66184 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

architectural works are considered 

‘‘works of the visual arts’’ for purposes 

of registration, and as such, they may be 

registered in Class VA. It also improves 

the organization and readability of the 

regulation by removing superfluous 

references and moving the text of two 

footnotes into the main body of the 

regulation. See 37 CFR 202.11(a), (b)(1). 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202 

Copyright. 

Proposed Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Office is 

proposing to amend 37 CFR part 202 as 

follows: 

PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND 

REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO 

COPYRIGHT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 202 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702. 

■ 2. In § 202.3, add a sentence at the end 

of paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 202.3 Registration of copyright. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) * * * This class also includes 

published and unpublished 

architectural works. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 202.11 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a). 

■ b. Revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (2). 

■ c. Remove paragraph (c)(2) and 

redesignate paragraph (c)(5) as (c)(2). 

■ d. Revise paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4). 

■ e. Add new paragraph (c)(5). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 202.11 Architectural works. 

(a) General. This section prescribes 

rules pertaining to the registration of 

architectural works. 

(b) Definitions. (1) For the purposes of 

this section, the term building means 

humanly habitable structures that are 

intended to be both permanent and 

stationary, such as houses and office 

buildings, and other permanent and 

stationary structures designed for 

human occupancy, including but not 

limited to churches, museums, gazebos, 

and garden pavilions. 

(2) Unless otherwise specified, all 

other terms have the meanings set forth 

in §§ 202.3 and 202.20. 

(c) * * * 

(3) Registration limited to one 

architectural work. For published and 

unpublished architectural works, an 

application may cover only one 

architectural work. Multiple 

architectural works may not be 

registered using one application. For 

works such as tract housing, one house 

model constitutes one work, including 

all accompanying floor plan options, 

elevations, and styles that are applicable 

to that particular model. Where dual 

copyright claims exist in technical 

drawings and the architectural work 

depicted in the drawings, any claims 

with respect to the technical drawings 

and architectural work must be 

registered separately. 

(4) Online application. (i) The 

applicant must complete and submit the 

Standard Application. The application 

should identify the title of the building. 

If the architectural work was embodied 

in unpublished plans or drawings on or 

before December 1, 1990, and if the 

building was constructed before January 

1, 2003, the application should also 

provide the date that the construction 

was completed. 

(ii) In an exceptional case, the 

Copyright Office may waive the online 

filing requirement set forth in paragraph 

(c)(4)(i) of this section, subject to such 

conditions as the Associate Register and 

Director of the Office of Registration 

Policy and Practice may impose on the 

applicant. 

(5) Deposit requirements. (i) For 

designs of constructed or unconstructed 

buildings, the applicant must submit 

one complete copy in a visually 

perceptible format of the most finished 

form of an architectural drawing 

showing the overall form of the building 

(i.e., exterior elevations of the building 

when viewed from the front, rear, and 

sides), and any interior arrangements of 

spaces and/or design elements in which 

copyright is claimed (i.e., walls or other 

permanent structures that divide the 

interior into separate rooms and spaces). 

The deposit should disclose the name(s) 

of the architect(s) and draftsperson(s) 

and the building site, if known. For 

designs of constructed buildings, the 

applicant also must submit identifying 

material in the form of photographs 

complying with § 202.21, which clearly 

show several exterior and interior views 

of the architectural work being 

registered. 

(ii) The deposit may be submitted in 

any form that allows the Copyright 

Office to access, perceive, and examine 

the entire copyrightable content of the 

work being registered, including by 

uploading the complete copy and 

identifying material in an acceptable file 

format to the Office’s electronic 

registration system. Deposits uploaded 

to the electronic registration system will 

be considered solely for the purpose of 

registration under section 408 of title 17 

of the United States Code, and will not 

satisfy the mandatory deposit 

requirement under section 407 of title 

17 of the United States Code. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 202.20 as follows. 

■ a. Add paragraph (c)(2)(i)(M). 

■ b. Remove and reserve paragraph 

(c)(2)(xviii). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 202.20 Deposit of copies and 

phonorecords for copyright registration. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(M) Architectural works, for which 

the deposit must comply with the 

requirements set forth in § 202.11. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 19, 2018. 

Regan A. Smith, 

General Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27866 Filed 12–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2018–0637; FRL–9987–95– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Maine; 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submission from Maine that 

addresses the infrastructure and 

interstate transport requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 25, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2018–0637 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66185 

dahl.donald@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, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, 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 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

at https://www.regulations.gov or at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA Region 1, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact 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 legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and 

Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 

100, (Mail Code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 

02109—3912, tel. (617) 918–1657, email 

dahl.donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

this SIP submission? 

III. State Submission and EPA’s Analysis 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits 

and Other Control Measures 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and for 

Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

1. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

2. Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for Major 

Sources and Major Modifications 

3. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction 

Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor 

Modifications 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

1. Sub-Element 1: Section 

110(A)(2)(D)(I)(I)—Contribute to 

Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere 

With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 

2) 

a. State’s Analysis 

b. EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation 

c. EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation 

2. Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (prong 3) 

3. Sub-Element 3: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection 

(Prong 4) 

4. Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)— 

Interstate Pollution Abatement 

5. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)— 

International Pollution Abatement 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

1. Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, 

Funding, and Legal Authority Under 

State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and 

Related Issues 

2. Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area 

Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation With 

Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Visibility Protection 

1. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

2. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

3. Sub-Element 3: PSD 

4. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/ 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On April 19, 2017, the Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(ME DEP) submitted its infrastructure 

SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Under 

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

states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that SIPs 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). 

Pursuant to these sections, each state 

must submit a SIP that provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each primary or 

secondary NAAQS. States must make 

such SIP submission ‘‘within 3 years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator 

may prescribe) after the promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS.’’ This 

requirement is triggered by the 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS and is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any other action. Section 

110(a)(2) includes the specific elements 

that ‘‘each such plan’’ must address. 

EPA commonly refers to such SIP 

submissions made for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources (‘‘SSM’’ 

emissions) that may be contrary to the 

CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions; (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’); and, (iii) existing 

provisions for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) programs that may 

be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New 

Source Review (NSR) Improvement 

Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 

13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). Instead, EPA 

has the authority to address each one of 

these substantive areas separately. A 

detailed history, interpretation, and 

rationale for EPA’s approach to 

infrastructure SIP requirements can be 

found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66186 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1This memorandum and other referenced 

guidance documents and memoranda are included 

in the docket for today’s action. 

2For the definition of spatial scales for SO2, 

please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 

(‘‘Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’). For further 

discussion on how EPA is applying these 

definitions with respect to interstate transport of 

SO2, see EPA’s proposal on Connecticut’s SO2

transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8, 

2017). 

3This proposed approval action is based on the 

information contained in the administrative record 

for this action, and does not prejudge any other 

future EPA action that may make other 

determinations regarding any of the subject states’ 

air quality status. Any such future actions, such as 

area designations under any NAAQS, will be based 

on their own administrative records and EPA’s 

analyses of information that has become available 

at those times. Future available information may 

include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and 

modeling analyses conducted pursuant to EPA’s 

SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 

21, 2015) and information submitted to EPA by 

states, air agencies, and third-party stakeholders 

such as citizen groups and industry representatives. 

4See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964, 

67034 (November 12, 2008). 

5ME DEP consists of the Board of Environmental 

Protection (‘‘Board’’) and a Commissioner. 38 

MRSA § 341–A(2). In general, the Board is 

authorized to promulgate ‘‘major substantive rules’’ 

and the Commissioner has rulemaking authority 

with respect to rules that are ‘‘not designated as 

major substantive rules.’’ Id. § 341–H. 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ See 79 FR 

27241 at 27242–45. 

II. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate this SIP submission? 

EPA highlighted the statutory 

requirement to submit infrastructure 

SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of 

a new NAAQS in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

guidance). EPA has issued additional 

guidance documents and memoranda, 

including a September 13, 2013, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ (2013 

guidance).1

With respect to Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), sometimes referred to as 

the Good Neighbor provision, EPA notes 

that although SO2 is emitted from a 

similar universe of point and nonpoint 

sources, interstate transport of SO2 is 

unlike the transport of fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) or ozone in that SO2 is 

not a regional pollutant and does not 

commonly contribute to widespread 

nonattainment over a large (and often 

multi-state) area. The transport of SO2 is 

more analogous to the transport of lead 

(Pb) because its physical properties 

result in localized pollutant impacts 

very near the emissions source. 

However, ambient concentrations of SO2

do not decrease as quickly with distance 

from the source as Pb, because of the 

physical properties and typical release 

heights of SO2. Emissions of SO2 travel 

farther and have wider ranging impacts 

than emissions of Pb, but do not travel 

far enough to be treated in a manner 

similar to ozone or PM2.5. The 

approaches that EPA has adopted for 

ozone or PM2.5 transport are too 

regionally focused and the approach for 

Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed 

to the source. SO2 transport is therefore 

a unique case and requires a different 

approach. Given the physical properties 

of SO2, EPA selected the ‘‘urban 

scale’’—a spatial scale with dimensions 

from 4 to 50 kilometers (km) from point 

sources—to evaluate these SIP 

submissions for SO2 transport.2 As such, 

EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km 

from point sources when considering 

possible transport of SO2 from Maine to 

downwind states. 

As discussed in Section III.D of this 

document, EPA first reviewed ME DEP’s 

analysis to assess how Maine evaluated 

the transport of SO2 to other states, the 

types of information used in the 

analysis and the conclusions drawn by 

the ME DEP. EPA then conducted a 

weight of evidence analysis, including 

ME DEP’s submission and other 

available information, including air 

quality, emission sources, and emission 

trends within the state and in 

neighboring states to which SO2

emission sources in Maine could 

potentially contribute or interfere.3

III. State Submission and EPA’s 

Analysis 

EPA is soliciting comment on our 

evaluation of ME DEP’s infrastructure 

SIP submission in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In ME 

DEP’s submission, a detailed list of 

Maine Laws and previously SIPapproved Air Quality Regulations show 

precisely how the various components 

of its EPA-approved SIP meet each of 

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

the CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The 

following review evaluates the state’s 

submissions in light of section 110(a)(2) 

requirements and relevant EPA 

guidance. 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section (also referred to in this 

action as an element, e.g., Element A) of 

the Act requires SIPs to include 

enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, means or techniques, 

schedules for compliance, and other 

related matters. However, EPA has long 

interpreted emission limits and control 

measures for attaining the standards as 

being due when nonattainment 

planning requirements are due.4 In the 

context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is 

not evaluating the existing SIP 

provisions for this purpose. Instead, 

EPA is only evaluating whether the 

state’s SIP has basic structural 

provisions for the implementation of the 

NAAQS. 

ME DEP statutory authority with 

respect to air quality is set out in 38 

Maine Revised Statutes Annotated 

(‘‘MRSA’’) Chapter 4, ‘‘Protection and 

Improvement of Air.’’ 5 Statutory 

authority to establish emission 

standards and regulations implementing 

ambient air quality standards is 

contained in 38 MRSA Chapter 4, 

sections 585 and 585–A. Maine’s 

infrastructure submittal for this element 

cites Maine laws and regulations that 

include enforceable emissions 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques, as well as 

schedules and timetables for 

compliance to meet the applicable 

requirements of the CAA. For instance, 

ME DEP cites 38 MRSA § 603–A, a state 

law that establishes a statewide sulfur 

limit of 15 parts per million (ppm) for 

distillate oil and 0.5% by weight for 

residual oil. On April 24, 2012, EPA 

incorporated these statutory limits into 

Maine’s SIP. See 77 FR 24385. In 

addition, ME DEP cited its SIP approved 

new source review permitting regulation 

06–096 CMR Chapter 115, ‘‘Emission 

License Regulations’’ last amended on 

August 1, 2016. See 81 FR 50353. 

EPA proposes that Maine meets the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. As previously noted, 

EPA is not proposing to approve or 

disapprove any existing state provisions 

or rules related to SSM or director’s 

discretion in the context of section 

110(a)(2)(A). 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to provide 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to monitor, 

compile, and analyze ambient air 

quality data, and make such data 

available to EPA upon request. Each 

year, states submit annual air 

monitoring network plans to EPA for 

review and approval. EPA’s review of 

these annual monitoring plans includes 

our evaluation of whether the state: (i) 

Monitors air quality at appropriate 

locations throughout the state using 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66187 

6See EPA approval letter located in the docket for 

this action. 

7EPA also analyzed potential impacts from Maine 

sources on Massachusetts, which is on the other 

side of NH and is approximately 24 km from Maine. 

There are no sources in Massachusetts within 50 

km of Maine that emitted over 100 tons per year of 

SO2. The closest source in Maine that is over 100 

tons per year of SO2 is approximately 95 km away 

from Massachusetts. Maine sources are not 

expected to contribute to a nonattainment area 

within Massachusetts, and we do not foresee any 

interference with maintenance of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

8This emissions trends information was derived 

from EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data, accessed on November 1, 2018. 

EPA-approved Federal Reference 

Methods or Federal Equivalent Method 

monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) in a timely 

manner; and (iii) provides EPA Regional 

Offices with prior notification of any 

planned changes to monitoring sites or 

the network plan. 

Pursuant to authority granted to it by 

38 MRSA §§ 341–A(1) and 584–A, ME 

DEP operates an air quality monitoring 

network, and EPA approved the state’s 

most recent Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan for SO2 on October 25, 

2018.6 Furthermore, ME DEP populates 

AQS with air quality monitoring data in 

a timely manner, and provides EPA 

with prior notification when 

considering a change to its monitoring 

network or plan. EPA proposes that ME 

DEP meets the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

States are required to include a 

program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures and the regulation of 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources to meet NSR 

requirements under PSD and 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA 

(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD, 

while part D of the CAA (sections 171– 

193) addresses NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the 

following: (i) Enforcement of SIP 

measures; (ii) PSD program for major 

sources and major modifications; and 

(iii) a permit program for minor sources 

and minor modifications. 

1. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

ME DEP identifies the sources of its 

authority to enforce the measures it cites 

to satisfy Element A as 38 MRSA 

Section 347–A, ‘‘Violations,’’ 38 MRSA 

Section 347–C, ‘‘Right of inspection and 

entry,’’ 38 MRSA Section 348, ‘‘Judicial 

Enforcement,’’ and 38 MRSA Section 

349, ‘‘Penalties,’’ which include 

processes for both civil and criminal 

enforcement actions. Construction of 

new or modified stationary sources in 

Maine is regulated by 06–096 CMR 

Chapter 115 ‘‘Major and Minor Source 

Air Emission License Regulations,’’ 

which requires best available control 

technology (BACT) controls for PSD 

sources, including for SO2. EPA 

proposes to find that Maine meets the 

enforcement requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

2. Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for 

Major Sources and Major Modifications 

PSD applies to new major sources or 

modifications made to major sources for 

pollutants where the area in which the 

source is located is in attainment of, or 

unclassifiable with regard to the 

relevant NAAQS. ME DEP’s EPAapproved PSD rules, contained at 06– 

906 CMR Chapter 100 ‘‘Definitions 

Regulations’’ and 06–096 CMR Chapter 

115 ‘‘Major and Minor Source Air 

Emission License Regulations,’’ contain 

provisions that address applicable 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. 

In our proposal on March 26, 2018 

regarding the submittal of infrastructure 

SIPS for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS by the ME DEP, we 

explained how Maine’s SIP meets this 

sub-element for PSD. See 83 FR 12905. 

On June 18, 2018, we took final action 

approving those multi-pollutant 

infrastructure SIP submissions, 

including finding that Maine’s SIP 

satisfies this sub-element. See 83 FR 

28157. Maine’s PSD SIP has not 

changed since our June 18, 2018 

approval, and no new PSD requirements 

have arisen; therefore, based on our 

rationale contained in the March 26, 

2018 document, EPA proposes to find 

that Maine has met the PSD requirement 

of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. For the purposes 

of today’s rulemaking on Maine’s 

infrastructure SIP, EPA reiterates that 

NSR Reform is not in the scope of this 

action. 

3. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction 

Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor 

Modifications 

To address the pre-construction 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of minor stationary sources 

and minor modifications of major 

stationary sources (minor NSR), an 

infrastructure SIP submission should 

identify the existing EPA-approved SIP 

provisions and/or include new 

provisions that govern the minor source 

pre-construction program that regulate 

emissions of the relevant NAAQS 

pollutants. Maine’s minor NSR program 

is contained within 06–096 CMR 

Chapter 115, ‘‘Major and Minor Source 

Air Emission License Regulations.’’ EPA 

last approved revisions to Chapter 115 

on August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50353). ME 

DEP and EPA rely on Chapter 115 to 

ensure that new and modified sources 

not captured by the major NSR 

permitting programs do not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

We are proposing to find that Maine 

has met the requirement to have a SIPapproved minor new source review 

permit program as required under 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

contains a comprehensive set of air 

quality management elements 

pertaining to the transport of air 

pollution with which states must 

comply. It covers the following five 

topics, categorized as sub-elements: 

Sub-element 1, Significant contribution 

to nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 

2, PSD; Sub-element 3, Visibility 

protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate 

pollution abatement; and Sub-element 

5, International pollution abatement. 

Sub-elements 1 through 3 above are 

found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the Act, and these items are further 

categorized into the four prongs 

discussed in the following sections, two 

of which are found within sub-element 

1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are found under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act and 

include provisions insuring compliance 

with sections 115 and 126 of the Act 

relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement. 

1. Sub-Element 1: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to 

Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere 

With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 

2) 

In this section, we provide an 

overview of Maine’s 2010 SO2 transport 

analysis, as well as EPA’s evaluation of 

prongs 1 and 2. Table 1 shows emission 

trends for Maine and its neighboring 

state New Hampshire.7 The table will be 

referenced as part of EPA’s analysis.8


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66188 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

9 Data retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/air-quality-design-values#report, accessed on 

November 1, 2018. 

TABLE 1—STATEWIDE SO2 DATA FOR MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Tons per year] 

State 2000 2005 2010 2017 

SO2 reduction, 

2000–2017 

(%) 

Maine ................................................................................... 57,906 32,397 17,020 10,447 82.0 

New Hampshire ................................................................... 68,768 63,634 35,716 6,401 90.7 

a. State’s Analysis 

In Maine’s April 19, 2017 

infrastructure SIP submission 

addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the 

state explicitly refers to the interstate 

transport provision of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). In its April 19, 2017 SIP 

submittal, the ME DEP stated that 

sources within Maine do not 

significantly contribute to any 

monitored SO2 violations in another 

state. Maine based its assertion on EPA’s 

air quality designations for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS and included a reference to 

EPA’s Round 1 designations. See 

‘‘https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2013-08-05/pdf/2013-18835.pdf’’ 78 FR 

47191, August 5, 2013. Maine also 

referenced its PSD permit program, 

which assists the State in controlling 

future emissions from new or modified 

major sources. 

The SIP submission addresses prong 1 

of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) by stating that 

‘‘Maine sources do not significantly 

contribute to any monitored sulfur 

dioxide violations in other states. . . .’’ 

However, the SIP submission does not 

appear to specifically address whether 

Maine interferes with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in a nearby state (prong 2). 

On October 29, 2018, Maine submitted 

a letter to EPA clarifying the State 

intended to demonstrate in its April 19, 

2017 SIP submittal that it does not 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in other states (prong 2). 

Therefore, EPA concludes that Maine’s 

submission was intended to address 

both prongs of the interstate transport 

provision given that the submission 

refers to the entirety of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

b. EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that Maine’s SIP 

submittal meets the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. As 

described below, we have analyzed the 

air quality, emission sources and 

emission trends in Maine and New 

Hampshire. Based on that analysis, we 

propose to find that Maine will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

in any other state. 

We reviewed 2015–2017 SO2

concentrations design values at 

monitors with data sufficient to produce 

valid 1-hour SO2 design values for 

Maine and neighboring states.9 In Table 

2 below, we have included monitoring 

data satisfying any of the following 

selection criteria: (1) All of the monitor 

data from Maine; (2) the monitor with 

the highest SO2 level in New 

Hampshire; (3) the monitor in New 

Hampshire closest to the Maine border; 

and (4) all monitors in New Hampshire 

within approximately 50 km of the 

border. EPA reviewed these ambient air 

quality data in Maine and New 

Hampshire to see whether there were 

any monitoring sites, particularly near 

the Maine border, with elevated SO2

concentrations that might warrant 

further investigation with respect to 

interstate transport of SO2 from 

emission sources near any given 

monitor. As shown, there are no 

violating design values in Maine or New 

Hampshire. 

TABLE 2—SO2 MONITOR VALUES FOR MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE

State/area Scenario Site ID 

Approximate 

distance to 

Maine/New 

Hampshire 

border 

(km) 

2013–2015 

Design value 

(ppb) 

2014–2016 

Design value 

(ppb) 

2015–2017 

Design value 

(ppb) 

Maine/Portland ......................................... 1 230050029 57 12 11 9 

Maine/Hancock County ............................ 1 230090103 219 2 1 1 

Maine/Eliot a ............................................. 1 230310009 ........................ b NA b NA b NA 

New Hampshire/Merrimack County ......... 4 330131006 46 20 20 15 

New Hampshire/Rockingham CountyPierce Island ......................................... 2, 3 330150014 <1 29 22 16 

a. The Sawgrass Lane monitor collected SO2 concentration data from October 24, 2014 to April 1, 2016. The maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration observed from this monitor was 37.7 parts per billion (ppb) on January 8, 2015, when winds came from the direction of Schiller Station in 

New Hampshire. 

b. The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data for this period and is not for use in comparison to the NAAQS. 

The data presented in Table 2 show 

that Maine’s network of SO2 monitors 

with data sufficient to produce valid 1- 

hour SO2 design values indicates that 

monitored 1-hour SO2 levels in Maine 

are between 1% and 12% of the 75 parts 

per billion (ppb) level of the NAAQS. 

As shown, there are no Maine monitors 

located within 50 km of a neighboring 

state’s border. The nearest monitor is 

approximately 57 km from New 

Hampshire. Two monitors in New 

Hampshire are located within 50 km of 

the Maine border, and these monitors 

recorded SO2 design values ranging 

between 20% and 21% of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Thus, these air quality data do 

not, by themselves, indicate any 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66189 

10A detailed description of EPA’s assessment of 

the modeling, and associated visualizations, are 

available in Chapter 27 of the Technical Support 

Document for EPA’s Intended Round 3 Area 

Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for New 

Hampshire, included in this docket, number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2018–0637. See 82 FR 41903 (September 

5, 2017). In referencing EPA’s Intended Round 3 

Area Designations, EPA is not reopening the SO2

area designations action. A notice of the final rule 

for these designations was published on January 9, 

2018. See 83 FR 1098. 

11 In referencing EPA’s approval of New 

Hampshire’s plan and attainment demonstration for 

the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area, 

EPA is not reopening the nonattainment area plan 

approval action. A notice of the final rule for the 

plan approval was published on June 5, 2018. See 

83 FR 25922. 

particular location that would warrant 

further investigation with respect to SO2

emission sources in Maine that might 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in the neighboring states. 

However, because the monitoring 

network is not necessarily designed to 

find all locations of high SO2

concentrations, this observation 

indicates an absence of evidence of 

impact at these locations but is not 

sufficient evidence by itself of an 

absence of impact at all locations in the 

neighboring states. We have therefore 

also conducted a source-oriented 

analysis. As noted, EPA finds that it is 

appropriate to examine the impacts of 

emissions from stationary sources in 

Maine in distances ranging from 0 km 

to 50 km from the facility, based on the 

‘‘urban scale’’ definition contained in 

appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 

4.4. The list of Maine sources of 100 

tons per year (tpy) or greater of SO2

within 50 km from state borders is 

shown in Table 3 below. 

TABLE 3—MAINE SO2 SOURCES NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES

Maine source 

2016 SO2

emissions 

(tons) a

Nearest 

distance to 

Maine/New 

Hampshire 

border 

Distance to nearest neighboring 

state major SO2 source b

(km) 

Nearest neighboring state major 

source SO2

emissions c

(tons) 

Catalyst Paper Operations, Inc. in 

Rumford.

846 38 168 (Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH).246 (Dartmouth College). 

S.D. Warren Company in 

Westbrook.

198 50 74 (Newington Station and Schiller 

Station in Newington and Portsmouth, NH, respectively).

304 total (Newington Station (41) 

and Schiller Station (263)). 

a. See https://www.maine.gov/dep/ftp/AIR/DATA/CAP_SUMMARIES/, accessed on November 1, 2018. 

b. A source emitting 100 tons per year (tpy) or greater of SO2 emissions. 

c. Emission data from Dartmouth College are for the year 2014. Emission data for Schiller and Newington Station are for the year 2017. 

Table 3 identifies the nearest out-ofstate source emitting above 100 tpy of 

SO2, because elevated levels of SO2, to 

which SO2 emitted in Maine may have 

a downwind impact, are most likely to 

be found near such sources. The 

distances to these sources are listed 

because the impact of the sources in 

Maine decreases with distance. In the 

case of Catalyst Paper, the distance 

between this source and the Maine/New 

Hampshire state border is 38 km and the 

nearest major SO2 source in neighboring 

state New Hampshire is 168 km. With 

regards to S.D. Warren, the distance 

between this source and the Maine/New 

Hampshire state border is 50 km and the 

nearest major SO2 sources in 

neighboring state New Hampshire is 74 

km. This information indicates that 

emissions from Maine are very unlikely 

to contribute significantly to problems 

with attainment of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS in New Hampshire. 

EPA also reviewed the location of 

sources in New Hampshire emitting 

more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located 

within 50 km of the Maine border and 

found that the only sources that meet 

these criteria are Schiller and 

Newington Stations. The interaction 

between these sources and sources in 

Maine has been addressed in the 

discussion of Table 3. 

In addition to analyzing the distances 

between sources emitting 100 tons per 

year of SO2, EPA acknowledges that 

New Hampshire, as required by the 40 

CFR part 51, subpart BB (SO2 Data 

Requirements Rule), provided air 

quality modeling information. The New 

Hampshire modeling indicated that 

emissions allowed under new, federallyenforceable emissions limits included in 

state air permits for Newington and 

Schiller Stations and emissions from 

some other sources that were explicitly 

represented in the modeling, combined 

with a representative background 

concentration that reflects the impact of 

sources that were not explicitly 

represented in the modeling, would not 

result in a violation of the NAAQS in 

the portions of New Hampshire, Maine, 

and Massachusetts that were included 

in the modeling domain.10 Given that 

there are no NAAQS violations within 

the modeling domain, we conclude that 

sources in Maine are not significantly 

contributing to NAAQS violations in the 

New Hampshire or Massachusetts 

portion of the domain. In addition, the 

modeling provided no suggestion that 

violations are occurring beyond the edge 

of the modeling domain. 

EPA also analyzed whether any 

sources within Maine are significantly 

contributing to violations in the Central 

New Hampshire nonattainment area. 

The Central New Hampshire 

nonattainment area is approximately 20 

km from the Maine state border. The 

nearest Maine source with SO2

emissions greater than 100 tpy is in 

Westbrook Maine, approximately 82 km 

away. In its attainment plan for the 

Central New Hampshire nonattainment 

area, New Hampshire included air 

dispersion modeling to establish 

federally enforceable SO2 emission 

limits for Merrimack Station in Bow, 

New Hampshire, the main contributor to 

the nonattainment area. New Hampshire 

demonstrated that with these emission 

limits in place there will be no NAAQS 

violations within the nonattainment 

area. See 82 FR 45242 (September 28, 

2017).11 As already noted, recent 

monitoring data from 2013–2017 

indicates no NAAQS violations within 

the nonattainment area. Thus, we 

propose to conclude that sources in 

Maine are not significantly contributing 

to NAAQS violations in the 

nonattainment area. 

Given the localized range of potential 

1-hour SO2 impacts and the analysis of 

sources emitting at least 100 tpy of SO2, 

along with modeling analysis provided 

to EPA for other CAA purposes, EPA 

proposes to conclude that SO2

emissions from Maine will not will not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS in 

New Hampshire and Massachusetts. 

c. EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation 

Prong 2 of the good neighbor 

provision requires state plans to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66190 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

12The State statute required that most industrial 

sources that combust fuel oil to lower the sulfur 

content from 2% to 0.5%, a 75% reduction. The 

statute requires distillate oil, mainly used in homes, 

to be reduced from home heating oil went from 

5,000 ppm to 15 ppm by weight, a 99% reduction. 

13See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfurdioxide-trends, accessed on November 1, 2018. 

prohibit emissions that will interfere 

with maintenance of a NAAQS in 

another state. Given the trend of 

decreased emissions from sources 

within Maine to date, as shown in Table 

1, and our conclusion that there are no 

current violations of the SO2 NAAQS in 

the portions of the neighboring states 

that are near Maine, EPA believes that 

a reasonable analysis of whether sources 

or other emissions activity originating 

within Maine interfere with its 

neighboring states’ ability to maintain 

the NAAQS consists of evaluating 

whether these decreases in emissions 

can be maintained over time. 

As shown in Table 4, the combined 

SO2 emissions from the two largest 

categories, Fuel Combustion: Other 

category (home heating oil) and Fuel 

Combustion: Industrial, was 79% of 

total SO2 state-wide emissions. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF 2014 NATIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY (NEI) 

SO2 DATA FOR MAINE

Category Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Fuel Combustion: Electric 

Utilities ............................... 928 

Fuel Combustion: Industrial .. 4,042 

Fuel Combustion: Other ....... 4,842 

Waste Disposal and Recycling ................................... 627 

Other Industrial Process ....... 433 

Highway Vehicles ................. 152 

Off-Highway .......................... 197 

Miscellaneous ....................... 40 

Petroleum & Related Industries ................................... 19 

Total ............................... 11,280 

When compared to the year 2014, the 

SO2 emissions from both households 

and industrial sources are expected to 

be significantly reduced 12 due to 38 

MRSA Chapter 603–A, which 

established, effective as of January 1, 

2018, statewide sulfur limits of 15 parts 

per million (ppm) for distillate oil and 

0.5% by weight for residual oil. As 

stated earlier, EPA incorporated this 

statute into Maine’s SIP on April 24, 

2012. See 77 FR 24385. 

As shown in Table 1, statewide SO2

emissions in Maine have decreased over 

time. A number of factors are involved 

that caused this decrease in emissions, 

including the State’s adoption of 38 

MRSA Chapter 603–A and the change in 

capacity factors at EGUs in Maine over 

time due to increased usage of natural 

gas to generate electricity in the region. 

Actual SO2 emissions from the facilities 

currently operating in Maine have 

decreased between 2000 and 2017, and 

EPA concludes based on this trend that 

emissions originating in Maine are not 

expected to interfere with the 

neighboring states’ ability to maintain 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Lastly, any new or modified major 

sources of SO2 emissions will be 

addressed by Maine’s SIP-approved 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program, last amended on August 

1, 2016. See 81 FR 50353. Future minor 

sources of SO2 emissions will be 

addressed by the State’s minor new 

source review permit program, last 

amended on March 23, 1993. See 58 FR 

15430. The permitting regulations 

contained within these programs, along 

with the other factors already discussed, 

are expected to help ensure that ambient 

concentrations of SO2 in neighboring 

states will not exceed the NAAQS as a 

result of new facility construction or 

modification occurring in Maine. 

It is also worth noting air quality 

trends for concentrations of SO2 in the 

Northeastern United States.13 This 

region has experienced an 84% decrease 

in the annual 99th percentile of daily 

maximum 1-hour averages between 

2000 and 2017 based on 40 monitoring 

sites, and the most recently available 

data for 2017 indicates that the mean 

value at these sites was 12.9 ppb, which 

is less than 18% of the NAAQS. When 

this trend is evaluated alongside the 

monitored SO2 concentrations within 

Maine as well as the SO2 concentrations 

recorded at monitors in New 

Hampshire, EPA does not believe that 

sources or emissions activity from 

within Maine are significantly different 

than the overall decreasing monitored 

SO2 concentration trend in the 

Northeast region. As a result, EPA finds 

it unlikely that sources or emissions 

activity from within Maine will interfere 

with other states’ ability to maintain the 

2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. 

Based on each of factors contained in 

the prong 2 maintenance analysis above, 

EPA proposes to find that sources or 

other emissions activity within Maine 

will not interfere with maintenance of 

the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in any 

other state. 

2. Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3) 

To prevent significant deterioration of 

air quality, this sub-element requires 

SIPs to include provisions that prohibit 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures that are required in any 

other state’s SIP under Part C of the 

CAA. One way for a state to meet this 

requirement, specifically with respect to 

in-state sources and pollutants that are 

subject to PSD permitting, is through a 

comprehensive PSD permitting program 

that applies to all regulated NSR 

pollutants and that satisfies the 

requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules. For in-state 

sources not subject to PSD, this 

requirement can be satisfied through a 

fully-approved NNSR program with 

respect to any previous NAAQS. EPA 

last approved revisions to Maine’s 

NNSR regulations on February 14, 1996 

(61 FR 5690). 

To meet the requirements of Prong 3, 

ME DEP cites to its PSD permitting 

programs under 06–096 CMR Chapter 

115, ‘‘Major and Minor Source Air 

Emission License Regulations,’’ to 

ensure that new and modified major 

sources of emissions do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfere with maintenance, of any 

NAAQS. As noted above in our 

discussion of Element C, Maine’s PSD 

program fully satisfies the requirements 

of EPA’s PSD implementation rules. 

Consequently, we propose to approve 

Maine’s infrastructure SIP submission 

for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS related to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 3 for the 

reasons cited under Element C. 

3. Sub-Element 3: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection 

(Prong 4) 

Prong 4 requires a state’s SIP to have 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions in amounts that will interfere 

with measures in other states’ SIPs to 

protect visibility. The prong 4 

requirement is closely connected to the 

regional haze program under part C of 

the CAA, in which states work together 

in a regional planning process to 

determine each state’s contribution to 

the visibility impairment in that region 

and agree to emission reduction 

measures to improve visibility. Maine is 

a member of the Mid-Atlantic/North 

East Visibility Union. EPA regulations 

require that a state participating in a 

regional planning process include in its 

regional haze SIP all measures needed 

to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed 

upon through that process. See, e.g., 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). Thus, a fully 

approved regional haze SIP meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 will 

ensure that emissions from sources 

under an air agency’s jurisdiction are 

not interfering with measures required 

to be included in other air agencies’ 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66191 

plans to protect visibility and will, 

therefore, satisfy Prong 4. EPA approved 

Maine’s Regional Haze SIP on April 24, 

2012 (77 FR 24385). Accordingly, EPA 

proposes that Maine meets the visibility 

protection requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

4. Sub-Element 4: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution 

Abatement 

This sub-element requires each SIP to 

contain provisions requiring compliance 

with requirements of section 126 

relating to interstate pollution 

abatement. Section 126(a) requires new 

or modified sources to notify 

neighboring states of potential impacts 

from the source. The statute does not 

specify the method by which the source 

should provide the notification. States 

with SIP-approved PSD programs must 

have a provision requiring such 

notification by new or modified sources. 

EPA-approved regulations require the 

ME DEP to provide pre-construction 

notice of new or modified sources to, 

among others, ‘‘any State . . . whose 

lands may be affected by emissions from 

the source or modification.’’ See 06–096 

CMR Chapter 115, § IX(E)(3), approved 

March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15422). These 

provisions are consistent with EPA’s 

PSD regulations and require notice to 

affected states of a determination to 

issue a draft PSD permit. Regarding 

section 126(b), no source or sources 

within the state are the subject of an 

active finding with respect to the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. Consequently, EPA 

proposes to approve Maine’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for this 

sub-element with respect to the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

5. Sub-Element 5: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International Pollution 

Abatement 

This sub-element requires each SIP to 

contain provisions requiring compliance 

with the applicable requirements of 

CAA section 115 relating to 

international pollution abatement. 

There are no final findings under 

section 115 against Maine with respect 

to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, 

EPA proposes to find that Maine meets 

the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

related to section 115 for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

This section requires each state to 

provide for personnel, funding, and 

legal authority under state law to carry 

out its SIP and related issues. In 

addition, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

requires each state to comply with the 

requirements with respect to state 

boards under section 128. Finally, 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that, 

where a state relies upon local or 

regional governments or agencies for the 

implementation of its SIP provisions, 

the state retain responsibility for 

ensuring implementation of SIP 

obligations with respect to relevant 

NAAQS. This last sub-element, 

however, is inapplicable to this action, 

because Maine does not rely upon local 

or regional governments or agencies for 

the implementation of its SIP 

provisions. 

1. Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, 

Funding, and Legal Authority Under 

State Law to Carry out its Sip, And 

Related Issues 

Maine, through its infrastructure SIP 

submittal, has documented that its air 

agency has authority and resources to 

carry out its SIP obligations. Maine cites 

to 38 MRSA § 341–A, ‘‘Department of 

Environmental Protection,’’ 38 MRSA 

§ 341–D, ‘‘Board responsibilities and 

duties,’’ 38 MRSA § 341–H, 

‘‘Departmental rulemaking,’’ 38 MRSA 

§ 342, ‘‘Commissioner, duties,’’ and 38 

MRSA § 581, ‘‘Declaration of findings 

and intent.’’ These statutes provide the 

ME DEP with the legal authority to 

enforce air pollution control 

requirements and carry out SIP 

obligations with respect to the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Additionally, state law 

provides ME DEP with the authority to 

assess preconstruction permit fees and 

annual operating permit fees from air 

emissions sources and establishes a 

general revenue reserve account within 

the general fund to finance the state 

clean air programs. Maine also receives 

CAA sections 103 and 105 grant funds 

through Performance Partnership Grants 

along with required state-matching 

funds to provide funding necessary to 

carry out SIP requirements. The ME DEP 

states that these funding sources 

provide it with adequate resources to 

carry out the SIP. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to find that Maine meets the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

2. Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each 

SIP to contain provisions that comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. Section 128(a) 

contains two explicit requirements: (1) 

That any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under 

this chapter shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits and 

enforcement orders under this chapter, 

and (2) that any potential conflicts of 

interest by members of such board or 

body or the head of an executive agency 

with similar powers be adequately 

disclosed. 

As mentioned earlier, the ME DEP 

consists of a Commissioner and a Board 

of Environmental Protection (‘‘BEP’’ or 

‘‘Board’’), which is an independent 

authority under state law that reviews 

certain permit applications in the first 

instance and also renders final decisions 

on appeals of permitting actions taken 

by the Commissioner as well as some 

enforcement decisions by the 

Commissioner. Because the Board has 

authority under state law to hear 

appeals of some CAA permits and 

enforcement orders, EPA considers that 

the Board has authority to ‘‘approve’’ 

those permits or enforcement orders, as 

recommended in the 2013 Guidance. 

For this reason, and because the Board 

also issues some permits directly, the 

requirement of CAA section 128(a)(1) 

applies to Maine—that is, that ‘‘any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders members who 

represent the public interest and do not 

derive any significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

and enforcement orders under this 

chapter.’’ 

Pursuant to state law, the BEP 

consists of seven members appointed by 

the Governor, subject to confirmation by 

the State Legislature. See 38 MRSA 

§ 341–C(1). The purpose of the Board ‘‘is 

to provide informed, independent and 

timely decisions on the interpretation, 

administration and enforcement of the 

laws relating to environmental 

protection and to provide for credible, 

fair and responsible public participation 

in department decisions.’’ Id. § 341–B. 

State law further provides that Board 

members ‘‘must be chosen to represent 

the broadest possible interest and 

experience that can be brought to bear 

on the administration and 

implementation of’’ Maine’s 

environmental laws and that ‘‘[a]t least 

3 members must have technical or 

scientific backgrounds in environmental 

issues and no more than 4 members may 

be residents of the same congressional 

district.’’ Id. § 341–C(2). EPA proposes 

to find that these provisions fulfill the 

requirement that at least a majority of 

Board members represent the public 

interest, but do not address the 

requirement that at least a majority ‘‘not 

derive any significant portion of their 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66192 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

14See www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/ 

national-emissions-inventory-nei. 

income from persons subject to’’ air 

permits and enforcement orders. 

Furthermore, section 341–C is not 

currently in Maine’s SIP. In a letter 

dated March 1, 2018 (extended to 

pertain to the 2012 SO2 NAAQS in a 

letter dated October 29, 2018), the ME 

DEP committed to revise section 341–C 

to address the CAA section 128(a)(1) 

requirement that at least a majority of 

Board members ‘‘not derive a significant 

portion of their income from persons 

subject to’’ air permits or enforcement 

orders and to submit, for inclusion in 

the SIP, the necessary provisions to EPA 

within one year of EPA final action on 

its infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 lead 

(Pb), 2008 ozone, and 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. Final action on 

these SIPs was published on June 18, 

2018 (83 FR 28157). Consequently, EPA 

proposes to conditionally approve 

Maine’s infrastructure SIP submittal for 

this requirement of CAA section 

128(a)(1) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

As noted above, section 128(a)(2) of 

the Act provides that ‘‘any potential 

conflicts of interest by members of such 

board or body or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed.’’ As EPA has 

explained in other infrastructure SIP 

actions, the purpose of section 128(a)(2) 

is to assure that conflicts of interest are 

disclosed by the ultimate decision 

maker in permit or enforcement order 

decisions. See, e.g., 80 FR 42446, 42454 

(July 17, 2015). Although the Board is 

the ultimate decision maker on air 

permitting decisions in Maine, certain 

air enforcement orders of the DEP 

Commissioner are not reviewable by the 

Board, but rather may be appealed 

directly to Maine Superior Court. For 

this reason, EPA interprets the conflict 

of interest requirement of CAA section 

128(a)(2) to be applicable in Maine to 

both Board members and the DEP 

Commissioner. 

In a recent infrastructure SIP action 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS, EPA determined that 

Maine’s conflict of interest statute, 5 

MRSA § 18, and a provision explicitly 

making it applicable to Board members, 

38 MRSA § 341–C(7), together satisfy 

the CAA section 128(a)(2) requirement 

for Maine with respect to Board 

members, and EPA approved both 

statutes into the Maine SIP. See 83 FR 

28157 (June 18, 2018). For more 

information, see 83 FR 12905, 12912 

(March 26, 2018). EPA proposes to find 

that Maine’s SIP also satisfies CAA 

section 128(a)(2) with respect to Board 

members for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for 

the same reasons. 

Regarding the DEP Commissioner, 

state law at 38 MRSA § 341–A(3)(D) also 

explicitly makes that official subject to 

5 MRSA § 18, the same conflict-ofinterest statute to which the Board is 

subject. In the above-referenced multi 

pollutant infrastructure SIP action, EPA 

determined that 5 MRSA § 18, which is 

in the Maine SIP, and 38 MRSA § 341– 

A(3)(D), which is not currently in the 

SIP, together satisfy the conflict of 

interest requirement with respect to the 

DEP Commissioner. See 83 FR 28157 

(June 18, 2018); 83 FR 12905, 12912 

(March 26, 2018). While 38 MRSA 

§ 341–A(3)(D) is not currently in the 

SIP, ME DEP has already committed to 

submitting it to EPA for inclusion 

within one year of EPA’s final action on 

Maine’s infrastructure SIP submissions 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. See 83 FR 28157 (June 18, 

2018). Consequently, EPA proposes to 

conditionally approve Maine’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

conflict of interest requirement of CAA 

section 128(a)(2) with respect to the DEP 

Commissioner for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

States must establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and submit periodic emissions 

reports. Each plan shall also require the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources. The state plan shall 

also require periodic reports on the 

nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such 

sources, and correlation of such reports 

by each state agency with any emission 

limitations or standards. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

Maine’s infrastructure submittal 

references existing state regulations 

previously approved by EPA that 

require sources to monitor emissions 

and submit reports. First, Maine 

references 06–096 CMR Chapter 115, 

‘‘Major and Minor Source Air Emission 

License Regulations.’’ This regulation 

contains compliance assurance 

requirements regarding emissions 

monitoring and reporting for licensed 

sources. 

Maine also references 06–096 CMR 

Chapter 117, ‘‘Source Surveillance,’’ 

which specifies air emission sources 

required to install, calibrate, maintain, 

and operate continuous emission 

monitoring systems (CEMS) and to 

submit periodic reports to EPA. Chapter 

137 was approved into the SIP by EPA 

on March 21, 1989 (54 FR 11524). 

In addition, Maine’s emission 

statement rule, at 06–096 CMR Chapter 

137, requires certain facilities to report 

emissions of air pollutants on an annual 

basis. EPA most recently approved 

revisions to Chapter 137 into the SIP on 

November 21, 2007. See 73 FR 65462. 

We further note that 38 MRSA § 347–C, 

‘‘Right of inspection and entry,’’ 

(referenced in ME DEP’s submission 

with respect to enforcement under 

element C) authorizes ME DEP to 

inspect facilities, take samples, inspect 

records, and conduct tests as 

appropriate to determine compliance 

with permits, orders, regulations, and 

laws. Finally, by letter dated March 1, 

2018 (extended to pertain to the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS in a letter dated October 

29, 2018), ME DEP also certified that 

there are no provisions in Maine law 

that would prevent the use of any 

credible evidence of noncompliance, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.212. 

Regarding the section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) 

requirements that the SIP provide for 

the correlation and public availability of 

emission reports, the ME DEP uses a 

web-based electronic reporting system, 

the Maine Air Emissions Inventory 

Reporting System (‘‘MAIRIS’’), for this 

purpose that allows it to package and 

electronically submit reported 

emissions data to EPA under the 

national emission inventory (NEI) 

program. NEI data are available to the 

public.14 The MAIRIS system is 

structured to electronically correlate 

reported emissions with permit 

conditions and other applicable 

standards and identify all 

inconsistencies and potential 

compliance concerns. 

Pursuant to ME DEP’s EPA-approved 

regulations, ‘‘Except as expressly made 

confidential by law; the commissioner 

shall make all documents available to 

the public for inspection and copying 

including the following: 1. All 

applications or other forms and 

documents submitted in support of any 

license application: 2. All 

correspondence, into or out of the 

Department, and any attachments 

thereto. . . .’’ See 06–096 CMR Chapter 

1, § 6(A). Furthermore, ‘‘The 

Commissioner shall keep confidential 

only those documents which may 

remain confidential pursuant to 1 

MRSA Section 402.’’ Id. § 6(B). We also 

note that the Maine Freedom of Access 

Law does not expressly make emissions 

statements confidential, 1 MRSA § 402, 

and that, pursuant to ME DEP’s EPAapproved regulations, ‘‘[i]nformation 

concerning the nature and extent of the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66193 

emissions of any air contaminant by a 

source’’—which includes emission 

reports—‘‘shall not be confidential.’’ See 

06–096 CMR Chapter 115, § IX(B)(1). By 

letter dated March 1, 2018, extended to 

pertain to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in a 

letter dated October 29, 2018, Maine 

further certified that Maine’s Freedom 

of Access law does not include any 

exceptions that apply to stationary 

source emissions. 

For the above reasons, EPA proposes 

to approve Maine’s submittals for the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for state authority comparable 

to that provided to the EPA 

Administrator in section 303 of the 

CAA, and adequate contingency plans 

to implement such authority. Section 

303 of the CAA provides authority to 

the EPA Administrator to seek a court 

order to restrain any source from 

causing or contributing to emissions 

that present an ‘‘imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment.’’ 

Section 303 further authorizes the 

Administrator to issue ‘‘such orders as 

may be necessary to protect public 

health or welfare or the environment’’ in 

the event that ‘‘it is not practicable to 

assure prompt protection . . . by 

commencement of such civil action.’’ 

We propose to find that a combination 

of state statutes and regulations 

discussed in ME DEP’s April 19, 2017 

submittal and a March 1, 2018 letter 

(extended to apply to the 2010 SO2

NAAQS in a letter dated October 29, 

2018) provides for authority comparable 

to that in CAA section 303. The statutes 

and regulations are: 38 MRSA § 347–A, 

‘‘Emergency Orders,’’ 38 MRSA § 348, 

‘‘Judicial Enforcement,’’ 37–B MRSA 

§ 742, ‘‘Emergency Proclamation,’’ 38 

MRSA § 591, ‘‘Prohibitions,’’ and 06– 

096 CMR Chapter 109, ‘‘Emergency 

Episode Regulations.’’ In our proposal to 

approve this requirement for Maine’s 

2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

submission, we explained how this 

combination of authorities provides ME 

DEP with authority comparable to that 

in CAA section 303. See 83 FR 39957, 

39966–39967 (August 13, 2018). These 

statutes and the regulation apply in the 

same manner to SO2 emissions as they 

do to particulate matter emissions. 

Accordingly, for the reasons contained 

in our proposal to approve this element 

for the 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP, we 

propose to find that this combination of 

state statutes and regulations provide for 

authority comparable to that in CAA 

section 303 for the 2010 SO2

infrastructure SIP. 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that, 

for any NAAQS, states have an 

approved contingency plan for any Air 

Quality Control Region (AQCR) within 

the state that is classified as Priority I, 

IA, or II. See 40 CFR 51.152(c). As 

relevant to this proposed rulemaking 

action, three of the five AQCRs in Maine 

are classified as IA or II for sulfur oxides 

(SOX). See 40 CFR 52.1021. 

Consequently, Maine’s SIP must contain 

an emergency contingency plan meeting 

the specific requirements of 40 CFR 

51.151 and 51.152 with respect to SOX. 

Maine’s submittal cites to 06–096 

CMR Chapter 109, ‘‘Emergency Episode 

Regulations,’’ which specifies episode 

criteria for, and emission control 

measures to be implemented during, air 

pollution alerts, warnings, and 

emergencies to prevent ambient 

pollution concentrations from reaching 

significant harm levels (see 40 CFR 

51.152(a)(1), (3)), and is very closely 

modeled on EPA’s example regulations 

for contingency plans at 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix L. EPA last approved C06–096 

CMR Chapter 109 into Maine’s SIP in 

1995. See 60 FR 2885 (January 12, 

1995). As stated in Maine’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal under the 

discussion of public notification 

(Element J), Maine also, as a matter of 

practice, posts on the internet daily air 

quality forecasts to the public levels 

through the EPA AirNow and EPA 

EnviroFlash systems. Information 

regarding these two systems is available 

on EPA’s website at www.airnow.gov. 

Maine’s participation in the AirNow 

and EnviroFlash programs addresses 

several of the public announcement and 

communications procedures and 

coordination with the National Weather 

Service included in the discussion of 

contingency plans in subpart H. See 40 

CFR 51.152(a)(2), (b)(1), (b)(3). 

In addition, 38 MRSA § 347–C, ‘‘Right 

of inspection and entry,’’ which ME 

DEP cites under Element C of its 

infrastructure SIP submittal, provides 

employees and agents of the ME DEP 

the authority to inspect sources of air 

pollution to determine compliance with 

laws administered by ME DEP. Thus, 

this authority allows the ME DEP to 

conduct the inspection of sources to 

ascertain compliance with any required 

emission control actions in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.152(b)(2). 

Therefore, EPA proposes that Maine, 

through the combination of statutes and 

regulations discussed above and 

participation in EPA’s AirNow program, 

meets the applicable infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires that a state’s SIP 

provide for revision from time to time 

as may be necessary to take into account 

changes in the NAAQS or availability of 

improved methods for attaining the 

NAAQS and whenever EPA finds that 

the SIP is substantially inadequate. 

To address this requirement, Maine’s 

infrastructure submittal references 38 

MRSA § 581, ‘‘Declaration of findings 

and intent,’’ which characterizes the 

state’s laws regarding the Protection and 

Improvement of Air as an exercise of 

‘‘the police power of the State in a 

coordinated state-wide program to 

control present and future sources of 

emission of air contaminants to the end 

that air polluting activities of every type 

shall be regulated in a manner that 

reasonably insures the continued health, 

safety and general welfare of all of the 

citizens of the State; protects property 

values and protects plant and animal 

life.’’ In addition, we note that ME DEP 

is required by statute to ‘‘prevent, abate 

and control the pollution of the air [, to] 

preserve, improve and prevent 

diminution of the natural environment 

of the State [, and to] protect and 

enhance the public’s right to use and 

enjoy the State’s natural resources.’’ See 

38 MRSA § 341–A(1). Furthermore, ME 

DEP is authorized to ‘‘adopt, amend or 

repeal rules and emergency rules 

necessary for the interpretation, 

implementation and enforcement of any 

provision of law that the department is 

charged with administering.’’ Id. § 341– 

H(2); see also id. § 585–A (recognizing 

DEP’s rulemaking authority to propose 

SIP revisions). These general 

authorizing statutes give ME DEP the 

power to revise the Maine SIP from time 

to time as may be necessary to take 

account of changes in the NAAQS or 

availability of improved methods for 

attaining the NAAQS and whenever 

EPA finds that the SIP is substantially 

inadequate. 

Consequently, EPA proposes to find 

that Maine meets the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part 

D 

The CAA requires that each plan or 

plan revision for an area designated as 

a nonattainment area meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment 

areas. EPA has determined that section 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66194 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

takes action on part D attainment plans 

through separate processes. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submission 

from Maine with respect to the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(J) is described in the following 

sections. 

1. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

States must provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) in 

carrying out NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

In a March 26, 2018, NPRM regarding 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, we 

explained how Maine satisfies this 

requirement. See 83 FR 12905. On June 

18, 2018, we took final action approving 

those multi-pollutant infrastructure SIP 

submissions, including finding that 

Maine’s SIP satisfies this sub-element. 

See 83 FR 28157. Based on the rationale 

contained in the March 26, 2018 

document, EPA proposes that Maine 

meets this infrastructure SIP 

requirement with respect to the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

2. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires 

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area, advise the public 

of health hazards associated with 

exceedances, and enhance public 

awareness of measures that can be taken 

to prevent exceedances and of ways in 

which the public can participate in 

regulatory and other efforts to improve 

air quality. 

As mentioned elsewhere in this 

document, state law directs ME DEP to, 

among other things, ‘‘prevent, abate and 

control the pollution of the air . . . 

improve and prevent diminution of the 

natural environment of the State[, and] 

protect and enhance the public’s right to 

use and enjoy the State’s natural 

resources.’’ See 38 MRSA § 341–A(1). 

State law also authorizes ME DEP to 

‘‘educate the public on natural resource 

use, requirements and issues.’’ Id. To 

that end, ME DEP makes real-time and 

historical air quality information 

available on its website. 

Maine also provides extended-range 

air-quality forecasts, which give the 

public advanced notice of air quality 

events. This advance NPRM allows the 

public to limit their exposure to 

unhealthy air and enact a plan to reduce 

pollution at home and at work. The ME 

DEP forecasts daily ozone and particle 

levels and issues these forecasts to the 

media and to the public via its website, 

telephone hotline, and email. Alerts 

include information about the health 

implications of elevated pollutant levels 

and list actions to reduce emissions and 

to reduce the public’s exposure. In 

addition, Air Quality Data Summaries of 

the year’s air-quality monitoring results 

are issued annually and posted on the 

ME DEP Bureau of Air Quality website. 

Maine is also an active partner in EPA’s 

AirNow and EnviroFlash air quality 

alert programs. 

EPA proposes that Maine meets the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

3. Sub-Element 3: PSD 

State plans must meet the applicable 

requirements of part C of the CAA 

related to PSD. Maine’s PSD program in 

the context of infrastructure SIPs has 

already been discussed in sections 

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

as we have noted, fully satisfies the 

requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules. Consequently, we 

propose to approve the PSD sub-element 

of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS, consistent with the actions we 

are proposing for sections 110(a)(2)(C) 

and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

4. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA, which 

includes sections 169A and 169B. In the 

event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, as 

noted in EPA’s 2013 Guidance, we find 

that there is no new visibility obligation 

‘‘triggered’’ under section 110(a)(2)(J) 

when a new NAAQS becomes effective. 

In other words, the visibility protection 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are 

not germane to infrastructure SIP 

submissions. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act 

requires that a SIP provide for the 

performance of such air quality 

modeling as the EPA Administrator may 

prescribe for the purpose of predicting 

the effect on ambient air quality of any 

emissions of any air pollutant for which 

EPA has established a NAAQS, and the 

submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling. 

EPA has published modeling guidelines 

at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, for 

predicting the effects of emissions of 

criteria pollutants on ambient air 

quality. EPA has interpreted section 

110(a)(2)(K) to require a state to submit 

or reference the statutory or regulatory 

provisions that provide the air agency 

with the authority to conduct such air 

quality modeling and to provide such 

modeling data to EPA upon request. See 

2013 Guidance at 55. 

Maine state law implicitly authorizes 

ME DEP to perform air quality modeling 

and provide such modeling data to EPA 

upon request. See 38 MRSA §§ 341– 

A(1), 581, 591–B. In addition, Maine 

cites 06–096 CMR Chapters 115 and 

140, which provide that any modeling 

required for pre-construction permits 

and operating permits for minor and 

major sources be performed consistent 

with EPA-prescribed modeling 

guidelines at 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

W. Chapter 115 also requires that 

applicants submit data related to 

modeling to ME DEP. See 06–096 CMR 

chapter 115, section VII.E. 

Consequently, the SIP provides for such 

air quality modeling as the 

Administrator has prescribed and for 

the submission, upon request, of data 

related to such modeling. 

EPA proposes to find that Maine 

meets the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

This section requires SIPs to mandate 

that each major stationary source pay 

permitting fees sufficient to cover the 

reasonable cost of reviewing, approving, 

implementing, and enforcing a permit. 

Maine implements and operates a 

Title V permit program (see 38 MRSA 

§ 353–A; 06–096 CMR Chapter 140) 

which was approved by EPA on October 

18, 2001. See 66 FR 52874. To gain this 

approval, Maine demonstrated the 

ability to collect sufficient fees to run 

the program. See 61 FR 49289, 49291 

(September 19, 1996). Maine state law 

provides for the assessment of 

application fees from air emissions 

sources for permits for the construction 

or modification of air contaminant 

sources and sets permit fees. See 38 

MRSA §§ 353–A (establishing annual air 

emissions license fees) and 352(2)(E) 

(providing that such fees ‘‘must be 

assessed to support activities for air 

quality control including licensing, 

compliance, enforcement, monitoring, 

data acquisition and administration’’). 

EPA proposes to find that Maine 

meets the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66195 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/ 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

To satisfy Element M, states must 

provide for consultation with, and 

participation by, local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

Maine’s infrastructure submittal 

references the Maine Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 MRSA Chapter 375, 

and explains that it requires public 

notice of all SIP revisions prior to their 

adoption, which allows for comment by 

the public, including local political 

subdivisions. In addition, Maine cites 

38 MRSA § 597, ‘‘Municipal air 

pollution control,’’ which provides that 

municipalities are not preempted from 

studying air pollution and adopting and 

enforcing ‘‘air pollution control and 

abatement ordinances’’ that are more 

stringent than those adopted by DEP or 

that ‘‘touch on matters not dealt with’’ 

by state law. Finally, Maine cites 

Chapter 9 of Maine’s initial SIP, which 

was approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 

10842), and contains intergovernmental 

cooperation provisions. 

EPA proposes to find that Maine 

meets the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA proposes to approve Maine’s 

April 19, 2017 infrastructure SIP 

submission certifying that its current 

SIP is sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under sections 

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

NAAQS, with the exception of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding State 

Boards and Conflicts of Interest, which 

we propose to conditionally approve, as 

described in more detail above. EPA’s 

proposed actions regarding these 

infrastructure SIP requirements are 

contained in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED ACTION ON MAINE’S INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS

Element 2010 SO2

(A): Emission limits and other control measures ................................................................................................................................ A 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system .......................................................................................................................... A 

(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures ................................................................................................................................................... A 

(C)2: PSD program for major sources and major modifications ......................................................................................................... A 

(C)3: PSD program for minor sources and minor modifications ......................................................................................................... A 

(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS ......................................................................................... A 

(D)2: PSD ............................................................................................................................................................................................ A 

(D)3: Visibility Protection ..................................................................................................................................................................... A 

(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement ................................................................................................................................................... A 

(D)5: International Pollution Abatement .............................................................................................................................................. A 

(E)1: Adequate resources ................................................................................................................................................................... A 

(E)2: State boards ............................................................................................................................................................................... CA 

(E)3: Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies .............................................................................................................. NA 

(F): Stationary source monitoring system ........................................................................................................................................... A 

(G): Emergency power ........................................................................................................................................................................ A 

(H): Future SIP revisions ..................................................................................................................................................................... A 

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D .............................................................................................................. NG 

(J)1: Consultation with government officials ....................................................................................................................................... A 

(J)2: Public notification ........................................................................................................................................................................ A 

(J)3: PSD ............................................................................................................................................................................................. A 

(J)4: Visibility protection ...................................................................................................................................................................... NG 

(K): Air quality modeling and data ...................................................................................................................................................... A 

(L): Permitting fees .............................................................................................................................................................................. A 

(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities ............................................................................................................. A 

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A ............ Approve 

CA .......... Approve but conditionally approve 

NG ......... Not germane to infrastructure 

SIPs 

NA .......... Not applicable 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

comments to this proposed rule by 

following the instructions listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. As noted in Table 5 of this 

document, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve one portion of 

Maine’s April 19, 2017 infrastructure 

SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The 

outstanding issue with this SIP revision 

pertains to element (E)(2) regarding 

State Boards and Conflicts of Interest. 

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, 

EPA may conditionally approve a plan 

based on a commitment from the State 

to adopt specific enforceable measures 

by a date certain, but not later than 1 

year from the date of approval. If EPA 

conditionally approves the commitment 

in a final rulemaking action, the State 

must meet its commitment to submit an 

update to its State Board rules that fully 

remedies the deficiency mentioned 

above under Element E. If the State fails 

to do so, this action will become a 

disapproval on (list the date if under a 

statutory requirement) or one year from 

the date of final approval. EPA will 

notify the State by letter that this action 

has occurred. At that time, this 

commitment will no longer be a part of 

the approved Maine SIP. EPA 

subsequently will publish a document 

in the Federal Register notifying the 

public that the conditional approval 

automatically converted to a 

disapproval. If the State meets its 

commitment, within the applicable time 

frame, the conditionally approved 

submission will remain a part of the SIP 

until EPA takes final action approving 

or disapproving the submission. If EPA 

disapproves the new submittal, the 

conditionally approved infrastructure 

SIP element will also be disapproved at 

that time. If EPA approves the submittal, 

the infrastructure SIP element will be 

fully approved in its entirety and 

replace the conditionally approved 

program in the SIP. 

If the conditional approval is 

converted to a disapproval, the final 

disapproval triggers the Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) requirement 

under section 110(c). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66196 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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); 

• This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

because this action is not significant 

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 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, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: December 17, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27773 Filed 12–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2018–0103; FRL–9988–24– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Removal of 

Obsolete Gasoline Volatility 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

request submitted by the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA) on February 5, 2018, to revise the 

Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Ohio 

EPA is requesting to remove from the 

SIP the remaining provisions of the 

Ohio Administrative Code concerning 

the State’s former 7.8 pounds per square 

inch (psi) Reid vapor pressure (RVP) 

fuel requirements for the Cincinnati and 

Dayton areas. In a previous action, EPA 

approved the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP 

fuel applicability requirements in the 

Cincinnati and Dayton areas as a 

component of the Ohio SIP, including 

the approval of a demonstration under 

section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) that addressed emissions impacts 

associated with the removal of the 

program. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 25, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2018–0103 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

blakley.pamela@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, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source 

Program Manager, Control Strategies 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6061, 

acevedo.francisco@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What is EPA proposing to approve? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

submittal? 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On April 15, 2004, EPA designated 

Hamilton, Butler, Clinton, Warren and 

Clermont counties (Cincinnati area) and 

Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery 

counties (Dayton area) as nonattainment 

for the 8-hour ozone standard. As part 

of Ohio’s efforts to bring these areas into 

attainment of the ozone standard, the 

State adopted and implemented a broad 

range of ozone control measures for the 

areas including the implementation of a 

7.8 psi RVP fuel program that was more 

stringent than the Federal 9.0 psi RVP 

requirement. The Ohio EPA originally 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA (on 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1