15200 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(d) A project description, including 

the timeframe within which the project 

is to be started and completed; 

(e) The terms and conditions of the 

agreement, including any reporting 

requirements; 

(f) All obligations of the parties; and 

(g) The signatures of appropriate 

individuals authorized to bind the 

applicant and BOEM. 

§ 583.305 What is the effective date of an 

agreement? 

The agreement will become effective 

on the date when all parties to the 

agreement have signed it. 

§ 583.306 How will BOEM enforce the 

agreement? 

(a) Failure to comply with any 

applicable law or any provision, term, 

or condition of the agreement may result 

in the termination of the agreement and/ 

or a referral to an appropriate Federal 

and/or State agency/agencies for 

enforcement. Termination of the 

agreement for noncompliance will be in 

the sole discretion of the Director. 

(b) The failure to comply in a timely 

and satisfactory manner with any 

provision, term or condition of the 

agreement may delay or prevent 

BOEM’s approval of future requests for 

use of OCS sand, gravel and shell 

resources on the part of the parties to 

the agreement. 

§ 583.307 What is the term of the 

agreement? 

(a) An agreement will terminate upon 

the following, whichever occurs first: 

(1) The agreement expires by its own 

terms, unless the term is extended prior 

to expiration under § 583.309; 

(2) The project is terminated, as set 

forth in § 583.310; or 

(3) A party to the agreement notifies 

BOEM, in writing, that sufficient OCS 

sand, gravel and shell resources, up to 

the amount authorized in the agreement, 

have been obtained to complete the 

project. 

(b) Absent extraordinary 

circumstances, no agreement will be for 

a term longer than 5 years from its 

effective date. 

§ 583.308 What debarment or suspension 

obligations apply to transactions and 

contracts related to a project? 

The parties to an agreement must 

ensure that all contracts and 

transactions related to an agreement 

issued under this part comply with 2 

CFR part 180 and 2 CFR part 1400. 

§ 583.309 What is the process for 

modifying the agreement? 

(a) Unless otherwise provided for in 

the agreement, the parties to the 

agreement may submit to BOEM a 

written request to extend, modify, or 

change an agreement. BOEM is under no 

obligation to extend an agreement and 

cannot be held liable for the 

consequences of the expiration of an 

agreement. With the exception of 

paragraph (b) of this section, any such 

requests must be made at least 180 days 

before the term of the agreement 

expires. BOEM will respond to the 

request for modification within 30 days 

of receipt and request any necessary 

information and evaluations to comply 

with 30 CFR 583.301. BOEM may 

approve the request, disapprove it, or 

approve it with modifications subject to 

the requirements of 30 CFR 583.301. 

(1) If BOEM approves a request to 

extend, modify or change an agreement, 

BOEM will draft an agreement 

modification for review by the parties to 

the agreement in the form of an 

amendment to the original agreement. 

The amendment will include: 

(i) The agreement number, as assigned 

by BOEM; 

(ii) The modification(s) agreed to; 

(iii) Any additional mitigation 

required; and 

(iv) The signatures of the parties to 

the agreement and BOEM. 

(2) If BOEM disapproves a request to 

extend, modify, or change an agreement, 

BOEM will inform the parties to the 

agreement of the reasons in writing. 

Parties to the agreement may ask the 

BOEM Director for reconsideration in 

accordance with 30 CFR 583.105. 

(b) By written request, for strictly 

minor modifications that do not change 

the substance of the project or the 

analyzed environmental effects of the 

project, including but not limited to, the 

change of a business address, the 

substitution of a different Federal, State 

or local government agency contact, or 

an extension of less than 30 days, 

parties to the agreement may 

memorialize the minor modification in 

a letter from BOEM to the parties 

indicating the request has been granted. 

§ 583.310 When can the agreement be 

terminated? 

(a) The Director will terminate any 

agreement issued under this part upon 

proof that it was obtained by fraud or 

misrepresentation, after notice and an 

opportunity to be heard has been 

afforded to the parties of the agreement. 

(b) The Director may immediately 

suspend and subsequently terminate 

any agreement issued under this part 

when: 

(1) There is noncompliance with the 

agreement, pursuant to 30 CFR 

583.306(a); or 

(2) It is necessary for reasons of 

national security or defense; or 

(3) The Director determines that: 

(i) Continued activity under the 

agreement would cause serious harm or 

damage to natural resources; life 

(including human and wildlife); 

property; the marine, coastal, or human 

environment; or sites, structures, or 

objects of historical or archaeological 

significance; 

(ii) The threat of harm or damage will 

not disappear or decrease to an 

acceptable extent within a reasonable 

period of time; and 

(iii) The advantages of termination 

outweigh the advantages of continuing 

the agreement. 

(c) The Director will immediately 

notify the parties to the agreement of the 

suspension or termination. The Director 

will also mail a letter to the parties to 

the agreement at their record post office 

address with notice of any suspension 

or termination and the cause for such 

action. 

(d) In the event that BOEM terminates 

an agreement under this section, none of 

the parties to the agreement will be 

entitled to compensation as a result of 

expenses or lost revenues that may 

result from the termination. 

[FR Doc. 2016–06163 Filed 3–21–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0793; FRL–9944–08– 

Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements To 

Address Interstate Transport for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on December 27, 

2012, and supplemented on December 

3, 2015, to address the interstate 

transport requirements of Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D) with 

respect to the 2008 ozone (O3) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

We are proposing to approve the portion 

of the Arizona SIP pertaining to 

significant contribution to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules 15201 

1National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone; Final Rule, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

2Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1–10 

(September 13, 2013). 

3Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1–10 

(January 22, 2015). 4Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 

(Aug. 8, 2011). 5Notice of Availability of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport 

Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 

46271 (August 4, 2015). 6The EPA adopted 2017 as the analytic year for 

the updated ozone modeling information. See 80 FR 

46273. 7Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 

2015). 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another state and 

proposing to disapprove the portion of 

Arizona’s SIP pertaining to interstate 

transport visibility requirements. EPA’s 

rationale for proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

Arizona’s December 27, 2012 SIP 

revision and December 3, 2015 

supplement is described in this notice. 

EPA previously took two separate 

actions on Arizona’s December 27, 2012 

submittal, on July 14, 2015 and August 

10, 2015. We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action no later than June 7, 2016. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0793 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Clancy.Maeve@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maeve Clancy, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4105, Clancy.Maeve@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. State Submittals 

III. EPA’s Assessment 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

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

states to address basic SIP requirements 

to implement, maintain and enforce the 

NAAQS no later than three years after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

standard. Section 110(a)(2) outlines the 

specific requirements that each state is 

required to address in this SIP 

submission that collectively constitute 

the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a state’s air 

quality management program. SIP 

submittals that address these 

requirements are referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure SIPs’’ (I–SIP). In 

particular, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requires that each SIP for a new or 

revised NAAQS contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the state from emitting air pollutants 

that will ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ (prong 1) or ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ (prong 2) of the 

applicable air quality standard in any 

other state. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIP 

provisions that prevent interference 

with measures required to be included 

in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other State under part C to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility 

(prong 4). This action addresses the 

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

prongs 1, 2 and 4 with respect to 

Arizona’s I–SIP submissions. 

On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for ozone.1 This action 

triggered a requirement for states to 

submit an I–SIP to address the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) within three years of issuance 

of the revised NAAQS. 

On September 13, 2013, EPA issued 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2),’’ which provides ‘‘advice 

on the development of infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS . . . as 

well as infrastructure SIPs for new or 

revised NAAQS promulgated in the 

future.’’ 2 EPA followed that guidance 

with an additional memo specific to 

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

requirements for the 2008 O3 standard 

on January 22, 2015 entitled, 

‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport 

‘‘Good Neighbor’’ Provision for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS Under CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ (2015 transport 

memo).3 While this memo did not 

provide specific guidance to western 

states on interstate transport, it did 

contain preliminary modeling 

information for western states. This 

2015 transport memo, following the 

approach used in EPA’s prior CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),4

provided data identifying ozone 

monitoring sites that were projected to 

be in nonattainment or have 

maintenance problems for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS in 2018. Also, EPA 

provided the projected contribution 

estimates from 2018 anthropogenic 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions in 

each state to ozone concentrations at 

each of the projected sites. 

On August 4, 2015, EPA published a 

Federal Register Notice entitled, 

‘‘Notice of Availability of the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Updated Ozone Transport Modeling 

Data for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.’’ 5

This Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 

is an update of the preliminary air 

quality modeling data that was released 

January 22, 2015. This NODA provided 

data identifying ozone monitoring sites 

that are projected to be nonattainment 

or have maintenance problems 

(following the CSAPR approach) for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017.6 Also, EPA 

provided the projected ozone 

contribution estimates from 2017 

anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions 

in each state to ozone concentrations at 

each of the projected monitoring sites. 

The 2017 modeling released in the 

NODA was used to support EPA’s 

proposed update to CSAPR to address 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS in the eastern U.S. 

(‘‘CSAPR Update Rule’’).7 CSAPR and 

its predecessor transport rules, the NOX

SIP Call and CAIR, were designed to 

address the collective contributions 

from the 37 states in the eastern U.S. 

and ozone contribution information was 

not calculated to or from the 11 states 

in the western U.S. The proposed 

CSAPR Update Rule and the supportive 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15202 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

8See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 

4:14–cv–05091–YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015). 

9Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air 

Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Lead and Ozone. 80 

FR 40905 (July 14, 2015). 

10Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the 2008 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). 80 FR 47859 (August 10, 

2015). 

11 ‘‘Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions 

for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Under 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D) . . .’’ Signed 

December 3, 2015. And see email from Heidi 

Haggerty of ADEQ. ‘‘AZ 2015 Ozone Transport I– 

SIP Submittal Clarification.’’ Sent December 9, 

2015. 

12NOX SIP Call, Final Rule, 63 FR 57371 (October 

27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Final 

Rule, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Final Rule, 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update Rule, Proposed 

Rule, 80 FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015). 13 Data file with 2017 Ozone Contributions. 

Included in docket for: Notice of Availability of the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Updated Ozone 

Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 

80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015). 14EPA has previously noted there may be 

additional criteria to evaluate regarding collective 

contribution of transported air pollution at certain 

locations in the West. See footnotes 4 and 7. 

modeling released in the NODA include 

data relevant to the West but did not 

evaluate potential interstate transport 

impacts in 11 western states, including 

Arizona. In this action, we are utilizing 

these data to evaluate the state’s 

submittals and any interstate transport 

obligations under section 

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

EPA is obligated, pursuant to a 

judgement issued by the Northern 

District of California in Sierra Club vs. 

McCarthy, to take final action on 

110(a)(2)(D) prongs 1, 2, and 4 of 

Arizona’s December 2012 SIP revision 

by June 7, 2016.8 In our July 2015 partial 

approval and partial disapproval of 

Arizona’s I–SIP submittals for the 2008 

Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS, for the I– 

SIP elements C, D, J, and K, EPA 

partially approved and partially 

disapproved the submittals for purposes 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 and 

partially approved and partially 

disapproved the submittals for purposes 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (relating to CAA 

sections 115 and 126). We also stated 

our intention to propose action on the 

I–SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 2, and 4 in a 

separate action.9 We subsequently took 

action on I–SIP elements A, B, E–H, L, 

and M for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in August 2015.10

II. State Submittals 

On December 27, 2012, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) submitted its 2008 ozone 

NAAQS I–SIP (2012 submittal). This 

submittal briefly summarized the CAA 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and EPA’s I–SIP action 

for the previous 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

but as to prongs 1, 2, and 4 did not 

identify or address any potential 

interstate transport impacts between 

Arizona and other states or interstate 

transport visibility requirements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. On December 3, 

2015, ADEQ submitted a supplement to 

the 2012 submittal addressing 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 2, and 4.11 For 

the purposes of this action, we will refer 

to the supplemental submittal as the 

‘‘2015 submittal.’’ The 2015 submittal 

represents ADEQ’s comprehensive 

analysis of ozone transport from 

Arizona to surrounding states and 

addresses potential interstate transport 

linkages between Arizona and the El 

Centro, CA and Los Angeles, CA 

nonattainment receptors that were 

identified in the 2015 ozone transport 

memo and the 2015 NODA. The 2015 

submittal also addresses the 

requirements of prong 4 (interstate 

transport visibility requirements). 

In the 2015 submittal, ADEQ 

summarizes the state’s impact on 

downwind states. While Arizona’s 

impact on the El Centro and Los 

Angeles monitors is in each case above 

1%, Arizona impacts only one of the 

seven projected nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors in the Los 

Angeles area, and contributes less than 

1% to all other maintenance and 

nonattainment receptors. ADEQ further 

states that, ‘‘In eastern states, the EPA 

has chosen a 1% of the standard 

threshold as a significant contribution. 

However, Arizona considers the 

southwest to be different.’’ The state 

goes on to say that, ‘‘It is unclear at this 

point what threshold is significant for 

southwestern states.’’ EPA’s assessment 

of these statements is described in the 

next section. The submittal also 

summarizes sources of VOCs and NOX

statewide, outlining the controls on 

anthropogenic emission sources with a 

focus on efforts to reduce NOX through 

controls implemented via Arizona’s 

Regional Haze SIP and EPA’s Regional 

Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

and current and future Maricopa County 

stationary source controls in the 

Arizona SIP. For more information on 

Arizona’s source categories and 

emissions controls, please see the 

technical support document (TSD) 

associated with today’s proposed 

rulemaking. 

III. EPA’s Assessment 

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

EPA proposes to approve Arizona’s 

SIP submissions pertaining to CAA 

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

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

As explained below, EPA’s proposal is 

based on the state’s submission and 

EPA’s analysis of several factors and 

available data. 

To determine whether the CAA 

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

requirement is satisfied, EPA first must 

determine whether a state’s emissions 

will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of a NAAQS in other 

states. If a state is determined not to 

make such contribution or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS, then EPA 

can conclude that the state’s SIP 

complies with the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In several prior 

federal rulemakings interpreting section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA has evaluated 

whether a state will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of a NAAQS by first 

identifying downwind receptors that are 

expected to have problems attaining or 

maintaining the NAAQS.12 EPA has 

then determined which upwind states 

contribute to these identified air quality 

problems in amounts sufficient to 

warrant further evaluation to determine 

if the state can make emission 

reductions to reduce its contribution. 

CSAPR and the proposed CSAPR 

Update used a screening threshold (1% 

of the NAAQS) to identify such 

contributing upwind states warranting 

further review and analysis. EPA’s 

NODA used air quality modeling to 

evaluate contributions from upwind 

states to downward receptors. Applying 

the methodology used in CSAPR, the 

NODA modeling information indicates 

that emissions from Arizona contribute 

amounts exceeding the CSAPR 1% 

threshold at two projected downwind 

nonattainment sites in El Centro, 

California, and Los Angeles, 

California.13

EPA notes that it disagrees with 

ADEQ’s contention that it is unclear 

what screening threshold is significant 

for southwestern states when addressing 

interstate transport contributions. EPA 

believes contribution from an individual 

state equal to or above 1% of the 

NAAQS could be considered significant 

where the collective contribution of 

emissions from one or more upwind 

states is responsible for a considerable 

portion of the downwind air quality 

problem regardless of where the 

receptor is geographically located.14

Accordingly, although EPA’s 

modeling indicates that emissions from 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules 15203 

15The stated range is based on the highest 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor in each 

area. All nonattainment and maintenance receptors 

had upwind contributions of well over 17%, except 

for some receptors in Dallas and Houston. 

16Memo to Docket from EPA, Air Quality Policy 

Division. ‘‘Contribution Analysis of Receptors in 

the Updated CSAPR Proposal.’’ March 10, 2016. 

17See TSD for details on other emissions control 

measures. 

Arizona contribute above the 1% 

threshold to two projected downwind 

air quality problems, EPA examined 

several factors to determine whether 

Arizona should be considered to 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS at those 

sites, including the air quality and 

contribution modeling, receptor data, 

and the statewide measures reducing 

emissions of VOCs and NOX. EPA notes 

that no single piece of information is by 

itself dispositive of the issue for 

purposes of this analysis. Instead, EPA 

has considered the total weight of all the 

evidence taken together to evaluate 

whether Arizona significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS in those areas. 

One such factor that EPA considers 

relevant to determining the nature of a 

projected receptor’s interstate transport 

problem is the magnitude of ozone 

attributable to transport from all upwind 

states collectively contributing to the air 

quality problem. In CSAPR and the 

CSAPR Update Rule, EPA used the 1% 

air quality threshold to identify linkages 

between upwind states and downwind 

maintenance receptors. States whose 

contributions to a specific receptor meet 

or exceed the threshold were considered 

to be linked to that receptor. The linked 

states’ emissions (and available 

emission reductions) were then 

analyzed further as a second step to 

EPA’s contribution analysis. States 

whose contributions to all receptors 

were below the 1% threshold did not 

require further evaluation to address 

interstate transport and we therefore 

found those states were determined to 

make insignificant contributions to 

downwind air quality. Therefore, the 

states below the threshold do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other 

states. EPA used the 1% threshold in 

the East because prior analysis showed 

that, in general, nonattainment 

problems result from a combined impact 

of relatively small individual 

contributions from upwind states, along 

with contributions from in-state sources. 

EPA has observed that a relatively large 

portion of the air quality problem at 

most ozone nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in the East is the 

result of the collective contribution from 

a number of upwind states. 

Specifically, EPA found the total 

upwind states’ contribution to ozone 

concentration (from linked and 

unlinked states) based on modeling for 

2017 ranges from 17% to 67% to 

identified downwind air quality 

problems in the East, with between 4 

and 12 states each contributing above 

1% to the downwind air quality 

problem.15 16 Thus, irrespective of the 

1% air quality threshold in the East, 

EPA has found that the collective 

contributions from upwind states 

represent a large portion of the ozone 

concentrations at projected air quality 

problems. Further, in the East, EPA 

found that the 1% threshold is 

appropriate to capture a high percentage 

of the total pollution transport affecting 

downwind receptors. By comparison, 

according to EPA’s modeling, the total 

upwind (linked or unlinked) states’ 

contribution to ozone concentration at 

the projected nonattainment sites in El 

Centro, California and Los Angeles, 

California, is comparatively small, with 

only one state contributing above 1% to 

the downwind air quality problem. 

Arizona is the only state that 

contributes greater than the 1% 

threshold to the projected 2017 levels of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the El Centro 

receptor. The total contribution from all 

states to the El Centro receptor is 4.4% 

of the total ozone concentration at this 

receptor. Arizona is also the only state 

that contributes greater than 1% to the 

projected 2017 levels of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS at the Los Angeles receptor, 

and the total contribution from all states 

is 2.5% of the ozone concentration at 

this receptor. EPA believes that a 4.4% 

and 2.5% cumulative ozone 

contribution from all upwind states is 

negligible, particularly when compared 

to the relatively large contributions from 

upwind states in the East or in certain 

other areas of the West. For these 

reasons, EPA believes the emissions that 

result in transported ozone from 

upwind states have limited impacts on 

the projected air quality problems in El 

Centro, California and Los Angeles, 

California, and therefore should not be 

treated as receptors for purposes of 

determining the interstate transport 

obligations of upwind states under 

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

Additionally, EPA has evaluated the 

Arizona VOC and NOX emissions 

inventory and emissions projections and 

agrees that emissions will be decreasing 

over time. Given that emissions within 

the state are expected to decrease over 

time due to regional haze measures, 

Federal engine and fuel standards, and 

other Federal, State, and local rules,17

EPA believes that the Arizona SIP 

contains adequate provisions to ensure 

that air emissions in Arizona do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in California or any other state in the 

future. 

The modeling data show that Arizona 

contributes either less than 1% of the 

NAAQS to projected air quality 

problems in other states, or where it 

contributes above 1% of the NAAQS to 

a projected downwind air quality 

problem in California, EPA proposes to 

find, based on the overall weight of 

evidence, that these particular receptors 

are not significantly impacted by 

transported ozone from upwind states. 

Emissions reductions from Arizona are 

not necessary to address interstate 

transport because the total collective 

upwind state ozone contribution to 

these receptors is relatively low 

compared to the air quality problems 

typically addressed by the good 

neighbor provision. Additionally, 

Arizona has demonstrated that both 

VOC and NOX emissions are going 

down and will continue to go down. 

EPA therefore believes that Arizona’s 

contributions to downwind receptors in 

California are considered insignificant. 

EPA proposes to find that Arizona does 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 4 

EPA believes that ozone precursor 

emissions of NOX may contribute to 

visibility impairment in Class I areas. 

EPA’s 2013 I–SIP guidance clarifies that 

a state can rely upon a fully EPAapproved Regional Haze SIP to satisfy 

the requirements of this sub-element. 

Arizona’s Regional Haze SIP shows that 

sources in Arizona impact visibility in 

Colorado (Great Sand Dunes National 

Monument, Mesa Verde National Park, 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park, La Garita Wilderness, and 

Weminuche Wilderness), New Mexico 

(Bandelier National Monument, San 

Pedro Parks Wilderness, Pecos 

Wilderness, Bosque del Apache 

National Wildlife Reserve, and Gila 

Wilderness), and Utah (Zion National 

Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, 

Capitol Reef National Park, 

Canyonlands National Park, and Arches 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15204 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

18Arizona State Implementation Plan, Regional 

Haze Under Section 308 of the Federal Regional 

Haze Rule (January 2011), section 12.4.1. 

19FIP promulgated at 77 FR 72514 (December 5, 

2012). 

20 Id. 

21FIP promulgated at 79 FR 5240 (September 3, 

2014). 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. 

25SIP approval promulgated for Unit 1 and FIP 

promulgated for Units 2 and 3 at 77 FR 72511 

(December 5, 2012). SIP revision for emissions 

limits for Unit 1 and SIP approval for Units 2 and 

3 promulgated at 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015). 

National Park).18 Arizona’s Regional 

Haze SIP is not fully approved by EPA. 

Instead, Arizona’s 2012 and 2015 

submittals rely, in part, on regulations 

imposed by FIPs to address visibility 

impairment in Class 1 Areas caused by 

NOX, SO2, and PM. These regulations 

include emission limits on the following 

facilities: Arizona Public Service Cholla 

Power Plant,19 Salt River Project 

Coronado Generating Station,20 Freeport 

McMoran Miami Smelter,21 ASARCO 

Hayden Smelter,22 Sundt Generating 

Station Unit 4,23 and Nelson Lime Plant 

Kilns 1 and 2.24 Emissions limits have 

been incorporated into the state SIP, 

replacing a previous FIP, at AEPCO 

Apache Station Units 1, 2, and 3.25

Because Arizona’s 2012 and 2015 

submittals rely in part on FIPs to 

address interstate transport visibility 

requirements, they do not meet the 

requirements of prong 4 for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. However, because FIPs 

are already in place, no additional FIP 

obligation would be triggered by a final 

disapproval of this portion of Arizona’s 

infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to 

work with Arizona to incorporate 

emission limits to address the 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

into the Arizona SIP. For further 

discussion of our analysis of prong 4, 

please see the TSD associated with this 

proposal and in the docket for today’s 

rulemaking. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Arizona’s SIP as meeting the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

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

2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing 

this approval based on the overall 

weight of evidence from information 

and analysis provided by Arizona, as 

well as the recent air quality modeling 

released in EPA’s August 4, 2015 

NODA, and other data analysis that 

confirms that emissions from Arizona 

will not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in California or any other state. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove 

Arizona’s SIP with respect to the 

interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Because 

Arizona’s 2012 and 2015 submittals 

rely, in part, on FIPs to address 

interstate transport visibility 

requirements, they do not meet the 

requirements of this portion of CAA 

§ 110(a)(2)(D) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. However, because FIPs are 

already in place, no additional FIP 

obligation would be triggered by a final 

disapproval of this portion of Arizona’s 

infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to 

work with Arizona to incorporate 

emission limits to address the 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

into the Arizona SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2016 / Proposed Rules 15205 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Approval and 

promulgation of implementation plans, 

Environmental protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, 

and Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 15, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–06438 Filed 3–21–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0798; FRL–9943–88– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Disapprovals; MS; Prong 4– 

2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, SO2, and 2012 

PM2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove the visibility transport 

(prong 4) portions of revisions to the 

Mississippi State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), submitted by the Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ), addressing the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 

2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 

2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 

2012 annual Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires 

that each state adopt and submit a SIP 

for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, commonly 

referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the prong 4 portions of 

Mississippi’s May 29, 2012, 2008 8-hour 

Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; 

July 26, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone 

infrastructure SIP resubmission; 

February 28, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2

infrastructure SIP submission; June 20, 

2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure 

SIP submission; and December 8, 2015, 

2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP 

submission. All other applicable 

infrastructure requirements for these SIP 

submissions have been or will be 

addressed in separate rulemakings. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0798 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Lakeman can be reached by telephone at 

(404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by 

states within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

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

to address basic SIP elements such as 

for monitoring, basic program 

requirements, and legal authority that 

are designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the newly established or 

revised NAAQS. More specifically, 

section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for the infrastructure SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. The 

contents of an infrastructure SIP 

submission may vary depending upon 

the data and analytical tools available to 

the state, as well as the provisions 

already contained in the state’s 

implementation plan at the time in 

which the state develops and submits 

the submission for a new or revised 

NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes four distinct components, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that 

must be addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

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

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1) and from interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

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

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (prong 3) or 

from interfering with measures to 

protect visibility in another state (prong 

4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs 

to include provisions insuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act, relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

Through this action, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove the prong 4 portions of 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 

2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. All other 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for these SIP submissions 

have been or will be addressed in 

separate rulemakings. A brief 

background regarding the NAAQS 

relevant to today’s proposal is provided 

below. For comprehensive information 

on these NAAQS, please refer to the 

Federal Register notices cited in the 

following subsections. 

a. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 

8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per 

million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 

2008). States were required to submit 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS