21290 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

We prepared an economic evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Various Restricted Category Helicopters: 

Docket No. FAA–2015–3820; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–SW–024–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Model TH–1F, UH–1B, 

UH–1F, UH–1H, and UH–1P helicopters with 

a main rotor (M/R) blade, part number 204– 

011–250–005 or 204–011–250–113, installed. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

crack in an M/R blade, which could result in 

failure of the M/R blade and subsequent loss 

of helicopter control. 

(c) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by June 10, 

2016. 

(d) Compliance 

You are responsible for performing each 

action required by this AD within the 

specified compliance time unless it has 

already been accomplished prior to that time. 

(e) Required Actions 

(1) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 

2 weeks, whichever occurs first, and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours 

TIS or 2 weeks, whichever occurs first, clean 

the upper and lower exposed surfaces of each 

M/R blade from an area starting at the butt 

end of the blade to three inches outboard of 

the doublers. Using a 3X or higher power 

magnifying glass and a light, inspect as 

follows: 

(i) Visually inspect the exposed area of the 

lower grip pad and upper and lower grip 

plates of each M/R blade for a crack and any 

corrosion. 

(ii) On the upper and lower exposed 

surfaces of each M/R blade from blade 

stations 24.5 to 35 for the entire chord width, 

visually inspect each layered doubler and 

blade skin for a crack and any corrosion. Pay 

particular attention for any cracking in a 

doubler or skin near or at the same blade 

station as the blade retention bolt hole (blade 

station 28). 

(iii) Visually inspect the exposed areas of 

each bond line at the edges of the lower grip 

pad, upper and lower grip plates, and each 

layered doubler (bond lines) on the upper 

and lower surfaces of each M/R blade for the 

entire length and chord width for an edge 

void, any corrosion, loose or damaged 

adhesive squeeze-out, and an edge 

delamination. Pay particular attention to any 

crack in the paint finish that follows the 

outline of a grip pad, grip plate, or doubler, 

and to any loose or damaged adhesive 

squeeze-out, as these may be the indication 

of an edge void. 

(2) If there is a crack, any corrosion, an 

edge void, loose or damaged adhesive 

squeeze-out, or an edge delamination during 

any inspection in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, 

before further flight, do the following: 

(i) If there is a crack in a grip pad or any 

grip plate or doubler, replace the M/R blade 

with an airworthy 

M/R blade. 

(ii) If there is a crack in the M/R blade skin 

that is within maximum repair damage 

limits, repair the M/R blade. If the crack 

exceeds maximum repair damage limits, 

replace the M/R blade with an airworthy M/ 

R blade. 

(iii) If there is any corrosion within 

maximum repair damage limits, repair the 

M/R blade. If the corrosion exceeds 

maximum repair damage limits, replace the 

M/R blade with an airworthy M/R blade. 

(iv) If there is an edge void in the grip pad 

or in a grip plate or doubler, determine the 

length and depth using a feeler gauge. Repair 

the M/R blade if the edge void is within 

maximum repair damage limits, or replace 

the M/R blade with an airworthy M/R blade. 

(v) If there is an edge void in a grip plate 

or doubler near the outboard tip, tap inspect 

the affected area to determine the size and 

shape of the void. Repair the M/R blade if the 

edge void is within maximum repair damage 

limits, or replace the M/R blade with an 

airworthy M/R blade. 

(vi) If there is any loose or damaged 

adhesive squeeze-out along any of the bond 

lines, trim or scrape away the adhesive 

without damaging the adjacent surfaces or 

parent material of the M/R blade. Determine 

if there is an edge void or any corrosion by 

lightly sanding the trimmed area smooth 

using 280 or finer grit paper. If there is no 

edge void or corrosion, refinish the sanded 

area. 

(vii) If there is an edge delamination along 

any of the bond lines or a crack in the paint 

finish, determine if there is an edge void or 

a crack in the grip pad, grip plate, doubler, 

or skin by removing paint from the affected 

area by lightly sanding in a span-wise 

direction using 180–220 grit paper. If there 

are no edge voids and no cracks, refinish the 

sanded area. 

(viii) If any parent material is removed 

during any sanding or trimming in 

paragraphs (e)(2)(vi) or (e)(2)(vii) of this AD, 

repair the M/R blade if the damage is within 

maximum repair damage limits, or replace 

the M/R blade with an airworthy M/R blade. 

(f) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits are prohibited. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOC) 

(1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification 

Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Send your proposal to: Charles Harrison, 

Project Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft 

Certification Office, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., 

Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone 817– 

222–5140; email 9-ASW-FTW-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(h) Additional Information 

Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 

(ASB) No. UH–1H–13–09, dated January 14, 

2013, and Bell Helicopter Textron ASB No. 

204–75–1 and ASB 205–75–5, both Revision 

C and both dated April 25, 1979, which are 

not incorporated by reference, contain 

additional information about the subject of 

this AD. For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, 

Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; 

telephone (817) 280–3391; fax (817) 280– 

6466; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/

files/. You may review a copy of information 

at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., 

Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177. 

(i) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6210, Main Rotor Blades. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 29, 

2016. 

James A. Grigg, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07985 Filed 4–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0985; FRL–9944–84– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for 

the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to disapprove 

the portion of a Texas State 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21291 

1 80 FR 75706, 75711. 

2NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998). 

3Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 

(May 12, 2005). 

4When we discuss the eastern United States we 

mean the contiguous U.S. states excluding the 11 

western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, 

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 

5Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

pertaining to interstate transport of air 

pollution which will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. Disapproval 

will establish a 2-year deadline for the 

EPA to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Texas to 

address the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

interstate transport requirements 

pertaining to significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states, unless the EPA approves 

a SIP that meets these requirements. 

Disapproval does not start a mandatory 

sanctions clock for Texas. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0985, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

young.carl@epa.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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 Carl Young, 214–665–6645, 

young.carl@epa.gov. 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/commentingepa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, 214–665–6645, young.carl@

epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill 

Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised 

the levels of the primary and secondary 

8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436). The CAA requires states to 

submit, within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, SIPs meeting the applicable 

‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2). One of these 

applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to 

contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to 

prohibit certain adverse air quality 

effects on neighboring states due to 

interstate transport of pollution. There 

are four sub-elements within CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action 

reviews how the first two sub-elements 

of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed 

in an infrastructure SIP submission from 

Texas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

These sub-elements require that each 

SIP for a new or revised standard 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

any emissions activity within the state 

from emitting air pollutants that will 

‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the applicable air 

quality standard in any other state. 

Ozone is not emitted directly into the 

air, but is created by chemical reactions 

between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 

the presence of sunlight. Emissions from 

electric utilities and industrial facilities, 

motor vehicles, gasoline vapors, and 

chemical solvents are some of the major 

sources of NOX and VOCs. Because 

ground-level ozone formation increases 

with temperature and sunlight, ozone 

levels are generally higher during the 

summer. Increased temperature also 

increases emissions of VOCs and can 

indirectly increase NOX emissions.1

The EPA has addressed the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to ozone 

in several past regulatory actions. The 

NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 1998, 

addressed the good neighbor provision 

for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.2 The 

rule required 22 states and the District 

of Columbia to amend their SIPs and 

limit NOX emissions that contribute to 

ozone nonattainment. The Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated in 

2005, addressed both the 1997 PM2.5

and ozone standards under the good 

neighbor provision and required SIP 

revisions in 28 states and the District of 

Columbia to limit NOX and SO2

emissions that contribute to 

nonattainment of those standards.3

CAIR was remanded to the EPA by the 

D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified 

on reh’g, 550 F.3d 1176. In response to 

the remand of CAIR, the EPA 

promulgated the Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, 

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

in the eastern 4 portion of the United 

States.5 With respect to ozone, CSAPR 

limited ozone season nitrogen oxide 

(NOX) emissions from electric 

generating units (EGUs). CSAPR 

addressed interstate transport as to the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 

annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, but did not address the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard. 

II. Texas SIP Revision Addressing 

Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

On December 13, 2012, Texas 

submitted a SIP revision addressing 

certain CAA infrastructure requirements 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This action 

concerns the portion of the December 

13, 2012, SIP submittal pertaining to the 

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

requirement to address the interstate 

transport of air pollution which will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. In a separate action, we 

disapproved the portion of the SIP 

submittal pertaining to the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to address 

the interstate transport of air pollution 

which will interfere with other states’ 

programs for visibility protection (81 FR 

296, January 5, 2016). We proposed to 

approve the other portions of the 

infrastructure SIP submittal on February 

8, 2016 (81 FR 6483). 

In the portion of its SIP submittal 

addressing interstate transport, Texas 

provided an analysis of monitoring data, 

wind patterns, emissions data and 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21292 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

6These states are Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, 

and New Mexico. 

7 531 F.3d at 910–11 (holding that the EPA must 

give ‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong of 

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

emissions controls. Texas notes that, at 

the time of the SIP submittal, it had not 

yet implemented control measures in its 

two areas designated nonattainment for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS because the 

nonattainment SIP was not due until 

2015. Texas cited numerous control 

measures that were implemented to 

address prior ozone NAAQS. Texas also 

includes 1990–2010 design value data 

for the areas designated nonattainment 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Texas and 

in nearby nonattainment areas and notes 

that design values have generally 

decreased since 2000. Texas focuses on 

wind patterns and the distance between 

in-state ozone nonattainment areas 

(Dallas-Fort Worth and the HoustonGalveston-Brazoria) and the closest 

designated nonattainment areas (Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana, and Memphis, 

Tennessee) in other states, and 

monitored data in between these areas. 

Texas concluded that it is difficult to 

determine how much ozone at the outof-state nonattainment areas is due to 

transport of ozone and how much is due 

to other sources of ozone precursors. 

Texas’s analysis includes 2010 8-hour 

ozone design values from monitors in 

states located in the EPA Region 6.6

Texas summarized NOX emission trends 

for Texas EGUs from 1995–2011 and 

discusses how federal rulemakings, 

such as CAIR and the CSAPR affected 

EGU emissions. Lastly, Texas described 

additional non-EGU control measures 

and SIPs that reduce NOX and VOC 

emissions within the state. 

Texas concluded in its analysis that 

(based on monitoring data) due to (1) 

decreases in ozone design values, and 

(2) existing control measures, emissions 

from sources within the state do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. A copy of the Texas 

SIP submittal may be accessed online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. 

EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0985. 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation 

As we noted above, the Texas SIP 

submittal included an analysis of 

monitoring data, wind patterns, 

emissions data and emissions controls. 

The information provided in the Texas 

analysis is helpful in assessing past air 

quality and we agree that ozone 

concentrations have decreased since 

2000. However, we disagree with 

Texas’s conclusion concerning interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Texas limits its discussion of data 

only to areas designated nonattainment 

in states that are geographically closest 

to Texas (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 

Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin). 

This approach is incomplete for two 

reasons. First, transported emissions 

may cause an area to measure 

exceedances of the standard even if that 

area is not formally designated 

nonattainment by the EPA. However, 

Texas only evaluated its potential 

impact on the nearest designated 

nonattainment areas in other states 

without considering potential 

exceedances in other areas not 

designated nonattainment. Thus, Texas 

did not fully evaluate whether 

emissions from the state significantly 

contribute to nonattainment in other 

states. 

Second, in remanding CAIR to the 

EPA in the North Carolina decision, the 

D.C. Circuit explained that the 

regulating authority must give the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ clause of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ‘‘independent 

significance’’ by evaluating the impact 

of upwind state emissions on 

downwind areas that, while currently in 

attainment, are at risk of future 

nonattainment, considering historic 

variability.7 Texas does not give the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ clause of 

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

significance because its analysis did not 

attempt to evaluate the potential impact 

of Texas emissions on areas that are 

currently measuring clean data, but that 

may have issues maintaining that air 

quality. 

Furthermore, in addition to being 

incomplete, the EPA has recently shared 

new technical information with states to 

facilitate efforts to address interstate 

transport requirements for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS which contradicts the 

conclusions of the Texas analysis. The 

EPA developed this technical 

information following the same 

approach used to evaluate interstate 

transport in CSAPR in order to support 

the recently proposed Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 

3, 2015) (‘‘CSAPR Update Rule’’). In 

CSAPR, we used detailed air quality 

analyses to determine whether an 

eastern state’s contribution to 

downwind air quality problems was at 

or above specific thresholds. If a state’s 

contribution did not exceed the 

specified air quality screening 

threshold, the state was not considered 

‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors and was therefore not 

considered to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the standard in those 

downwind areas. If a state exceeded that 

threshold, the state’s emissions were 

further evaluated, taking into account 

both air quality and cost considerations, 

to determine what, if any, emissions 

reductions might be necessary. For the 

reasons stated below, we believe it is 

appropriate to use the same approach 

we used in CSAPR to establish an air 

quality screening threshold for the 

evaluation of interstate transport 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

standard. 

In CSAPR, we proposed an air quality 

screening threshold of one percent of 

the applicable NAAQS and requested 

comment on whether one percent was 

appropriate. The EPA evaluated the 

comments received and ultimately 

determined that one percent was an 

appropriately low threshold because 

there were important, even if relatively 

small, contributions to identified 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors from multiple upwind states. 

In response to commenters who 

advocated a higher or lower threshold 

than one percent, we compiled the 

contribution modeling results for 

CSAPR to analyze the impact of 

different possible thresholds for the 

eastern United States. The EPA’s 

analysis showed that the one percent 

threshold captures a high percentage of 

the total pollution transport affecting 

downwind states, while the use of 

higher thresholds would exclude 

increasingly larger percentages of total 

transport. For example, at a five percent 

threshold, the majority of interstate 

pollution transport affecting downwind 

receptors would be excluded. In 

addition, the EPA determined that it 

was important to use a relatively lower 

one percent threshold because there are 

adverse health impacts associated with 

ambient ozone even at low levels. The 

EPA also determined that a lower 

threshold such as 0.5 percent would 

result in relatively modest increases in 

the overall percentages of fine 

particulate matter and ozone pollution 

transport captured relative to the 

amounts captured at the one-percent 

level. The EPA determined that a ‘‘0.5 

percent threshold could lead to 

emission reduction responsibilities in 

additional states that individually have 

a very small impact on those receptors— 

an indicator that emission controls in 

those states are likely to have a smaller 

air quality impact at the downwind 

receptor. We are not convinced that 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21293 

8EME Homer City v. EPA, [795 F.3d 118 (D.C. 

Circuit 2015)] (July 28, 2015). 

9 80 FR 75706, 75727–28. 

10Tables V.D–2 and V.D–3, 80 FR 75706, 75728– 

30. 

11See document EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500– 

0007 in http://www.regulations.gov. 

selecting a threshold below one percent 

is necessary or desirable.’’ 

In the final CSAPR, we determined 

that one percent was a reasonable 

choice considering the combined 

downwind impact of multiple upwind 

states in the eastern United States, the 

health effects of low levels of fine 

particulate matter and ozone pollution, 

and the EPA’s previous use of a one 

percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA 

used a single ‘‘bright line’’ air quality 

threshold equal to one percent of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 

ppm. The projected contribution from 

each state was averaged over multiple 

days with projected high modeled 

ozone, and then compared to the one 

percent threshold. We concluded that 

this approach for setting and applying 

the air quality threshold for ozone was 

appropriate because it provided a robust 

metric, was consistent with the 

approach for fine particulate matter 

used in CSAPR, and because it took into 

account, and would be applicable to, 

any future ozone standards below 0.08 

ppm. The EPA has subsequently 

proposed to use the same threshold for 

purposes of evaluating interstate 

transport with respect to the 2008 ozone 

standard in the CSAPR Update Rule. 

In 2015 we (1) provided notice of data 

availability (NODA) for the EPA’s 

updated ozone transport modeling for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS for public 

review and comment (80 FR 46271, 

August 4, 2015), and (2) proposed the 

CSAPR Update Rule to address 

interstate transport with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 75706, 

December 3, 2015). The CSAPR Update 

Rule would further restrict ozone season 

NOX emissions from EGUs in 23 states, 

including Texas, beginning in the 2017 

ozone season. Our proposal also 

addresses a 2015 D.C. Circuit court 

decision that largely upheld CSAPR, but 

that, among other things, remanded 

without vacatur the NOX ozone-season 

emission budgets for EGUs in Texas and 

10 other states that were established in 

CSAPR to address the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS.8

The modeling data released in this 

NODA was also used to support the 

proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The 

moderate area attainment date for the 

2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In 

order to demonstrate attainment by this 

attainment deadline, states will use 

2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. 

Therefore, the EPA proposed that 2017 

is an appropriate future year to model 

for the purpose of examining interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA used photochemical air quality 

modeling to project ozone 

concentrations at air quality monitoring 

sites to 2017 and estimated state-bystate ozone contributions to those 2017 

concentrations. This modeling used the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 

model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 

future base case emissions scenarios to 

identify projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA 

used nationwide state-level ozone 

source apportionment modeling (CAMx 

Ozone Source Apportionment 

Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 

Culpability Analysis technique) to 

quantify the contribution of 2017 base 

case NOX and VOC emissions from all 

sources in each state to the 2017 

projected receptors. The air quality 

model runs were performed for a 

modeling domain that covers the 48 

contiguous United States and adjacent 

portions of Canada and Mexico. The 

NODA and the supporting technical 

support documents have been included 

in the docket for this SIP action. 

The modeling data released in the 

NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule are 

the most up-to-date information the EPA 

has developed to inform our analysis of 

upwind state linkages to downwind air 

quality problems. As discussed in the 

CSAPR Update Rule proposal, the air 

quality modeling (1) identified locations 

in the U.S. where the EPA expects 

nonattainment or maintenance problems 

in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors), and (2) quantified the 

projected contributions of emissions 

from upwind states to downwind ozone 

concentrations at those receptors in 

2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720–30, December 

3, 2015). Consistent with CSAPR, the 

EPA proposed to use a threshold of 1 

percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 

parts per billion) to identify linkages 

between upwind states and downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors. The EPA proposed that 

eastern states with contributions to a 

specific receptor that meet or exceed 

this screening threshold are considered 

‘‘linked’’ to that receptor, and were 

analyzed further to quantify available 

emissions reductions necessary to 

address interstate transport to these 

receptors. 

Table 1 is a summary of the air quality 

modeling results for Texas from Table 

V.D–1 of the proposed CSAPR Update 

Rule.9 As the state’s downwind 

contribution to proposed nonattainment 

and maintenance receptors exceeded the 

threshold, the analysis for the proposal 

concluded that Texas emissions 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. Texas emissions were 

linked to eastern nonattainment 

receptors in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and 

to maintenance receptors in Maryland, 

Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio 

and Pennsylvania (Tables V.D–2 and 

V.D–3, 80 FR 75706, 75728–30).10

TABLE 1—TEXAS’ LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS

[Proposed CSAPR update rule] 

2008 Ozone NAAQS Air quality 

threshold 

Largest 

downwind 

contribution to 

nonattainment 

Largest 

downwind 

contribution to 

maintenance 

Downwind 

nonattainment 

receptors located 

in states 

Downwind maintenance receptors 

located in states 

0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion or ppb) ........... 0.75 ppb ... 2.44 ppb ......... 2.95 ppb ......... Wisconsin ................. Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New 

York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

Additionally, Texas emissions were 

also linked to two projected 

nonattainment receptors in the Denver, 

Colorado area, with Texas’s largest 

downwind contribution to those 

nonattainment receptors being 1.58 

parts per billion (ppb).11 Texas has not 

provided a demonstration that its SIP is 

adequate to address interstate transport 

to the Denver, Colorado receptors. The 

EPA believes contribution from an 

individual state equal to or above 1 

percent of the NAAQS could be 

considered significant where the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21294 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

12 76 FR 48238 (Aug. 8, 2011); 80 FR 75714 (Dec. 

3, 2015). 

13As to Texas in particular, the court remanded 

without vacatur the state’s phase 2 SO2 annual 

emissions budget and the phase 2 ozone-season 

NOX emissions budget for reconsideration. The 

court concluded that these budgets resulted in overcontrol of sources in Texas with respect to the air 

quality concerns to which Texas was linked in our 

air quality modeling. As stated above, our CSAPR 

update proposal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

responds to the court remand of the NOX ozoneseason emission budgets for EGUs in Texas that 

were established for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

14 81 FR 13275 (March 14, 2016) 

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.12 In this case, 

Texas has more than a 2% contribution 

to receptors in Denver, which we 

consider significant. 

As discussed previously, our 

modeling and analysis released in our 

NODA and proposed CSAPR Update 

Rule is the most up-to-date information 

for assessing interstate transport of air 

pollution for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Analysis of wind patterns, emissions 

data, and ambient monitoring data as 

provided in the Texas SIP submittal 

does not quantify the magnitude of 

impact from Texas emissions to 

downwind states. For example, wind 

patterns can only give an indication of 

the possibility of transport; emissions 

data and ambient monitoring data can 

indicate the potential for air quality 

problems. The Texas analysis only 

discusses general ozone season wind 

patterns as being from the south to the 

east and the limited potential for 

transport to Memphis and Baton Rouge. 

However, the general wind patterns are 

generally consistent with transport to 

the impacted receptors in Wisconsin 

and Colorado, and there are observed 

winds from the west and northwest that 

could, on some days, transport 

pollutants towards other areas, such as 

Baton Rouge. Downward trends in (1) 

emissions and (2) observed ozone 

concentrations can indicate progress 

towards reducing impact, but do not 

provide information on the magnitude 

of the remaining impact or the potential 

benefit from additional emission 

reductions. Air quality modeling, 

however, brings together emissions data, 

atmospheric chemistry and 

meteorological information that 

simulate the transport and fate of 

pollutants and estimate concentrations 

of pollutants (including ozone) across 

the modeling domain. Air quality 

modeling can also provide estimates of 

upwind impacts by estimating the 

contribution of a state’s emissions to 

downwind pollutant concentrations. 

Our modeling and analysis provided the 

magnitude of impact and show that 

Texas emissions significantly contribute 

to ozone concentrations in areas of 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. 

Texas provided a great deal of 

information documenting significant 

emission reductions that have been 

made throughout the state and 

particularly in the eastern half of the 

state between 1990 and 2010. These 

include reductions from controls on 

EGUs in East Texas and controls on a 

variety of NOX sources in the 1-hour 

ozone and 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas of Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, 

Beaumont-Port Arthur and Dallas-Fort 

Worth. These controls have resulted in 

significant reductions in ozone levels in 

Texas and undoubtedly have reduced 

the amount of transported pollution to 

other states. However, these reductions 

were largely put in place to address the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS, and as a result, 

their compliance dates, and therefore 

the emission reductions achieved 

through these measures, predate and 

were therefore accounted for in the 

EPA’s modeling baseline of 2011 for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the 

most recent technical analysis available 

to the EPA contradicts Texas’s 

conclusion that the state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to address 

interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone 

standard. Furthermore, Texas did not 

demonstrate how these rules and data 

for a less stringent standard provide 

sufficient controls on emissions to 

address interstate transport for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Despite the substantial 

reductions in Texas, we have 

subsequently published information and 

proposed an update to CSAPR that 

addresses the 2008 ozone NAAQS that 

includes Texas’s cited rules and 

demonstrates Texas still has an 

interstate impact on other states. 

Among the emissions reductions cited 

by Texas in its SIP, Texas cites its 

participation in CAIR as a control 

measure that results in control of NOX

emissions within the state. Texas notes 

that under CAIR, Texas EGUs were not 

included in the ozone season NOX

emissions trading program, but were 

subject to the annual NOX emissions 

trading program. The CAIR ozone 

season NOX emissions trading program 

was intended to address interstate 

transport of air pollution for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. The CAIR annual NOX

emissions trading program, along with 

the annual sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading 

program, was intended to address 

interstate transport of air pollution for 

the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS. 

Texas also noted that: (1) A 2008 

court decision (the North Carolina 

decision) directed the EPA replace 

CAIR, but kept it in place temporarily; 

(2) the EPA replaced CAIR with CSAPR; 

(3) CSAPR included Texas EGU budgets 

for ozone-season NOX emissions, annual 

NOX emissions and annual SO2 NOX

emissions to address interstate transport 

of air pollution for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; 

and (4) in August 2012, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued a decision 

vacating CSAPR and requiring 

continued implementation of CAIR until 

the EPA develops a replacement. 

Therefore, Texas concluded that CAIR 

remains a federally enforceable 

requirement. 

Subsequent to Texas’s submission of 

its SIP, On April 29, 2014, the U.S. 

Supreme Court reversed that D.C. 

Circuit decision vacating CSAPR and 

remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for 

further proceedings. On October 23, 

2014, the D.C. Circuit granted our 

motion to lift the judicial stay on 

CSAPR and delay compliance deadlines 

by three years. Consistent with the 

Court’s order we issued an interim final 

rule amending CSAPR so that 

compliance could begin in an orderly 

manner on January 1, 2015 (79 FR 

71663, December 3, 2014), replacing 

CAIR. On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit 

issued its decision on the issues raised 

on remand from the Supreme Court. The 

court denied all of petitioners’ facial 

challenges to CSAPR, but remanded 

several emissions budgets to the EPA for 

reconsideration.13 A final rule making 

the revised CSAPR implementation 

schedule permanent was issued on 

March 14, 2016.14

Accordingly, CAIR implementation 

ended in 2014 and CSAPR 

implementation began in 2015. States 

and the EPA are no longer 

implementing the CAIR trading 

programs. Thus, it is no longer 

appropriate for states to rely on CAIR to 

satisfy emission reduction obligations. 

Moreover, as indicated above, Texas’s 

SIP addresses interstate transport 

obligations for a different and more 

stringent standard (the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS) and it is not sufficient to 

merely cite evidence of compliance with 

older programs such as CAIR or 

measures implemented for prior ozone 

NAAQS as a means for satisfying 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 21295 

15Texas and others interested parties have 

provided comments on both the NODA and 

proposed CSAPR Update Rule. See Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500 at http://

www.regulations.gov. We will consider these 

comments in final rulemaking to CSAPR Update 

Rule. Even absent this data, Texas’s SIP failed to 

adequately address the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

interstate transport obligations for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the Texas SIP for CAA section 

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

explained above, the Texas analysis 

does not adequately demonstrate that 

the SIP contains provisions prohibiting 

emissions that will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Moreover, the EPA’s most 

recent modeling indicates that 

emissions from Texas are projected to 

significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in other states.15

IV. Proposed Action 

We propose to disapprove the portion 

of a December 13, 2012 Texas SIP 

submittal pertaining to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the interstate transport 

of air pollution which will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in other states. The EPA 

requests comment on our evaluation of 

Texas’s interstate transport SIP. 

Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), 

disapproval will establish a 2-year 

deadline for the EPA to promulgate a 

FIP for Texas to address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS unless Texas submits 

and we approve a SIP that meets these 

requirements. Disapproval does not start 

a mandatory sanctions clock for Texas 

pursuant to CAA section 179 because 

this action does not pertain to a part D 

plan for nonattainment areas required 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP 

call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the PRA because it does not contain any 

information collection activities. 

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 merely 

proposes to disapprove a SIP 

submission as not meeting the CAA. 

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. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

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: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action does not apply 

on any Indian reservation land, any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of 

Indian country. 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 merely proposes to 

disapprove a SIP submission as not 

meeting the CAA. 

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 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action merely 

proposes to disapprove a SIP 

submission as not meeting the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 4, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08275 Filed 4–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2016–0040; FRL9944–67– 

OLEM] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Tentative Denial of Petition To 

Revise the RCRA Corrosivity 

Hazardous Characteristic 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification of tentative denial 

of petition for rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

responding to a rulemaking petition 

(‘‘the petition’’) requesting revision of 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) corrosivity 

hazardous waste characteristic 

regulation. The petition requests that 

the Agency make two changes to the 

current corrosivity characteristic 

regulation: revise the regulatory value 

for defining waste as corrosive from the 

current value of pH 12.5, to pH 11.5; 

and expand the scope of the RCRA 

corrosivity definition to include 

nonaqueous wastes in addition to the 

aqueous wastes currently regulated. 

After careful consideration, the Agency 

is tentatively denying the petition, since 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS