Air Plan Approval; AL; Section 128 Board Requirements for Infrastructure SIPs, 31454-31458 [2018-14525]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31454
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Review) defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ requiring review by
OMB, unless OMB waives such review,
as any regulatory action that is likely to
result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) Create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.
The economic, interagency,
budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this final rule have been
examined, and it has been determined
not to be a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. VA’s
impact analysis can be found as a
supporting document at https://
www.regulations.gov, usually within 48
hours after the rulemaking document is
published. Additionally, a copy of the
rulemaking and its impact analysis are
available on VA’s website at https://
www.va.gov/orpm, by following the link
for ‘‘VA Regulations Published From FY
2004 Through Fiscal Year To Date.’’
This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory
action because this rule is not
significant under E.O. 12866
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in an
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year. This final rule would have no
such effect on State, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance numbers and titles for the
programs affected by this document are
64.011—Veterans Dental Care; 64.012—
Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013—
Veterans Prosthetic Appliances;
64.014—Veterans State Domiciliary
Care; 64.015—Veterans State Nursing
Home Care; 64.026—Veterans State
Adult Day Health Care; 64.029—
Purchase Care Program; 64.033—VA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
Supportive Services for Veteran
Families Program; 64.034—VA Grants
for Adaptive Sports Programs for
Disabled Veterans and Disabled
Members of the Armed Forces; 64.035—
Veterans Transportation Program;
64.039—CHAMPVA; 64.040—VHA
Inpatient Medicine; 64.041—VHA
Outpatient Specialty Care; 64.042—
VHA Inpatient Surgery; 64.043—VHA
Mental Health Residential; 64.044—
VHA Home Care; 64.045—VHA
Outpatient Ancillary Services; 64.046—
VHA Inpatient Psychiatry; 64.047—
VHA Primary Care; 64.048—VHA
Mental Health clinics; 64.049—VHA
Community Living Center; 64.050—
VHA Diagnostic Care.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug
abuse, Foreign relations, Government
contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant
programs-veterans, Health care, Health
facilities, Health professions, Health
records, Homeless, Medical and dental
schools, Medical devices, Medical
research, Mental health programs,
Nursing home care, Philippines,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Scholarships and fellows,
Travel, Transportation expenses,
Veterans.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
designee, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Acting Chief of
Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs,
approved this document on June 28,
2018, for publication.
Dated: July 2, 2018.
Consuela Benjamin,
Regulation Development Coordinator, Office
of Regulation Policy & Management, Office
of the Secretary, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 17 as
follows:
PART 17—MEDICAL
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read in part as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in
specific sections.
*
*
*
*
*
2. Amend § 17.101 by:
a. Adding paragraph (a)(9).
b. Revising the authority citation at
the end of the section.
■
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The addition and revision read as
follows:
§ 17.101 Collection or recovery by VA for
medical care or services provided or
furnished to a veteran for a nonserviceconnected disability.
(a) * * *
(9) Care provided under special
treatment authorities. (i)
Notwithstanding any other provisions in
this section, VA will not seek recovery
or collection of reasonable charges from
a third party payer for:
(A) Hospital care, medical services,
and nursing home care provided by VA
or at VA expense under 38 U.S.C.
1710(a)(2)(F) and (e).
(B) Counseling and appropriate care
and services furnished to veterans for
psychological trauma authorized under
38 U.S.C. 1720D.
(C) Medical examination, and hospital
care, medical services, and nursing
home care furnished to veteran for
cancer of the head or neck as authorized
under 38 U.S.C. 1720E.
(ii) VA may continue to exercise its
right to recover or collect reasonable
charges from third parties, pursuant to
this section, for the cost of care that VA
provides to these same veterans for
conditions and disabilities that VA
determines are not covered by any of the
special treatment authorities.
*
*
*
*
*
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1701, 1705,
1710, 1720D, 1720E, 1721, 1722, 1729)
[FR Doc. 2018–14573 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0642; FRL–9980–
50—Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; AL; Section 128
Board Requirements for Infrastructure
SIPs
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission, submitted by the State
of Alabama, through the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), on October 24,
2017, and a portion of a December 9,
2015, infrastructure SIP submission.
The October 24, 2017 submission
addresses the general Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) conflict of interest
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06JYR1.SGM
06JYR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
requirements applicable to Alabama
state boards or agency personnel with
respect to the approval of permits or
enforcement orders. This submission
also specifically addresses requirements
for implementation of the following
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS): 1997, 2006, and 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 2008 8-hour
Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2), and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2). The CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA. Whenever EPA
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS,
the CAA requires the state to make a
new SIP submission establishing that
the existing SIP meets the various
applicable requirements, or revising the
SIP to meet those requirements. This
type of SIP submission is commonly
referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. In
this action, EPA is approving the
October 24, 2017, submission with
respect to: The CAA conflict of interest
requirements; and the related conflict of
interest infrastructure SIP requirements
for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5, 2008
8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In addition, EPA
is approving a portion of ADEM’s
December 9, 2015, infrastructure SIP
submission (as supplemented by the
October 24, 2017 submission) related to
the conflict of interest requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This action
removes EPA’s obligation to promulgate
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to
address these CAA state board
requirements for Alabama.
DATES: This rule will be effective August
6, 2018.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2017–0642. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Regulatory Management Section,
Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
if at all possible, you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office’s
official hours of business are Monday
through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone
number is (404) 562–9140. Ms. Ward
can be reached via electronic mail at
ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
States must submit infrastructure SIP
submissions meeting the applicable
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA within three years after
EPA’s promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
require states to address basic SIP
requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling
to assure attainment and maintenance of
the new or revised NAAQS. More
specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides
the procedural and timing requirements
for infrastructure SIP submissions.
Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
requirements that states must meet for
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP purposes, as
applicable, related to the newly
established or revised NAAQS. In
particular, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
requires states to include provisions in
their SIP to address the state board
requirements of section 128.
EPA is finalizing its proposed
approval of Alabama’s December 9,
2015 and October 24, 2017,1
submissions to incorporate into its SIP
certain regulatory provisions to address
the state board requirements of section
128. As a result of the addition of these
new SIP provisions to meet the
requirements of section 128, EPA is also
finalizing approval of these submissions
as satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
infrastructure requirement for the 1997,
2006, and 2012 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour
Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS. This final action fully
addresses the SIP deficiencies related to
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128
from EPA’s prior disapprovals of
infrastructure SIP submissions for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on
October 15, 2012 (77 FR 62449), 2008 8hour Ozone NAAQS on April 2, 2015
1 Alabama’s October 24, 2017 submission became
state effective on December 8, 2017.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
31455
(80 FR 17689), 2008 Lead NAAQS on
October 9, 2015 (80 FR 61111), 2010
NO2 NAAQS on November 21, 2016 (81
FR 83142), and 2010 SO2 NAAQS on
January 12, 2017 (82 FR 3637). Thus,
this final action also satisfies EPA’s FIP
obligation with regard to that
infrastructure SIP requirement for these
NAAQS based on the prior
disapprovals.
EPA proposed to approve Alabama’s
October 24, 2017, submission related to
the state board requirements as meeting
the requirements of section 128, and
also as meeting the infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 8hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS and a portion of the
December 9, 2015, infrastructure SIP
submission related to the state board
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) published on February 8, 2018
(83 FR 5594). The details of Alabama’s
submissions and the rationale for EPA’s
actions related to how Alabama
addressed the requirements of section
128 and the related infrastructure
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for
the aforementioned NAAQS are
explained in the NPR.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received a total of nine sets of
comments, but only one commenter
submitted comments that are relevant to
this action.
Comment 1: The Commenter contends
that Alabama’s new provisions related
to conflicts of interest do not fully
comply with the CAA section 128
because the provisions apply to the
members of applicable boards or bodies,
rather than to the board or body itself.
Specifically, the Commenter states:
‘‘because the 128(a)(1) applies to the
board itself but [Alabama Rule] 335–1–
1–.03(1)(h) does not apply to the board
itself, but rather to its members, 335–1–
1–.03(1)(h) does not meet the
requirement of 128(a)(1).’’ The
Commenter contends that this raises
concerns about the enforceability of this
provision. The Commenter expresses
concern that it could not name the
board itself as a defendant because the
provision does not apply to the board,
and that it could be difficult to enforce
the conflict of interest provisions
against individual board members
because the members each could assert
they are not the majority. The
Commenter also expresses concern
about remedies in such an enforcement
action, contending that a ‘‘U.S. District
Judge would have to decide which
members to remove from the board.’’
Therefore, the Commenter suggested
E:\FR\FM\06JYR1.SGM
06JYR1
31456
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
that EPA should only conditionally
approve the SIP submissions—
specifically, that EPA approve the
submissions on the condition that the
state revise 335–1–1–.03(1)(h) so that it
applies to the Alabama Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) as a
collective entity, rather than to the
individual members of the EMC.
EPA’s Response 1: EPA does not agree
with the Commenter that Alabama Rule
335–1–1–.03(2)(h) 2 does not satisfy the
requirements of section 128(a)(1)
because the provision applies to each
individual member of the board or body,
rather than to the board or body itself
as a whole. Section 128(a)(1) requires
SIPs to (a) ‘‘contain requirements that
(1) any board or body which approves
permits or enforcement orders under
[the CAA] shall have at least a majority
of members who represent the public
interest and do not derive any
significant portion of income from
persons subject to permits or
enforcement orders under [the CAA].’’
Upon approval, the Alabama SIP will
contain requirements to ensure that the
EMC will have at least a majority of
members who represent the public
interest and who do not derive a
significant portion of income from
regulated entities, and that all of the
members of the EMC will disclose any
potential conflicts of interest. This is
because the EMC is made up of the
members themselves (there is no
separate governing board or body) and
because each member will be
responsible for meeting all requirements
of section 128, including the majority
requirements of section 128(a)(1). By
electing to make each individual
member of the EMC directly responsible
for compliance with section 128
requirements, Alabama has assured that
the EMC as a whole will meet these
requirements.
Further, EPA notes that the CAA does
not explicitly require that the provisions
of section 128(a)(1) apply directly to a
board or body itself as a distinct entity.
Ultimately, the requirements of this
provisions are met if a majority of board
members meet the public-interest and
significant-portion-of-income
requirements. In fact, as noted in the
notice of proposed approval, 83 FR
5597, states have some flexibility to
determine the specific provisions
needed to satisfy the requirements of
2 The Commenter provided a citation to Alabama
rule 335–1–1–.03(1)(h) in its comments, but the SIP
submission requests incorporation of Alabama rule
335–1–1–.03(2)(h). EPA notes that Alabama rule
335–1–1–.03 does not include a (1)(h), and believes
the Commenter’s citation was in error. EPA is,
therefore, citing to 335–1–1–.03(2)(h) in its
responses to the comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
section 128, so long as the statutory
requirements are met.3 4 In this instance,
Alabama determined that requiring each
member of the board to meet the
requirements of section 128(a)(1) is an
appropriate means to assure that the
EMC as a whole meets the substantive
requirements. Thus, EPA believes
Alabama’s approach satisfies the
majority composition requirements of
section 128(a)(1), about which the
commenter expressed concern, and does
not require any amendment.
The Commenter also expresses
concern about potential difficulties with
pursuing citizen suits as a basis for
suggesting that Rule 335–1–1–.03(2)(h)
is not enforceable. Specifically, the
Commenter suggests that it would be
unable to name the board itself as a
defendant, then posits that individual
board members could say they are not
the majority, and concludes that a ‘‘U.S.
District Judge would have to decide
which members to remove from the
board.’’ EPA does not agree that being
unable to seek enforcement against the
board itself versus the individual
members will preclude enforcement of
the requirements in the event of
potential noncompliance. EPA does not
believe that Rule 335–1–1–.03(2)(h)
presents unique enforcement challenges
or that requiring compliance by each
member of the EMC, rather than the
EMC itself, eliminates the opportunity
for judicial review for non-compliance.
In particular, the EPA does not agree
that the only remedy available to a
federal district court is for the court to
decide which members to remove from
the board. For example, the court could
direct board members to comply with
the section 128 requirements.
Comment 2: The Commenter also
expresses concerns ‘‘with regard to CAA
128(a)(2)’s obligation to adequately
disclose potential conflicts of interest,
[Rule] 335–1–1–.03(1)(h) and [Rule]
335–1–1–.04(6)’s lack of any specifics as
to what constitutes adequate disclosure
can lead to confusion and potential
lengthy litigation.’’
EPA’s Response 2: EPA does not agree
that omitting an explicit regulatory
3 The U.S. House of Representatives conference
committee report for the 1977 amendments stated
that ‘‘it is the responsibility of each state to
determine the specific requirements to meet the
general requirements of [section 128].’’ H.R. Rep.
95–564 (1977), reprinted in Legislative History of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 526–527
(1978).
4 In guidance, EPA has recognized that states may
have a variety of procedures and special concerns
that may warrant differing approaches to
implementation of section 128. ‘‘Guidance to States
for Meeting Conflict of Interest Requirements of
Section 128,’’ Memorandum from David O. Bickart,
Deputy General Counsel, to Regional Air Directors,
March 2, 1978 (‘‘1978 Guidance’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
definition or other specification of what
constitutes adequate disclosure is
impermissible. EPA notes that the CAA
itself does not define what constitutes
‘‘adequately’’ disclosing potential
conflicts of interest. This means that
what constitutes adequate disclosure
may depend upon the specific facts and
circumstances of a given situation.
While EPA’s 1978 guidance provides a
recommended definition for
‘‘adequately disclosed,’’ this guidance
also specifies that it does not create a
requirement that all SIPs must include
EPA’s suggested definitions verbatim, or
that states must include any definitions
in SIPs at all.5 As noted in the proposed
action, EPA has approved similar state
law requirements for other states that
closely track or mirror the explicit
statutory language of section 128, and
which do not define ‘‘adequately
disclosed.’’ 6 Nevertheless, EPA
concludes that by requiring each
member of the EMC and the
management of ADEM to comply with
applicable federal law and regulations,
those individuals are required to
disclose any potential conflicts of
interest adequately. The determination
of whether they have done so will turn
upon the specific facts and
circumstances of a given situation, per
the explicit requirement of section
128(a)(2). Because Alabama’s SIP
revision meets CAA requirements and is
consistent with EPA guidance and past
approvals with respect to the
requirements of section 128, EPA
believes that state does not need to
make the revisions suggested by the
Commenter.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of ADEM’s Section 335–1–
1–.03, Organization and Duties of the
Commission and Section 335–1–1–.04,
Organization of the Department, state
effective December 8, 2017, which
revise Alabama’s SIP to include
language that mandates members of the
Alabama Environmental Management
Commission and the ADEM Director,
Deputy Director, Division Chiefs, and all
ADEM personnel meet all requirements
of the state ethics law and the conflict
of interest provisions of applicable
Federal laws and regulations. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
5 1978 Guidance, ‘‘Model Letter from Regional
Offices to States,’’ at 2–3.
6 See also EPA proposed rule on South Dakota, 79
FR 71040, 71052, finalized at 80 FR 4799.
E:\FR\FM\06JYR1.SGM
06JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking
of EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated in the next update to the
SIP compilation.7
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
IV. Final Action
As described above, EPA is taking
action to approve SIP revisions needed
to assure that Alabama’s SIP meets the
state board requirements of section 128
of the CAA. Approval of Alabama’s
October 24, 2017 SIP submission, and a
portion of the December 9, 2015 SIP
submission also meets the section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 1997, 2006, and
2012 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008
Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
With this approval, the deficiencies that
EPA identified in the previous partial
disapprovals of Alabama’s infrastructure
SIP submissions related to the state
board requirements for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008
Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS
are resolved.
V. 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. This 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 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);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
7 62
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 25, 2018.
Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 .U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart B—Alabama
2. Section 52.50 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (c), adding a new
heading for ‘‘Chapter No. 335–1–1
Organization’’ and adding new entries
for ‘‘Section 335–1–1–.03,’’ and
‘‘Section 335–1–1–.04’’ at the beginning
of the table; and
■ b. In paragraph (e), adding new entries
for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS,’’ ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ ‘‘110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ ‘‘110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS,’’ ‘‘110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ ‘‘110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS,’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS’’ at the end of the
table to read as follows:
■
■
§ 52.50
*
*
Identification of plan.
*
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
31457
E:\FR\FM\06JYR1.SGM
06JYR1
*
*
31458
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(c) * * *
EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS
State citation
State
effective date
Title/subject
EPA approval date
Explanation
Chapter No. 335–1–1 Organization
Section 335–1–1–.03 ..............
Section 335–1–1–.04 ..............
*
*
*
Organization and Duties of
the Commission.
Organization of the Department.
*
*
*
12/8/2017
12/8/2017
*
*
7/6/2018, [Insert citation of
publication].
7/6/2018, [Insert citation of
publication].
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP
provision
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
State
submittal date/
effective
date
EPA approval date
*
*
*
110(a)(1) and (2) InfrastrucAlabama .................................
ture Requirements for the
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
*
12/8/2017
*
7/6/2018, [Insert citation of
publication].
110(a)(1) and (2) InfrastrucAlabama .................................
ture Requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
12/8/2017
7/6/2018, [Insert citation of
publication].
110(a)(1) and (2) InfrastrucAlabama .................................
ture Requirements for the
2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
12/8/2017
7/6/2018, [Insert citation of
publication].
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 Lead NAAQS.
Alabama .................................
12/8/2017
7/6/2018, [Insert citation of
publication].
110(a)(1) and (2) InfrastrucAlabama .................................
ture Requirements for the
2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.
12/8/2017
7/6/2018, [Insert citation of
publication].
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS.
Alabama .................................
12/8/2017
7/6/2018, [Insert citation of
publication].
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Alabama .................................
12/8/2017
7/6/2018, [Insert citation of
publication].
§ 52.53
[Amended]
3. Section 52.53 is amended by
removing paragraphs (a) through (e).
■
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[FR Doc. 2018–14525 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am]
[WC Docket Nos. 10–90; FCC 18–53]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Connect America Fund
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
reconsideration.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Jul 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
*
Addressing the state board
requirements of sections
128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
Addressing the state board
requirements of sections
128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
Addressing the state board
requirements of sections
128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
Addressing the state board
requirements of sections
128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
Addressing the state board
requirements of sections
128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
Addressing the state board
requirements of sections
128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
Addressing the state board
requirements of sections
128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
(Commission) addresses the petition for
reconsideration filed by Alaska
Communications Systems (ACS) of the
October 31, 2016 Commission’s ACS
Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II
Order. The Commission denies the
petition.
The denial of the petition for
reconsideration is effective August 6,
2018.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Minard, Wireline
Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or
TTY: (202) 418–0484.
E:\FR\FM\06JYR1.SGM
06JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31454-31458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14525]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0642; FRL-9980-50--Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; AL; Section 128 Board Requirements for
Infrastructure SIPs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission,
submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM), on October 24, 2017, and a portion of
a December 9, 2015, infrastructure SIP submission. The October 24, 2017
submission addresses the general Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) conflict of
interest
[[Page 31455]]
requirements applicable to Alabama state boards or agency personnel
with respect to the approval of permits or enforcement orders. This
submission also specifically addresses requirements for implementation
of the following national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS): 1997,
2006, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 2008 8-hour
Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and 2010
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). The CAA requires that each state adopt
and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. Whenever EPA promulgates a new or
revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the state to make a new SIP submission
establishing that the existing SIP meets the various applicable
requirements, or revising the SIP to meet those requirements. This type
of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP.
In this action, EPA is approving the October 24, 2017, submission with
respect to: The CAA conflict of interest requirements; and the related
conflict of interest infrastructure SIP requirements for the 1997,
2006, and 2012 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is
approving a portion of ADEM's December 9, 2015, infrastructure SIP
submission (as supplemented by the October 24, 2017 submission) related
to the conflict of interest requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. This action removes EPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address these CAA state board requirements
for Alabama.
DATES: This rule will be effective August 6, 2018.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0642. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be
reached via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
States must submit infrastructure SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA within
three years after EPA's promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP
requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling
to assure attainment and maintenance of the new or revised NAAQS. More
specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2)
lists specific requirements that states must meet for
``infrastructure'' SIP purposes, as applicable, related to the newly
established or revised NAAQS. In particular, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
requires states to include provisions in their SIP to address the state
board requirements of section 128.
EPA is finalizing its proposed approval of Alabama's December 9,
2015 and October 24, 2017,\1\ submissions to incorporate into its SIP
certain regulatory provisions to address the state board requirements
of section 128. As a result of the addition of these new SIP provisions
to meet the requirements of section 128, EPA is also finalizing
approval of these submissions as satisfying the section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure requirement for the 1997, 2006, and
2012 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This final action fully
addresses the SIP deficiencies related to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and
section 128 from EPA's prior disapprovals of infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 15,
2012 (77 FR 62449), 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on April 2, 2015 (80 FR
17689), 2008 Lead NAAQS on October 9, 2015 (80 FR 61111), 2010
NO2 NAAQS on November 21, 2016 (81 FR 83142), and 2010
SO2 NAAQS on January 12, 2017 (82 FR 3637). Thus, this final
action also satisfies EPA's FIP obligation with regard to that
infrastructure SIP requirement for these NAAQS based on the prior
disapprovals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alabama's October 24, 2017 submission became state effective
on December 8, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposed to approve Alabama's October 24, 2017, submission
related to the state board requirements as meeting the requirements of
section 128, and also as meeting the infrastructure requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008
8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS and a portion of the December 9, 2015, infrastructure SIP
submission related to the state board requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
published on February 8, 2018 (83 FR 5594). The details of Alabama's
submissions and the rationale for EPA's actions related to how Alabama
addressed the requirements of section 128 and the related
infrastructure section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for the
aforementioned NAAQS are explained in the NPR.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received a total of nine sets of comments, but only one
commenter submitted comments that are relevant to this action.
Comment 1: The Commenter contends that Alabama's new provisions
related to conflicts of interest do not fully comply with the CAA
section 128 because the provisions apply to the members of applicable
boards or bodies, rather than to the board or body itself.
Specifically, the Commenter states: ``because the 128(a)(1) applies to
the board itself but [Alabama Rule] 335-1-1-.03(1)(h) does not apply to
the board itself, but rather to its members, 335-1-1-.03(1)(h) does not
meet the requirement of 128(a)(1).'' The Commenter contends that this
raises concerns about the enforceability of this provision. The
Commenter expresses concern that it could not name the board itself as
a defendant because the provision does not apply to the board, and that
it could be difficult to enforce the conflict of interest provisions
against individual board members because the members each could assert
they are not the majority. The Commenter also expresses concern about
remedies in such an enforcement action, contending that a ``U.S.
District Judge would have to decide which members to remove from the
board.'' Therefore, the Commenter suggested
[[Page 31456]]
that EPA should only conditionally approve the SIP submissions--
specifically, that EPA approve the submissions on the condition that
the state revise 335-1-1-.03(1)(h) so that it applies to the Alabama
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) as a collective entity,
rather than to the individual members of the EMC.
EPA's Response 1: EPA does not agree with the Commenter that
Alabama Rule 335-1-1-.03(2)(h) \2\ does not satisfy the requirements of
section 128(a)(1) because the provision applies to each individual
member of the board or body, rather than to the board or body itself as
a whole. Section 128(a)(1) requires SIPs to (a) ``contain requirements
that (1) any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders
under [the CAA] shall have at least a majority of members who represent
the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of income
from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under [the
CAA].'' Upon approval, the Alabama SIP will contain requirements to
ensure that the EMC will have at least a majority of members who
represent the public interest and who do not derive a significant
portion of income from regulated entities, and that all of the members
of the EMC will disclose any potential conflicts of interest. This is
because the EMC is made up of the members themselves (there is no
separate governing board or body) and because each member will be
responsible for meeting all requirements of section 128, including the
majority requirements of section 128(a)(1). By electing to make each
individual member of the EMC directly responsible for compliance with
section 128 requirements, Alabama has assured that the EMC as a whole
will meet these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Commenter provided a citation to Alabama rule 335-1-
1-.03(1)(h) in its comments, but the SIP submission requests
incorporation of Alabama rule 335-1-1-.03(2)(h). EPA notes that
Alabama rule 335-1-1-.03 does not include a (1)(h), and believes the
Commenter's citation was in error. EPA is, therefore, citing to 335-
1-1-.03(2)(h) in its responses to the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, EPA notes that the CAA does not explicitly require that
the provisions of section 128(a)(1) apply directly to a board or body
itself as a distinct entity. Ultimately, the requirements of this
provisions are met if a majority of board members meet the public-
interest and significant-portion-of-income requirements. In fact, as
noted in the notice of proposed approval, 83 FR 5597, states have some
flexibility to determine the specific provisions needed to satisfy the
requirements of section 128, so long as the statutory requirements are
met.3 4 In this instance, Alabama determined that requiring
each member of the board to meet the requirements of section 128(a)(1)
is an appropriate means to assure that the EMC as a whole meets the
substantive requirements. Thus, EPA believes Alabama's approach
satisfies the majority composition requirements of section 128(a)(1),
about which the commenter expressed concern, and does not require any
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The U.S. House of Representatives conference committee
report for the 1977 amendments stated that ``it is the
responsibility of each state to determine the specific requirements
to meet the general requirements of [section 128].'' H.R. Rep. 95-
564 (1977), reprinted in Legislative History of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977, 526-527 (1978).
\4\ In guidance, EPA has recognized that states may have a
variety of procedures and special concerns that may warrant
differing approaches to implementation of section 128. ``Guidance to
States for Meeting Conflict of Interest Requirements of Section
128,'' Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy General Counsel, to
Regional Air Directors, March 2, 1978 (``1978 Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commenter also expresses concern about potential difficulties
with pursuing citizen suits as a basis for suggesting that Rule 335-1-
1-.03(2)(h) is not enforceable. Specifically, the Commenter suggests
that it would be unable to name the board itself as a defendant, then
posits that individual board members could say they are not the
majority, and concludes that a ``U.S. District Judge would have to
decide which members to remove from the board.'' EPA does not agree
that being unable to seek enforcement against the board itself versus
the individual members will preclude enforcement of the requirements in
the event of potential noncompliance. EPA does not believe that Rule
335-1-1-.03(2)(h) presents unique enforcement challenges or that
requiring compliance by each member of the EMC, rather than the EMC
itself, eliminates the opportunity for judicial review for non-
compliance. In particular, the EPA does not agree that the only remedy
available to a federal district court is for the court to decide which
members to remove from the board. For example, the court could direct
board members to comply with the section 128 requirements.
Comment 2: The Commenter also expresses concerns ``with regard to
CAA 128(a)(2)'s obligation to adequately disclose potential conflicts
of interest, [Rule] 335-1-1-.03(1)(h) and [Rule] 335-1-1-.04(6)'s lack
of any specifics as to what constitutes adequate disclosure can lead to
confusion and potential lengthy litigation.''
EPA's Response 2: EPA does not agree that omitting an explicit
regulatory definition or other specification of what constitutes
adequate disclosure is impermissible. EPA notes that the CAA itself
does not define what constitutes ``adequately'' disclosing potential
conflicts of interest. This means that what constitutes adequate
disclosure may depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of a
given situation. While EPA's 1978 guidance provides a recommended
definition for ``adequately disclosed,'' this guidance also specifies
that it does not create a requirement that all SIPs must include EPA's
suggested definitions verbatim, or that states must include any
definitions in SIPs at all.\5\ As noted in the proposed action, EPA has
approved similar state law requirements for other states that closely
track or mirror the explicit statutory language of section 128, and
which do not define ``adequately disclosed.'' \6\ Nevertheless, EPA
concludes that by requiring each member of the EMC and the management
of ADEM to comply with applicable federal law and regulations, those
individuals are required to disclose any potential conflicts of
interest adequately. The determination of whether they have done so
will turn upon the specific facts and circumstances of a given
situation, per the explicit requirement of section 128(a)(2). Because
Alabama's SIP revision meets CAA requirements and is consistent with
EPA guidance and past approvals with respect to the requirements of
section 128, EPA believes that state does not need to make the
revisions suggested by the Commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 1978 Guidance, ``Model Letter from Regional Offices to
States,'' at 2-3.
\6\ See also EPA proposed rule on South Dakota, 79 FR 71040,
71052, finalized at 80 FR 4799.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of ADEM's
Section 335-1-1-.03, Organization and Duties of the Commission and
Section 335-1-1-.04, Organization of the Department, state effective
December 8, 2017, which revise Alabama's SIP to include language that
mandates members of the Alabama Environmental Management Commission and
the ADEM Director, Deputy Director, Division Chiefs, and all ADEM
personnel meet all requirements of the state ethics law and the
conflict of interest provisions of applicable Federal laws and
regulations. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
[[Page 31457]]
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
As described above, EPA is taking action to approve SIP revisions
needed to assure that Alabama's SIP meets the state board requirements
of section 128 of the CAA. Approval of Alabama's October 24, 2017 SIP
submission, and a portion of the December 9, 2015 SIP submission also
meets the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure SIP requirements for
the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008
Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. With this
approval, the deficiencies that EPA identified in the previous partial
disapprovals of Alabama's infrastructure SIP submissions related to the
state board requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008
8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS are resolved.
V. 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. This 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 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);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 25, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 .U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart B--Alabama
0
2. Section 52.50 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (c), adding a new heading for ``Chapter No. 335-1-1
Organization'' and adding new entries for ``Section 335-1-1-.03,'' and
``Section 335-1-1-.04'' at the beginning of the table; and
0
b. In paragraph (e), adding new entries for ``110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS,'' ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,'' ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,'' ``110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS,''
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS,'' ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS,'' and ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.50 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
[[Page 31458]]
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Alabama Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation Title/subject effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter No. 335-1-1 Organization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 335-1-1-.03.............. Organization and 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert ...................
Duties of the citation of
Commission. publication].
Section 335-1-1-.04.............. Organization of the 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert ...................
Department. citation of
publication].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable submittal date/
provision geographic or effective EPA approval date Explanation
nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Alabama............ 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert Addressing the
Requirements for the 1997 Annual citation of state board
PM2.5 NAAQS. publication]. requirements of
sections 128 and
110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Alabama............ 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert Addressing the
Requirements for the 2006 24- citation of state board
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. publication]. requirements of
sections 128 and
110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Alabama............ 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert Addressing the
Requirements for the 2012 24- citation of state board
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. publication]. requirements of
sections 128 and
110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Alabama............ 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert Addressing the
Requirements for the 2008 Lead citation of state board
NAAQS. publication]. requirements of
sections 128 and
110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Alabama............ 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert Addressing the
Requirements for the 2008 8-hour citation of state board
Ozone NAAQS. publication]. requirements of
sections 128 and
110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Alabama............ 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert Addressing the
Requirements for the 2010 NO2 citation of state board
NAAQS. publication]. requirements of
sections 128 and
110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Alabama............ 12/8/2017 7/6/2018, [Insert Addressing the
Requirements for the 2010 SO2 citation of state board
NAAQS. publication]. requirements of
sections 128 and
110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.53 [Amended]
0
3. Section 52.53 is amended by removing paragraphs (a) through (e).
[FR Doc. 2018-14525 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
