73156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

■ 2. Amend § 549.12 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 549.12 Testing. 

(a) Human Immunodeficiency Virus 

(HIV)—(1) Testing. All inmates who 

have sentences of six months or more 

will be informed upon admission either 

orally or in writing that HIV testing will 

be performed unless they refuse testing. 

If the inmate refuses testing and the 

inmate has risk factors for HIV infection 

as defined by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, staff will 

provide pre-test counseling, and if the 

inmate continues to refuse testing, staff 

may initiate an incident report for 

refusing to obey an order. Any inmate 

may request HIV testing during the prerelease process. 

(2) Exposure incidents. The Bureau 

tests an inmate, regardless of the length 

of sentence or pretrial status, when 

there is a well-founded reason to believe 

that the inmate has been the source of 

a percutaneous or mucous membrane 

blood exposure, via an altercation or 

accident or other means to Bureau 

employees, other non-inmates who are 

lawfully present in a Bureau institution, 

or other inmates, regardless of whether 

the exposure was intentional or 

unintentional. Exposure incident testing 

does not require the inmate’s consent. 

(3) Surveillance testing. The Bureau 

conducts HIV testing for surveillance 

purposes as needed. If the inmate 

refuses testing, staff will offer pre-test 

counseling, and if the inmate continues 

to refuse testing, staff may initiate an 

incident report for refusing to obey an 

order. 

(4) Inmate request. An inmate may 

request to be tested. The Bureau limits 

such testing to no more than one per 12- 

month period unless the Bureau 

determines that additional testing is 

warranted. 

(5) Counseling. Inmates testing 

positive for HIV will receive post-test 

counseling. 

(b) * * * 

* * * * * 

(4) An inmate who refuses TB 

screening may be subject to an incident 

report for refusing to obey an order. If 

an inmate refuses testing for TB 

infection, and there is no 

contraindication to testing, then, 

institution medical staff will test the 

inmate involuntarily. 

[FR Doc. 2015–29790 Filed 11–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0760] 

RIN 1625–AA11 

Regulated Navigation Area; Reporting 

Requirements for Barges Loaded With 

Certain Dangerous Cargoes, Inland 

Rivers, Eighth Coast Guard District; 

Stay (Suspension) Expiring 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The stay of reporting 

requirements under the Regulated 

Navigation Area (RNA) applicable to 

barges loaded with certain dangerous 

cargoes on the inland rivers in the 

Eighth District area of responsibility 

(AOR) is scheduled to expire on 

December 31, 2015. The Coast Guard 

intends to allow the stay to expire in 

part. Once the stay partially expires, 

RNA reporting requirements in a limited 

form will resume under the existing 

regulation. The Coast Guard is 

developing an amendment to the 

existing regulation. 

DATES: November 24, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document call or 

email Shelley Miller, Coast Guard; 

telephone 504–671–2330, email 

Shelley.R.Miller@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Regulatory History 

The reporting requirements under 33 

CFR 165.830, ‘‘Regulated Navigation 

Area; Reporting Requirements for Barges 

Loaded with Certain Dangerous Cargoes, 

Inland Rivers, Eighth Coast Guard 

District,’’ were initially suspended in 

January 2011 due to the expiration of 

the contract for the reporting system at 

the Inland River Vessel Movement 

Center (IRVMC). This suspension was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 10, 2011 and was due to expire 

on January 15, 2013 (76 FR 1360). On 

January 2, 2013, the Coast Guard 

extended this suspension through 

September 30, 2013 (78 FR 25) and on 

October 1, 2013, the Coast Guard 

extended the suspension again through 

December 31, 2015 (78 FR 60216). The 

suspension of reporting requirements is 

scheduled to expire on December 31, 

2015. 

Additionally, the Coast Guard 

published a final rule in January 2015 

(80 FR 5282), titled Vessel Requirements 

for Notices of Arrival and Departure, 

and Automatic Identification System. 

This rule contains an exemption, at 33 

CFR 160.204(a)(3), for any vessel 

required to report its movements, its 

cargo, or the cargo in barges it is towing 

under 33 CFR 165.830 after December 

31, 2015. 

II. Discussion 

The Coast Guard intends to allow the 

suspension of certain reporting 

requirements under 33 CFR 165.830 to 

expire as scheduled. The Coast Guard 

does not intend to reinstate reporting, 

24 hours per day, 365 days per year, at 

90 plus reporting points under the RNA 

as currently published. Rather, we 

anticipate reporting will be required in 

response to specific concerns, under a 

limited form of the RNA currently in the 

CFR. 

Specifically, the Coast Guard is 

considering whether existing 

§ 165.830(d)(1)(ix), (d)(2)(iv), (f)(9), 

(g)(4), and (h) of the existing RNA may 

take effect on January 1, 2016, with 

revisions to the references to IRVMC. 

Although we have not yet developed 

revisions to the existing regulation, we 

are publishing this document to inform 

members of the public who are aware of, 

and may have questions about, the 

upcoming expiration of the suspension. 

This document is issued under 

authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 

Dated: November 9, 2015. 

D.R. Callahan, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–29714 Filed 11–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0545; FRL–9937–27– 

Region 9] 

Disapproval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove revisions to the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

concerning Vehicle Scrapping, 

Employee Trip Reduction, and 

procedures for the hearing board 

concerning variances and subpoenas. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 73157 

We are proposing action on local rules 

that regulate these activities under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are 

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

December 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0545, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the identified rule 

deficiencies? 

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules proposed for 

disapproval with the date that they were 

adopted or amended and submitted by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted or 

amended Submitted 

SCAQMD ......................... 1610 Old-Vehicle Scrapping ................................................................... 05/09/97 06/03/97 

SCAQMD ......................... 2202 On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options ................................... 10/09/98 06/03/99 

SCAQMD ......................... 503.1 Ex Parte Petitions for Variances ................................................... 02/05/88 02/07/89 

SCAQMD ......................... 504 Rules from which Variances Are Not Allowed .............................. 01/05/90 05/13/91 

SCAQMD ......................... 511.1 Subpoenas ..................................................................................... 02/05/88 02/07/89 

On December 3, 1997, the submittal 

for SCAQMD Rule 1610 was deemed by 

operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. On December 3, 

1999, the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 

2202 was deemed by operation of law to 

meet the completeness criteria. On May 

5, 1989, the EPA determined that the 

submittal for SCAQMD Rules 503.1 and 

511.1 met the completeness criteria. On 

July 10, 1991, the EPA determined that 

the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 504 

met the completeness. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 1610 in the SIP, although the 

SCAQMD adopted earlier versions of 

this rule on 02/11/94, 10/13/95, 02/08/ 

96 and 04/11/97, and CARB submitted 

them to us on 07/13/94, 10/18/96, 10/ 

18/96 and 06/03/97 respectively. There 

are no previous versions of Rule 2202 in 

the SIP, although the SCAQMD adopted 

earlier versions of this rule on 12/08/95, 

03/08/96 and 11/08/96, and CARB 

submitted them to us on 11/26/96, 11/ 

26/96 and 12/19/97 respectively. There 

are no previous versions of Rules 503.1 

and 511.1. There are no previous 

versions of Rule 504 in the SIP, 

although the SCAQMD adopted an 

earlier version of this rule on 02/05/88. 

While we can only act on the most 

recently submitted version, we have 

reviewed materials provided with 

previous submittals. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

Nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) help 

produce ground-level ozone, smog and 

particulate matter (PM), which harm 

human health and the environment. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

States to submit regulations that control 

VOC and NOX emissions. Rule 1610 is 

a voluntary rule with the goal of 

reducing motor vehicle exhaust 

emissions of VOC, NOX, carbon 

monoxide (CO), and PM by issuing 

mobile source emission reduction 

credits (MSERCs) in exchange for the 

scrapping of old, high emitting vehicles. 

Rule 2202 requires employers with 250 

or more full or part-time employees at 

a worksite to reduce mobile source 

emissions of VOC, NOX and CO 

generated from employee commutes. 

The EPA’s technical support documents 

(TSDs) have more information about 

rules 1610 and 2202. 

Rules 503.1 describes procedures for 

how sources can apply for ex parte 

variances. Rule 504 specifies rules for 

which the SCAQMD hearing board will 

not grant variances. Rule 511.1 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Transportation and Climate 

Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

‘‘Commuter Programs: Quantifying and Using Their 

Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity’’ 

(February 2014) and Memorandum from Richard D. 

Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, re: 

‘‘Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile 

Source Emission Reduction Programs in State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs)’’ (October 1997). 

describes procedures for the hearing 

board regarding subpoenas. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating these 

rules? 

SIP rules must be enforceable (see 

CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). In addition, pursuant to CAA 

section 110(i), neither EPA nor a state 

may revise a SIP by issuing an ‘‘order, 

suspension, plan revision, or other 

action modifying any requirement of an 

applicable implementation plan’’ 

without a plan promulgation or 

revision. 

Generally, SIP rules must require 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for each category of 

sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source of VOCs 

and NOX in ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or above (see 

CAA section 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The 

SCAQMD regulates an ozone 

nonattainment area classified as extreme 

for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone 

standards (40 CFR 51.305). In addition, 

SIP rules must implement Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) in 

moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

(see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 

189(a)(1)(C)). The SCAQMD regulates a 

PM2.5 nonattainment area classified as 

moderate for the annual and 24-hour 

standards (40 CFR 51.312). A RACM 

evaluation is generally performed in 

context of a broader plan. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised 

January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little 

Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Review of State Implementation Plans 

and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal 

Sufficiency,’’ EPA from J. Craig Potter, 

Thomas L. Adams Jr., Francis S. Blake, 

September 23, 1987. 

5. ‘‘Guidance an Enforceability 

Requirements for Limiting Potential to Emit 

through SIP and § 112 Rules and General 

Permits’’ EPA from Kathie A. Stein, January 

25, 1995. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

EPA supports SCAQMD efforts to 

implement nontraditional and 

innovative strategies for reducing air 

pollutant emissions, including 

commuter programs to reduce the 

frequency that employees drive alone to 

work, and programs to incentivize early 

adoption and turnover to cleaner, lesspolluting mobile sources.1 Nonetheless, 

we have identified several provisions in 

these rules that do not meet the 

evaluation criteria. These deficiencies 

are summarized below and discussed 

further in the TSDs. Because these 

deficiencies are significant enough to 

prevent our approval of these rules, we 

have not attempted to identify all other 

potential approvability issues, and are 

not providing a detailed analysis of all 

the evaluation criteria listed above. 

While we cannot propose to approve 

SCAQMD Rules 1610 and 2202 at this 

time, we commend SCAQMD’s 

leadership in developing and 

implementing creative programs like 

these for many years and we commit to 

continued collaboration to address 

SCAQMD’s air quality challenges. 

EPA and California have long 

recognized that a state-issued variance, 

though binding as a matter of state law, 

does not prevent EPA from enforcing 

the underlying SIP provisions unless 

and until EPA approves that variance as 

a SIP revision. The variance provisions 

in Rules 503.1 and 504 are deficient for 

various reasons, including their failure 

to address the fact that a state- or 

district-issued variance has no effect on 

enforcing the underlying federal 

requirement unless the variance is 

submitted to and approved by EPA as a 

SIP revision. Therefore, the inclusion of 

these rules in the SIP is inconsistent 

with the Act and may be confusing to 

regulated industry and the general 

public. 

States and Districts can adopt various 

provisions describing local agency 

investigative or enforcement authority, 

including the authority to issue 

subpoenas such as in Rule 511.1, to 

demonstrate adequate enforcement 

authority under section 110(a)(2) of the 

Act. These rules should not be approved 

into the applicable SIP, however, to 

avoid potential conflict with EPA’s 

independent authorities provided in 

CAA section 113, section 114 and 

elsewhere. 

C. What are the identified rule 

deficiencies? 

The deficiencies listed below are 

some of the provisions that of the 

submitted rules that do not satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of Title I of the Act and prevent full 

approval of the SIP submittals. 

We propose to disapprove the SIP 

revision for Rule 1610 based at least in 

part on the following deficiencies: 

1. The Section (e)(2) requirement that 

engines of scrapped vehicles be 

destroyed is insufficiently federally 

enforceable for various reasons. 

2. The Section (f)(2)(A) requirement 

that the vehicle be registered for two 

years within SCAQMD is not fully 

enforceable by allowing the Executive 

Officer to approve different 

documentation. 

3. The Section (g) requirement of a 

visual and functional inspection of the 

vehicle has no recordkeeping 

requirements. 

4. There is no recordkeeping 

requirement to demonstrate compliance 

with the Section (g)(1) requirement that 

vehicles be driven under their own 

power to the scrapping site. 

5. There is no requirement to 

maintain records for the life of the 

MSERCs. 

We propose to disapprove the SIP 

revision for Rule 2202 based at least in 

part on the following deficiencies: 

1. Per Section (f)(1), the rule relies on 

Regulation XVI, which is not currently 

in the SIP. 

2. Per Section (f)(3), the rule relies on 

AQIP (Rule 2501), which is not 

currently in the SIP. 

3. Per Section (f)(4), the rule relies on 

emission reduction strategies approved 

on a case-by-case basis by the Executive 

Officer. 

4. Per Section (g)(4), the rule relies on 

vehicle miles travelled reduction 

programs approved on a case-by-case 

basis by the Executive Officer. 

We propose to disapprove the SIP 

revision for Rules 503.1 and 504 

because they conflict with CAA sections 

110(a) and (i) and fail to address that a 

state- or district-issued variance has no 

effect on enforcing the underlying 

federal requirement unless the variance 

is submitted to and approved by EPA as 

a SIP revision. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 73159 

We propose to disapprove the SIP 

revision for Rule 511.1 to avoid 

potential conflict with EPA’s 

independent authorities provided in 

CAA section 113, section 114 and 

elsewhere. 

D. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, we are proposing full 

disapproval of the submitted SCAQMD 

Rules 1610, 2202, 503.1, 504, and 511.1. 

There are no sanctions or Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) implications 

should EPA finalize this disapproval. 

Sanctions would not be imposed under 

CAA section 179(b) because the 

submittal of Rules 1610 and 2202 is 

discretionary (i.e., not required to be 

included in the SIP). A FIP would not 

be imposed under CAA section 110(c)(1) 

because the disapproval does not reveal 

a deficiency in the SIP that such a FIP 

must correct. Specifically: (1) Rule 1610 

is voluntary and only serves to provide 

for an alternative method of compliance 

for stationary and other emission 

sources subject to other District 

regulations that allow the use of credits 

as a compliance option; and (2) Rule 

2202 is not a required CAA submittal 

because the CAA gives state and local 

agencies discretion, but does not 

require, employers ‘‘to implement 

programs to reduce work-related vehicle 

trips and miles travelled by employees’’ 

(see CAA section 182(d)(1)(B)). 

Additionally, at this time, we have not 

credited emission reductions from Rules 

1610 or 2202 in an approved SIP and we 

are not aware of a SCAQMD plan 

submitted to EPA that relies on 

emission reductions from these rules to 

fulfill a CAA requirement. Accordingly, 

the failure of the SCAQMD to adopt 

revisions to Rules 1610 and 2202 would 

not adversely affect the SIP’s 

compliance with the CAA’s 

requirements, such as the requirements 

for section 182 ozone RACT, reasonable 

further progress, and attainment 

demonstrations. Rules 503.1, 504 and 

511.1 regulate hearing board procedures 

and do not control emission sources or 

otherwise generate emission reductions 

nor are they required elements of the 

SIP. Thus, EPA does not need to impose 

sanctions or promulgate a FIP upon 

their disapproval. Note that the 

submitted rules have been adopted by 

the SCAQMD, and a final disapproval 

by the EPA would not prevent the local 

agency from enforcing them or the 

revised versions of these rules 

subsequently adopted by SCAQMD as a 

matter of State law. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed disapproval for 

the next 30 days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the E.O. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

proposed SIP disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply disapproves certain 

State requirements for inclusion into the 

SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

rule on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) A small business as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act will not in-andof itself create any new requirements 

but simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 

for EPA to fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

Therefore, this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

73160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 226 / Tuesday, November 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP rules EPA is 

proposing to disapprove would not 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction, and EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the E.O. has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to E.O. 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (E.O.) 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 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: October 30, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–29802 Filed 11–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0593; A–1–FRL– 

9939–23–Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; ME; Repeal of the 

Maine’s General Conformity Provision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Maine. This revision removes State 

Regulation Chapter 141 Conformity of 

General Federal Actions from the SIP. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 24, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2015–0593 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R01–OAR–2015– 

0593’’, Anne Arnold, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Unit, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, 

telephone number (617) 918–1660, fax 

number (617) 918–0660, email 

garcia.ariel@epa.gov . 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action rule, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS