the 

identification of air pollution emergency 

episodes, episode criteria, and 

emissions reduction plans. Alabama’s 

compliance with section 303 of the CAA 

and adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority is also met by 

Ala. Code section 22–28–21 Air 

Pollution Emergencies. Ala. Code 

Section 22–28–21 provides ADEM the 

authority to order the ‘‘person or 

persons responsible for the operation or 

operations of one or more air 

contaminants sources’’ causing 

‘‘imminent danger to human health or 

safety in question to reduce or 

discontinue emissions immediately.’’ 

The order triggers a hearing no later 

than 24-hours after issuance before the 

Environmental Management 

Commission which can affirm, modify 

or set aside the Director’s order. 

Additionally, the Governor can, by 

proclamation, declare, as to all or any 

part of said area, that an air pollution 

emergency exists and exercise certain 

powers in whole or in part, by the 

issuance of an order or orders to protect 

the public health. Under Ala. Code 

sections 22–28–3(a) and 22–28–10(2), 

ADEM also has the authority to issue 

such orders as may be necessary to 

effectuate the purposes of the Alabama 

Pollution Control Act, which includes 

achieving and maintaining such levels 

of air quality as will protect human 

health and safety and, to the greatest 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

45436 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

24This regulation has not been incorporated into 

the federally-approved SIP. 

degree practicable, prevent injury to 

plant and animal life and property, 

foster the comfort and convenience of 

the people, promote the social 

development of this state and facilitate 

the enjoyment of the natural attractions 

of the state. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP, state laws and practices 

are adequate to satisfy the infrastructure 

SIP obligations for emergency powers 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Alabama’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

9. 110(a)(2)(H) 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. As previously discussed, 

ADEM is responsible for adopting air 

quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS. Alabama has the ability and 

authority to respond to calls for SIP 

revisions, and has provided a number of 

SIP revisions over the years for 

implementation of the NAAQS. ADEM 

Admin. Code r. 335–1–1–.03— 

Organization and Duties of the 

Commission,24 provides the Alabama 

Environmental Management 

Commission with the authority to 

establish, adopt, promulgate, modify, 

repeal and suspend rules, regulations, or 

environmental standards which may be 

applicable to Alabama or ‘‘any of its 

geographic parts.’’ Admin. Code r. 335– 

3–1–.03—Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, incorporate NAAQS, as 

amended or revised, and provides that 

the NAAQS apply throughout the State. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama adequately 

demonstrates a commitment to provide 

future SIP revisions related to the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Alabama’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(H). 

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

government officials, public 

notification, and PSD and visibility 

protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with respect 

to the general requirement in section 

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

SIP that complies with the applicable 

consultation requirements of section 

121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, PSD and 

visibility protection. EPA’s rationale for 

each sub-element is described later on. 

Consultation with government 

officials (121 consultation): Section 

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

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments, designated 

organizations and Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to section 121 relative to consultation. 

ADEM Admin. Code r. 335–3–1–.03— 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, as well 

as its Regional Haze Implementation 

Plan (which allows for continued 

consultation with appropriate state, 

local, and tribal air pollution control 

agencies as well as the corresponding 

FLMs), provide for consultation with 

government officials whose jurisdictions 

might be affected by SIP development 

activities. In addition, Alabama adopted 

state-wide consultation procedures for 

the implementation of transportation 

conformity which includes the 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIP development. These consultation 

procedures were developed in 

coordination with the transportation 

partners in the State and are consistent 

with the approaches used for 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIPs. Required partners covered by 

Alabama’s consultation procedures 

include Federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Alabama’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with government officials 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. 

Public notification (127 public 

notification): ADEM Admin. Code r. 

335–3–14–.01(7)—Public Participation, 

and 335–3–14–.05(13)—Public 

Participation, and Ala. Code section 22– 

28–21—Air Pollution Emergencies, 

provide for public notification when air 

pollution episodes occur. Furthermore, 

ADEM has several public notice 

mechanisms in place to notify the 

public of ozone and PM2.5 forecasting. 

Alabama maintains a public Web site on 

which daily air quality index forecasts 

are posted for the Birmingham, 

Huntsville, and Mobile areas. This Web 

site can be accessed at: http://

adem.alabama.gov/programs/air/

airquality.cnt. Although specific air 

quality forecasts for SO2 are not 

provided, they are provided for PM2.5

for which SO2 is a precursor. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Alabama’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

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

PSD: With regard to the PSD element 

of section 110(a)(2)(J), this requirement 

may be met by the state’s confirmation 

in an infrastructure SIP submission that 

new major sources and major 

modifications in the state are subject to 

a PSD program meeting current 

structural requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA. As discussed in more 

detail previously under the section 

discussing 110(a)(2)(C), Alabama’s SIP 

contains the required structural PSD 

requirements to satisfy the PSD element 

of section 110(a)(2)(J). Thus, EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Alabama’s SIP satisfies the PSD 

element of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS . 

Visibility protection: EPA’s 2013 

Guidance notes that it does not treat the 

visibility protection aspects of section 

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

the infrastructure SIP approval process. 

ADEM referenced its regional haze 

program as germane to the visibility 

component of section 110(a)(2)(J). 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 so ADEM does not need to 

rely on its regional haze program to 

fulfill its obligations under section 

110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s submission is approvable for 

the visibility protection element of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) and that Alabama 

does not need to rely on its regional 

haze program to address this element. 

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

and Submission of Modeling Data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires 

that SIPs provide for performing air 

quality modeling so that effects on air 

quality of emissions from NAAQS 

pollutants can be predicted and 

submission of such data to the EPA can 

be made. ADEM Admin. Code r. 335–3– 

14–.04—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Permitting, specifically 

sub-paragraph (11)—Air Quality Models, 

specifies that required air modeling be 

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix W ‘‘Guideline on Air 

Quality Models’’. ADEM Admin. Code r. 

335–3–1–.04—Monitoring, Records, and 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45437 

25This regulation has not been incorporated into 

the federally-approved SIP. 

26Title V program regulations are federally 

approved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. 

Reporting details how sources are 

required as appropriate to establish and 

maintain records; make reports; install, 

use, and maintain such monitoring 

equipment or methods; and provide 

periodic emission reports as the 

regulation requires. These reports and 

records are required to be compiled, and 

submitted on forms furnished by the 

State. These regulations also 

demonstrate that Alabama has the 

authority to provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, Alabama 

participates in a regional effort to 

coordinate the development of 

emissions inventories and conduct 

regional modeling for several NAAQS, 

including the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 

for the southeastern states. Taken as a 

whole, Alabama’s air quality regulations 

and practices demonstrate that ADEM 

has the authority to provide relevant 

data for the purpose of predicting the 

effect on ambient air quality of any 

emissions of any pollutant for which a 

NAAQS has been promulgated, and to 

provide such information to the EPA 

Administrator upon request. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Alabama’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide for air quality 

modeling, along with analysis of the 

associated data, related to the 2010–1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Alabama’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

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

section requires the owner or operator of 

each major stationary source to pay to 

the permitting authority, as a condition 

of any permit required under the CAA, 

a fee sufficient to cover (i) the 

reasonable costs of reviewing and acting 

upon any application for such a permit, 

and (ii) if the owner or operator receives 

a permit for such source, the reasonable 

costs of implementing and enforcing the 

terms and conditions of any such permit 

(not including any court costs or other 

costs associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. ADEM Admin. 

Code r. 335–1–6—Application Fees 25

requires ADEM to charge permitspecific fees to the applicant/source as 

authorized by Ala. Code section 22– 

22A–5. ADEM relies on these State 

requirements to demonstrate that its 

permitting fee structure is sufficient for 

the reasonable cost of reviewing and 

acting upon PSD and NNSR permits. 

Additionally, Alabama has a fullyapproved title V operating permit 

program—ADEM Admin. Code r. 335– 

1–7—Air Division Operating Permit 

Fees26—that covers the cost of 

implementation and enforcement of 

PSD and NNSR permits after they have 

been issued. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s state rules and practices 

adequately provide for permitting fees 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 

when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Alabama’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

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

13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation and 

Participation by Affected Local Entities: 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires 

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. ADEM coordinates with local 

governments affected by the SIP. ADEM 

Administrative Code 335–3–17–.01— 

Transportation Conformity is one way 

that Alabama provides for consultation 

with affected local entities. More 

specifically, Alabama adopted statewide consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity which includes the 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIP development and the requirements 

that link transportation planning and air 

quality planning in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Required partners 

covered by Alabama’s consultation 

procedures include Federal, state and 

local transportation and air quality 

agency officials. Furthermore, ADEM 

has worked with the Federal Land 

Managers as a requirement of the 

regional haze rule. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4), and 

the state board requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to 

approve Alabama’s April 23, 2013, SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS for the previously described 

infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is 

proposing to disapprove section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Alabama’s 

infrastructure submission because the 

State’s implementation plan does not 

contain provisions to comply with 

section 128 of the Act, and thus 

Alabama’s April 23, 2013, infrastructure 

SIP submission does not meet the 

requirements of the Act. The interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) will 

not be addressed by EPA at this time. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of a CAA Part 

D Plan, or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as 

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

call), starts a sanctions clock. The 

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

provisions (the provisions being 

proposed for disapproval in this notice) 

were not submitted to meet 

requirements for Part D or a SIP call, 

and therefore, if EPA takes final action 

to disapprove this submittal, no 

sanctions will be triggered. However, if 

this disapproval action is finalized, that 

final action will trigger the requirement 

under section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) no later than two years from 

the date of the disapproval unless the 

State corrects the deficiency, and EPA 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before EPA promulgates such FIP. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

45438 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions States 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

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

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

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

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

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

rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term 

‘‘Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations’’ or 

‘‘Regulation’’ indicates that the cited regulation has 

been approved into Tennessee’s federally-approved 

SIP. The term ‘‘Tennessee Annotated Code’’, or 

‘‘TCA’’, indicates cited Tennessee state statutes, 

which are not a part of the SIP unless otherwise 

indicated. 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, 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 30, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–16577 Filed 7–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0252; FRL–9948–96- 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee 

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 

State of Tennessee, through the 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC), on March 13, 

2014, to demonstrate that the State 

meets the infrastructure requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 

2010 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 submission. TDEC 

certified that the Tennessee SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2010 NO2

NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Tennessee. With the 

exception of provisions pertaining to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting, and interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance, and 

visibility in other states, for which EPA 

is proposing no action through this 

rulemaking, EPA is proposing to find 

that Tennessee’s infrastructure SIP 

submission, provided to EPA on March 

13, 2014, satisfies the required 

infrastructure elements for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0252 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 

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. Mr. Wong 

can be reached via electronic mail at 

wong.richard@epa.gov or via telephone 

at (404) 562–8726. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Overview 

On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), 

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 or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. 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

This action is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’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), and the interstate 

transport provisions of prongs 1, 2, and 

4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). On March 

18, 2015, EPA approved Tennessee’s 

March 13, 2014 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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS