```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57519-57522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20022]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0486; EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0223; EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0447; 
EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0358; A-1-FRL-9950-96-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont; Interstate Transport of 
Air Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP), the New 
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES), the Rhode 
Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) and the Vermont 
Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC). These SIP revisions 
address provisions of the Clean Air Act that require each state to 
submit a SIP to address emissions that may adversely affect another 
state's air quality through interstate transport. The EPA is proposing 
that all four States have adequate provisions to prohibit in-state 
emissions activities from significantly contributing to, or interfering 
with the maintenance of, the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) in other states. The intended effect of this action 
is to propose approval of the SIP revisions submitted by Maine, New 
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. This action is being taken under 
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0486 
for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Maine, EPA-R01-OAR-
2008-0223 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for New 
Hampshire, EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0447 for comments pertaining to our 
proposed action for Rhode Island, or EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0358 for comments 
pertaining to our proposed action for Vermont, at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Arnold.Anne@EPA.gov. For comments 
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA 
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment 
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, 
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission 
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 1, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post Office Square, 
Boston, Massachusetts. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday,

[[Page 57520]]

excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine 
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 
Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 
100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1664; 
Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is 
used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Rulemaking Information
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. Rulemaking Information

    EPA is proposing to approve SIP submissions from the ME DEP, the NH 
DES, the RI DEM and the VT DEC. The SIP revisions were submitted on the 
following dates: October 26, 2015 (ME); November 17, 2015 (NH); June 
23, 2015 (RI) and November 2, 2015 (VT). These SIP submissions address 
the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that while the SIP revisions submitted by Maine, New 
Hampshire, and Rhode Island address only the transport elements of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Vermont's 
submittal addresses all of the infrastructure elements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Today's action, however, 
only addresses the transport elements of Vermont's submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and 
secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 
0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within 
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs 
meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 
110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' 
provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on 
neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are 
four sub-elements, or ``prongs,'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 
This action addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor 
provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often referred to as 
``prong one'' and ``prong two.'' These sub-elements require that each 
SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to 
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the 
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly 
to nonattainment'' (prong 1) or ``interfere with maintenance'' (prong 
2) of the applicable air quality standard in any other state. We note 
that the EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the eastern portion of the United States 
in several past regulatory actions.\2\ We most recently promulgated the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the United States.\3\ 
CSAPR addressed multiple national ambient air quality standards, but 
did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.\4\ On December 3, 2015, 
the EPA proposed an update to CSAPR to address the 2008 ozone standard, 
referred to as the CSAPR Update.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \3\ 76 FR 48208.
    \4\ CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 and 2006 
fine particulate matter NAAQS.
    \5\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the four states' SIP submissions cited modeling recently 
conducted by EPA to support the proposed CSAPR Update, asserting that, 
based on that modeling, emissions from the states did not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
    In the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA used detailed air quality 
analyses to determine whether an eastern state's contribution to 
downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a 
state's contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening 
threshold, the state was not considered ``linked'' to identified 
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not 
considered to significantly contribute to, or interfere with 
maintenance of, the standard in those downwind areas. If a state 
exceeded that threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated, 
taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to 
determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary. For 
the reasons stated below, we believe it is appropriate to use the same 
approach we used in CSAPR to establish an air quality screening 
threshold for the evaluation of interstate transport requirements for 
the 2008 ozone standard.
    In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of 
one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether 
one percent was appropriate.\6\ The EPA evaluated the comments received 
and ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low 
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small, 
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors 
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a 
higher or lower threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the 
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of 
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's 
analysis showed that the one-percent threshold captures a high 
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states, 
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger 
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent 
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting 
downwind receptors would be

[[Page 57521]]

excluded.\7\ In addition, the EPA determined that it was important to 
use the one-percent threshold because there are adverse health impacts 
associated with ambient ozone even at low levels.\8\ The EPA also 
determined that a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in 
relatively modest increases in the overall percentages of fine 
particulate matter and ozone pollution transport captured relative to 
the amounts captured at the one-percent level. The EPA determined that 
a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission reduction 
responsibilities in additional states that individually have a very 
small impact on those receptors--an indicator that emission controls in 
those states are likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the 
downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a threshold 
below one percent is necessary or desirable.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010).
    \7\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds, Docket ID 
# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.
    \8\ CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236-37 (August 8, 2011)
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a 
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple 
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low 
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's 
previous use of a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single 
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.\10\ The projected contribution from 
each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled 
ozone, and then compared to the one-percent threshold. We concluded 
that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold 
for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was 
consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, 
and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any 
future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR 
approach to contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.\12\ This is the same modeling used to support the 
proposed CSAPR Update. The moderate area attainment date for the 2008 
ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by 
this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient 
ozone data. Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for 
the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 
The EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone 
concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated 
state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This 
modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx 
version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base 
case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and 
maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA 
used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx 
Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 
base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each 
state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were 
performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United 
States and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the 
supporting technical documents have been included in the docket for 
this SIP action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of Availability of 
the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport 
Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling data released in the NODA and the proposed CSAPR 
Update are the most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to 
inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality 
problems. The EPA is proposing that states with contributions to 
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors less than one percent 
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS do not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance pursuant to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The proposed CSAPR Update also proposes to use one percent 
as the screening threshold to identify upwind states that are 
``linked'' to downwind air pollution problems. See 80 FR 75714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, each of the four states at 
issue in this action have contributions below this significance 
threshold. The NODA modeling indicates that Maine's ozone contribution 
to any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.00 ppb (parts per 
billion) and Maine's largest contribution to any projected downwind 
maintenance-only site is 0.08 ppb. The NODA modeling indicates that New 
Hampshire's largest ozone contribution to any projected downwind 
nonattainment site is 0.02 ppb and New Hampshire's largest ozone 
contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.07 
ppb. The NODA modeling indicates that Rhode Island's largest ozone 
contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.02 ppb 
and Rhode Island's largest contribution to any projected downwind 
maintenance-only site is 0.08 ppb. The NODA modeling indicates that 
Vermont's largest ozone contribution to any projected downwind 
nonattainment site is 0.01 ppb and Vermont's largest contribution to 
any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.05 ppb. These ozone 
contribution values (for Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 
Vermont) are all well below the one percent screening threshold of 0.75 
ppb and, therefore, there are no identified linkages between these four 
states and 2017 downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance 
sites.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Note that the EPA has not done an assessment to determine 
the applicability for the use of the one percent screening threshold 
for all western states that contribute above the one percent 
threshold to identified air quality problems. There may be 
additional considerations that may impact regulatory decisions 
regarding ``potential'' linkages in the west identified by the 
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, Maine's October 25, 2015, New Hampshire's 
November 17, 2015, Rhode Island's June 23, 2015, and Vermont's November 
2, 2015 SIP submittals all cite the CSAPR Update modeling discussed 
above and all conclude that each state neither significantly 
contributes to nonattainment, nor interferes with maintenance, in 
downwind states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA agrees with 
these conclusions and is, therefore, proposing to approve these SIP 
revisions.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisions submitted by the 
states on the following dates as meeting the interstate transport 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS: October 26, 2015 (Maine); November 7, 2015 (New Hampshire); June 
23, 2015 (Rhode Island); and November 2, 2015 (Vermont). EPA has 
reviewed these SIP revisions and has found that they satisfy the 
relevant CAA requirements discussed above. EPA is soliciting public 
comments on the issues discussed in this document, and will consider 
those comments before taking final action.

[[Page 57522]]

IV. 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. 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, 
this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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, Sulfur 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-20022 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```