Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57519 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action for 

the state of South Carolina does not 

have Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian 

Nation Reservation is located within the 

State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the 

Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, 

South Carolina statute 27–16–120, ‘‘all 

state and local environmental laws and 

regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian 

Nation] and Reservation and are fully 

enforceable by all relevant state and 

local agencies and authorities.’’ 

However, EPA has determined that 

because this proposed rule does not 

have substantial direct effects on an 

Indian Tribe because, as noted 

previously, this action is not approving 

any specific rule, but rather proposing 

that South Carolina’s already approved 

SIP meets certain CAA requirements. 

EPA notes this action will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 9, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20141 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0486; EPA–R01– 

OAR–2008–0223; EPA–R01–OAR–2008– 

0447; EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0358; A–1– 

FRL–9950–96–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Maine, 

New Hampshire, Rhode Island and 

Vermont; Interstate Transport of Air 

Pollution 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(ME DEP), the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

(NH DES), the Rhode Island Department 

of Environmental Management (RI DEM) 

and the Vermont Department of 

Environmental Conservation (VT DEC). 

These SIP revisions address provisions 

of the Clean Air Act that require each 

state to submit a SIP to address 

emissions that may adversely affect 

another state’s air quality through 

interstate transport. The EPA is 

proposing that all four States have 

adequate provisions to prohibit in-state 

emissions activities from significantly 

contributing to, or interfering with the 

maintenance of, the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. The intended 

effect of this action is to propose 

approval of the SIP revisions submitted 

by Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont. This action is 

being taken under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 22, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by EPA–R01–OAR–2008– 

0486 for comments pertaining to our 

proposed action for Maine, EPA–R01– 

OAR–2008–0223 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

New Hampshire, EPA–R01–OAR–2008– 

0447 for comments pertaining to our 

proposed action for Rhode Island, or 

EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0358 for 

comments pertaining to our proposed 

action for Vermont, at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Arnold.Anne@EPA.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post 

Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts. 

This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57520 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1We note that while the SIP revisions submitted 

by Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island 

address only the transport elements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

Vermont’s submittal addresses all of the 

infrastructure elements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Today’s action, however, 

only addresses the transport elements of Vermont’s 

submittal. 

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

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

12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

3 76 FR 48208. 

4CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and 

the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS. 

5Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015). 

6CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 

2, 2010). 

excluding Federal holidays. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch 

(Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 

100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109– 

3912; (617) 918–1664; 

Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Rulemaking Information 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Rulemaking Information 

EPA is proposing to approve SIP 

submissions from the ME DEP, the NH 

DES, the RI DEM and the VT DEC. The 

SIP revisions were submitted on the 

following dates: October 26, 2015 (ME); 

November 17, 2015 (NH); June 23, 2015 

(RI) and November 2, 2015 (VT). These 

SIP submissions address the 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS.1

On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised 

the levels of the primary and secondary 

8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436). The CAA requires states to 

submit, within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, SIPs meeting the applicable 

‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 

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

applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 

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

contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to 

prohibit certain adverse air quality 

effects on neighboring states due to 

interstate transport of pollution. There 

are four sub-elements, or ‘‘prongs,’’ 

within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This 

action addresses the first two subelements of the good neighbor 

provisions, at CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often referred to as 

‘‘prong one’’ and ‘‘prong two.’’ These 

sub-elements require that each SIP for a 

new or revised standard contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute 

significantly to nonattainment’’ (prong 

1) or ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ 

(prong 2) of the applicable air quality 

standard in any other state. We note that 

the EPA has addressed the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the eastern portion 

of the United States in several past 

regulatory actions.2 We most recently 

promulgated the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which 

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

in the eastern portion of the United 

States.3 CSAPR addressed multiple 

national ambient air quality standards, 

but did not address the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard.4 On December 3, 2015, 

the EPA proposed an update to CSAPR 

to address the 2008 ozone standard, 

referred to as the CSAPR Update.5

Each of the four states’ SIP 

submissions cited modeling recently 

conducted by EPA to support the 

proposed CSAPR Update, asserting that, 

based on that modeling, emissions from 

the states did not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. 

In the original CSAPR rulemaking, the 

EPA used detailed air quality analyses 

to determine whether an eastern state’s 

contribution to downwind air quality 

problems was at or above specific 

thresholds. If a state’s contribution did 

not exceed the specified air quality 

screening threshold, the state was not 

considered ‘‘linked’’ to identified 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors and was 

therefore not considered to significantly 

contribute to, or interfere with 

maintenance of, the standard in those 

downwind areas. If a state exceeded that 

threshold, the state’s emissions were 

further evaluated, taking into account 

both air quality and cost considerations, 

to determine what, if any, emissions 

reductions might be necessary. For the 

reasons stated below, we believe it is 

appropriate to use the same approach 

we used in CSAPR to establish an air 

quality screening threshold for the 

evaluation of interstate transport 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

standard. 

In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air 

quality screening threshold of one 

percent of the applicable NAAQS and 

requested comment on whether one 

percent was appropriate.6 The EPA 

evaluated the comments received and 

ultimately determined that one percent 

was an appropriately low threshold 

because there were important, even if 

relatively small, contributions to 

identified nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors from multiple 

upwind states. In response to 

commenters who advocated a higher or 

lower threshold than one percent, the 

EPA compiled the contribution 

modeling results for CSAPR to analyze 

the impact of different possible 

thresholds for the eastern United States. 

The EPA’s analysis showed that the onepercent 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57521 

7See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document, Appendix F, 

Analysis of Contribution Thresholds, Docket ID # 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491. 

8CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236–37 (August 8, 

2011) 

9 Id. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of 

Availability of the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data 

for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS)). 

13The proposed CSAPR Update also proposes to 

use one percent as the screening threshold to 

identify upwind states that are ‘‘linked’’ to 

downwind air pollution problems. See 80 FR 

75714. 

14Note that the EPA has not done an assessment 

to determine the applicability for the use of the one 

percent screening threshold for all western states 

that contribute above the one percent threshold to 

identified air quality problems. There may be 

additional considerations that may impact 

regulatory decisions regarding ‘‘potential’’ linkages 

in the west identified by the modeling. 

excluded.7 In addition, the EPA 

determined that it was important to use 

the one-percent threshold because there 

are adverse health impacts associated 

with ambient ozone even at low levels.8

The EPA also determined that a lower 

threshold such as 0.5 percent would 

result in relatively modest increases in 

the overall percentages of fine 

particulate matter and ozone pollution 

transport captured relative to the 

amounts captured at the one-percent 

level. The EPA determined that a ‘‘0.5 

percent threshold could lead to 

emission reduction responsibilities in 

additional states that individually have 

a very small impact on those receptors— 

an indicator that emission controls in 

those states are likely to have a smaller 

air quality impact at the downwind 

receptor. We are not convinced that 

selecting a threshold below one percent 

is necessary or desirable.’’ 9

In the final CSAPR, the EPA 

determined that one percent was a 

reasonable choice considering the 

combined downwind impact of multiple 

upwind states in the eastern United 

States, the health effects of low levels of 

fine particulate matter and ozone 

pollution, and the EPA’s previous use of 

a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The 

EPA used a single ‘‘bright line’’ air 

quality threshold equal to one percent of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 

ppm.10 The projected contribution from 

each state was averaged over multiple 

days with projected high modeled 

ozone, and then compared to the onepercent threshold. We concluded that 

this approach for setting and applying 

the air quality threshold for ozone was 

appropriate because it provided a robust 

metric, was consistent with the 

approach for fine particulate matter 

used in CSAPR, and because it took into 

account, and would be applicable to, 

any future ozone standards below 0.08 

ppm.11

On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 

containing air quality modeling data 

that applies the CSAPR approach to 

contribution projections for the year 

2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.12 This is the same modeling 

used to support the proposed CSAPR 

Update. The moderate area attainment 

date for the 2008 ozone standard is July 

11, 2018. In order to demonstrate 

attainment by this attainment deadline, 

states will use 2015 through 2017 

ambient ozone data. Therefore, 2017 is 

an appropriate future year to model for 

the purpose of examining interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA used photochemical air quality 

modeling to project ozone 

concentrations at air quality monitoring 

sites to 2017 and estimated state-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 

documents have been included in the 

docket for this SIP action. 

The modeling data released in the 

NODA and the proposed CSAPR Update 

are the most up-to-date information the 

EPA has developed to inform our 

analysis of upwind state linkages to 

downwind air quality problems. The 

EPA is proposing that states with 

contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors less than one percent of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).13

For purposes of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, each of the four states at issue 

in this action have contributions below 

this significance threshold. The NODA 

modeling indicates that Maine’s ozone 

contribution to any projected downwind 

nonattainment site is 0.00 ppb (parts per 

billion) and Maine’s largest contribution 

to any projected downwind 

maintenance-only site is 0.08 ppb. The 

NODA modeling indicates that New 

Hampshire’s largest ozone contribution 

to any projected downwind 

nonattainment site is 0.02 ppb and New 

Hampshire’s largest ozone contribution 

to any projected downwind 

maintenance-only site is 0.07 ppb. The 

NODA modeling indicates that Rhode 

Island’s largest ozone contribution to 

any projected downwind nonattainment 

site is 0.02 ppb and Rhode Island’s 

largest contribution to any projected 

downwind maintenance-only site is 

0.08 ppb. The NODA modeling 

indicates that Vermont’s largest ozone 

contribution to any projected downwind 

nonattainment site is 0.01 ppb and 

Vermont’s largest contribution to any 

projected downwind maintenance-only 

site is 0.05 ppb. These ozone 

contribution values (for Maine, New 

Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) 

are all well below the one percent 

screening threshold of 0.75 ppb and, 

therefore, there are no identified 

linkages between these four states and 

2017 downwind projected 

nonattainment and maintenance sites.14

As noted earlier, Maine’s October 25, 

2015, New Hampshire’s November 17, 

2015, Rhode Island’s June 23, 2015, and 

Vermont’s November 2, 2015 SIP 

submittals all cite the CSAPR Update 

modeling discussed above and all 

conclude that each state neither 

significantly contributes to 

nonattainment, nor interferes with 

maintenance, in downwind states with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA 

agrees with these conclusions and is, 

therefore, proposing to approve these 

SIP revisions. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP 

revisions submitted by the states on the 

following dates as meeting the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS: October 26, 2015 (Maine); 

November 7, 2015 (New Hampshire); 

June 23, 2015 (Rhode Island); and 

November 2, 2015 (Vermont). EPA has 

reviewed these SIP revisions and has 

found that they satisfy the relevant CAA 

requirements discussed above. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document, and 

will consider those comments before 

taking final action. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57522 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action merely approves state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 1, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20022 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0624; FRL–9951–27– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; FL: Hillsborough 

Area; SO2 Attainment Demonstration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision, submitted by the State of 

Florida through the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FL DEP), 

to EPA on April 3, 2015, for the purpose 

of providing for attainment of the 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the 

Hillsborough County SO2 nonattainment 

area (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Hillsborough Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The 

Hillsborough Area is comprised of a 

portion of Hillsborough County in 

Florida surrounding the Mosaic 

Fertilizer, LLC Riverview plant 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Mosaic’’). The 

attainment plan includes the base year 

emissions inventory, an analysis of the 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) and reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) requirements, a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

a modeling demonstration of SO2

attainment, and contingency measures 

for the Hillsborough Area. As a part of 

approving the attainment 

demonstration, EPA is also proposing to 

approve into the Florida SIP the SO2

emissions limits and associated 

compliance parameters. This action is 

being taken in accordance with Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s 

guidance related to SO2 attainment 

planning. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 22, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0624 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: D. 

Brad Akers, 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. Akers 

can be reached via electronic mail at 

akers.brad@epa.gov or via telephone at 

(404) 562–9089. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What is included in Florida’s attainment 

plan for the Hillsborough Area? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s 

attainment plan for the Hillsborough 

Area? 

A. Pollutants Addressed 

B. Emissions Inventory Requirements 

C. Air Quality Modeling 

D. RACM/RACT 

E. RFP Plan 

F. Contingency Measures 

G. Attainment Date 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

SIP revision for the Hillsborough Area, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS