Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39957 

1PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 

or less in diameter, often referred to as ‘‘fine’’ 

particles. 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3633. 

■ 2. Amend § 3015.7 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 3015.7 Standard for compliance. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) Annually, on a fiscal year basis, 

the appropriate share of institutional 

costs to be recovered from competitive 

products collectively, at a minimum, 

will be calculated using the following 

formula: 

ASt∂1 = ASt * (1 + %DCCMt¥1 + 

CGDt¥1) 

Where, 

AS = Appropriate Share, expressed as a 

percentage and rounded to one decimal 

place 

CCM = Competitive Contribution Margin 

CGD = Competitive Growth Differential 

t = Fiscal Year 

If t = 0 = FY 2007, AS = 5.5 percent 

(2) The Commission shall, as part of 

each Annual Compliance 

Determination, calculate and report 

competitive products’ appropriate share 

for the upcoming fiscal year using the 

formula set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17221 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2018–0138; FRL–9981–85– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Maine; 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from Maine that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the 2012 fine particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 

conditionally approve one sub-element 

of Maine’s infrastructure SIP. The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities with respect to this 

NAAQS under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 12, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2018–0138 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

conroy.dave@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 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. Publicly available docket 

materials are available at https://

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

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, Air Programs Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 

100 (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 

02109—3912, tel. (617) 918–1684; 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

A. What Maine SIP submission does this 

rulemaking address? 

B. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

this SIP submission? 

III. EPA’s Review 

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

and Other Control Measures 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and for 

Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

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

Monitoring System 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

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

Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D 

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

Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Visibility Protection 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

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

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

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

A. What Maine SIP submission does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses a July 6, 

2016 submission from the Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(Maine DEP) regarding the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of the CAA for the 

2012 fine particle (PM2.51) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). The primary, health-based 

annual standard is set at 12.0 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) and 

the 24-hour standard is set at 35 mg/m3. 

See 78 FR 3086. Under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are 

required to provide infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that state SIPs 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. On March 1, 2018, Maine DEP 

submitted a letter providing clarifying 

information for several of its 

infrastructure SIP submittals. In a July 

17, 2018 email, Maine DEP asked EPA 

to apply this letter to the infrastructure 

SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, as well. The information in the 

letter and email (both included in the 

docket for this rulemaking) is mainly 

applicable to Elements E, F, G, and K. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39958 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2This memorandum and other referenced 

guidance documents and memoranda are included 

in the docket for this action. 

3See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

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

67034 (November 12, 2008). 

4Maine DEP consists of the Board of 

Environmental Protection (‘‘Board’’) and a 

Commissioner. 38 MRSA § 341–A(2). In general, the 

Board is authorized to promulgate ‘‘major 

substantive rules’’ and the Commissioner has 

rulemaking authority with respect to rules that are 

‘‘not designated as major substantive rules.’’ Id. 

§ 341–H. 

B. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting on a SIP submission 

from Maine DEP that addresses the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

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

Pursuant to these sections, each state 

must submit a SIP that provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each primary or 

secondary NAAQS. States must make 

such SIP submission ‘‘within 3 years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator 

may prescribe) after the promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS.’’ This 

requirement is triggered by the 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS and is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any other action. Section 

110(a)(2) includes the specific elements 

that ‘‘each such plan’’ must address. 

EPA commonly refers to such SIP 

submissions made for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources (‘‘SSM’’ 

emissions) that may be contrary to the 

CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions; (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

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

purport to permit revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’); and, (iii) existing 

provisions for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) programs that may 

be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New 

Source Review (NSR) Improvement 

Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 

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

has the authority to address each one of 

these substantive areas separately. A 

detailed history, interpretation, and 

rationale for EPA’s approach to 

infrastructure SIP requirements can be 

found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

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

scope of this rulemaking?’’ See 79 FR 

27241 at 27242–45. 

II. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate this SIP submission? 

EPA highlighted the statutory 

requirement to submit infrastructure 

SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of 

a new NAAQS in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

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

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

guidance). EPA has issued additional 

guidance documents and memoranda, 

including a September 13, 2013, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

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

memorandum).2

With respect to the ‘‘Good Neighbor’’ 

or interstate transport requirements for 

infrastructure SIPs, the most recent 

relevant EPA guidance is a 

memorandum published on March 17, 

2016, entitled ‘‘Information on the 

Interstate Transport ‘‘Good Neighbor’’ 

Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards under Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ (2016 memorandum). 

The 2016 memorandum describes EPA’s 

past approach to addressing interstate 

transport, and provides EPA’s general 

review of relevant modeling data and air 

quality projections as they relate to the 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 

memorandum provides information 

relevant to EPA Regional office review 

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

‘‘Good Neighbor’’ provision 

requirements in infrastructure SIPs with 

respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. This rulemaking considers 

information provided in that 

memorandum. 

III. EPA’s review 

EPA is soliciting comment on our 

evaluation of Maine’s infrastructure SIP 

submission in this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. In Maine’s submission, a 

detailed list of Maine Laws and 

previously SIP-approved Air Quality 

Regulations show precisely how the 

various components of its EPAapproved SIP meet each of the 

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

CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

following review evaluates the state’s 

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

requirements and relevant EPA 

guidance. 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section (also referred to in this 

action as an element) of the Act requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limits and other control measures, 

means or techniques, schedules for 

compliance, and other related matters. 

However, EPA has long interpreted 

emission limits and control measures 

for attaining the standards as being due 

when nonattainment planning 

requirements are due.3 In the context of 

an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not 

evaluating the existing SIP provisions 

for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only 

evaluating whether the state’s SIP has 

basic structural provisions for the 

implementation of the NAAQS. 

Maine’s infrastructure submittal for 

this element cites Maine laws and 

regulations that include enforceable 

emission limitations and other control 

measures, means or techniques, as well 

as schedules and timetables for 

compliance to meet the applicable 

requirements of the CAA. Maine DEP 

statutory authority with respect to air 

quality is set out in Title 38 of the Maine 

Revised Statutes Annotated (‘‘MRSA’’), 

Chapter 4, ‘‘Protection and 

Improvement of Air.’’ Maine DEP’s 

general authority to promulgate 

regulations is codified at 38 MRSA 

Chapter 2, Subchapter 1, ‘‘Organization 

and Powers,’’ 4 and the authority to 

establish emission standards and 

regulations implementing ambient air 

quality standards is contained in 38 

MRSA Chapter 4, sections 585 and 585– 

A. 

The Maine submittal cites two dozen 

specific rules that the state has adopted 

to control the emissions of criteria 

pollutants and precursors, including 

PM2.5. A few of these rules, with their 

EPA-approval citation, are listed here: 

06–096 Code of Maine Regulations 

(‘‘CMR’’) Chapter 102, ‘‘Open Burning’’ 

(73 FR 9459, February 21, 2008); 

Chapter 103, ‘‘Fuel Burning Equipment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39959 

5See EPA approval letter located in the docket for 

this action. 

Particulate Emission Standard’’ (50 FR 

7770, February 26, 1985); Chapter 104, 

‘‘Incinerator Particulate Emission 

Standard’’ (37 FR 10842, May 31, 1972); 

and Chapter 150, ‘‘Control of Emissions 

from Outdoor Wood Boilers’’ (April 24, 

2012). The Maine regulations listed 

above were previously approved into 

the Maine SIP by EPA. See 40 CFR 

52.1020. 

EPA proposes that Maine meets the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As previously 

noted, EPA is not proposing to approve 

or disapprove any existing state 

provisions or rules related to SSM or 

director’s discretion in the context of 

section 110(a)(2)(A). 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to provide 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to monitor, 

compile, and analyze ambient air 

quality data, and make such data 

available to EPA upon request. Each 

year, states submit annual air 

monitoring network plans to EPA for 

review and approval. EPA’s review of 

these annual monitoring plans includes 

our evaluation of whether the state: (i) 

Monitors air quality at appropriate 

locations throughout the state using 

EPA-approved Federal Reference 

Methods or Federal Equivalent Method 

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

Quality System (AQS) in a timely 

manner; and (iii) provides EPA Regional 

Offices with prior notification of any 

planned changes to monitoring sites or 

the network plan. 

Pursuant to authority granted to it by 

38 MRSA §§ 341–A(1) and 584–A, 

Maine DEP operates an air quality 

monitoring network, and EPA approved 

the state’s most recent Annual Air 

Monitoring Network Plan for PM2.5 on 

August 23, 2017.5 Furthermore, Maine 

DEP populates AQS with air quality 

monitoring data in a timely manner, and 

provides EPA with prior notification 

when considering a change to its 

monitoring network or plan. EPA 

proposes that Maine DEP meets the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

States are required to include a 

program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures and the regulation of 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources to meet NSR 

requirements under PSD and 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA 

(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD, 

while part D of the CAA (sections 171– 

193) addresses NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

following: (i) Enforcement of SIP 

measures; (ii) PSD program for major 

sources and major modifications; and 

(iii) a permit program for minor sources 

and minor modifications. 

Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

Maine DEP identifies the sources of 

its authority to enforce the measures it 

cites to satisfy Element A (Emission 

limits and other control measures) as 38 

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

MRSA Section 347–C, ‘‘Right of 

inspection and entry,’’ 38 MRSA 

Section 348, ‘‘Judicial Enforcement,’’ 38 

MRSA Section 349, ‘‘Penalties,’’ and 

06–096 CMR Chapter 115, ‘‘Major and 

Minor Source Air Emission License 

Regulations,’’ which include processes 

for both civil and criminal enforcement 

actions. Construction of new or 

modified stationary sources in Maine is 

regulated by 06–096 CMR Chapter 115, 

‘‘Major and Minor Source Air Emission 

License Regulations,’’ which requires 

best available control technology 

(BACT) controls for PSD sources, 

including for PM2.5. EPA proposes that 

Maine has met the enforcement 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for Major 

Sources and Major Modifications. 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) applies to new major sources or 

modifications made to major sources for 

pollutants where the area in which the 

source is located is in attainment of, or 

unclassifiable with regard to, the 

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

096 CMR Chapter 115, ‘‘Major and 

Minor Source Air Emission License 

Regulations,’’ contain provisions that 

address applicable requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). 

EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 29, 2005 

(70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone. See 70 FR 71679. 

This requirement is codified in 40 CFR 

51.166, and requires that states submit 

SIP revisions incorporating the 

requirements of the rule, including 

provisions that would treat NOX as a 

precursor to ozone provisions. These 

SIP revisions were to have been 

submitted to EPA by states by June 15, 

2007. See 70 FR 71683. 

Maine has adopted, and EPA has 

approved, rules addressing the changes 

to 40 CFR 51.166 required by the Phase 

2 Rule, including amending its SIP to 

include NOX and VOC as precursor 

pollutants to ozone, in order to define 

what constitutes a ‘‘significant’’ increase 

in actual emissions from a source of air 

contaminants. See 81 FR 50353 (August 

1, 2016). Therefore, EPA proposes to 

approve Maine’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to the requirements of the 

Phase 2 Rule and the PSD sub-element 

of section 110(a)(2)(C). 

On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA 

issued the Final Rule on the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 

NSR Rule finalized several new 

requirements for SIPs to address sources 

that emit direct PM2.5 and other 

pollutants that contribute to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for NSR permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 rule, 

EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for 

the PSD program to be SO2 and NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule 

also specifies that VOCs are not 

considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in 

the PSD program unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

emissions of VOCs in an area are 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39960 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

6EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 

(DC Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 

2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s 

requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, 

part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements 

for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 (Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250). 

As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to 

nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements 

for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR rule in 

order to comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, EPA’s approval of Maine’s 

infrastructure SIP as to Elements C, D(i)(II), or J 

with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated 

by the 2008 implementation rule does not conflict 

with the court’s opinion. 

The Court’s decision with respect to the 

nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by 

the 2008 implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present infrastructure action. 

EPA interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment 

area requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR program, 

from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years 

after adoption or revisitation of a NAAQS. Instead, 

these elements are typically referred to as 

nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, 

which would be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D, 

extending as far as 10 years following designations 

for some elements. 

significant contributors to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying 

pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, 

the 2008 NSR Rule also required states 

to revise the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

as it relates to a net emissions increase 

or the potential of a source to emit 

pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct 

PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The deadline for states 

to submit SIP revisions to their PSD 

programs incorporating these changes 

was May 16, 2011. See 73 FR 28321 at 

28341.6

On August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50353), 

EPA approved revisions to Maine’s PSD 

program that identify SO2 and NOX as 

precursors to PM2.5 and revise the state’s 

regulatory definition of ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean 10 tons per year (tpy) or 

more of direct PM2.5 emissions, 40 tpy 

or more of SO2 emissions, or 40 tpy or 

more of NOX emissions. 

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5

and PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. See 73 FR 28321 

at 28334. This requirement is codified 

in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 

CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). 

Maine’s SIP-approved PSD program 

defines PM2.5 and PM10 emissions in 

such a manner that gaseous emissions 

which would condense under ambient 

conditions are treated in an equivalent 

manner as required by EPA’s definition 

of ‘‘regulated air pollutant’’ in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(a). EPA approved these 

definitions into the SIP on August 1, 

2016 (81 FR 50353). Consequently, we 

propose that the state’s PSD program 

adequately accounts for the condensable 

fraction of PM2.5 and PM10. 

Therefore, we propose to approve 

Maine’s infrastructure SIP submittal for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to 

the requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule 

and the PSD sub-element of section 

110(a)(2)(C). 

On October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64864), 

EPA issued the final rule on the 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 

2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule 

established several components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for PM2.5, including a system of 

‘‘increments,’’ which is the mechanism 

used to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant. These increments are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c). On June 24, 2014 (79 FR 

35695), EPA approved PM2.5 increments 

in 06–096 CMR Chapter 110 of Maine’s 

regulations. 

The 2010 NSR Rule also established a 

new ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for 

PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new 

trigger date for PM2.5 of October 20, 

2011 in the definition of ‘‘minor source 

baseline date.’’ These revisions are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) 

and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c). 

Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule revised the 

definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ to include 

a level of significance (SIL) of 0.3 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

annual average, for PM2.5. This change is 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). On August 1, 

2016 (81 FR 50353), EPA approved 

revisions to the Maine SIP that address 

EPA’s 2010 NSR rule. Therefore, with 

respect to the 2010 NSR Rule and the 

PSD sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(C), 

we are proposing to approve Maine’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With respect to Elements C and J, EPA 

interprets the Clean Air Act to require 

each state to make an infrastructure SIP 

submission for a new or revised NAAQS 

that demonstrates that the air agency 

has a complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of Element D(i)(II) may 

also be satisfied by demonstrating the 

air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program correctly addressing 

all regulated NSR pollutants. Maine has 

shown that it currently has a PSD 

program in place that covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

GHGs. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Court also said that EPA could continue 

to require that PSD permits, otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) 

issued an amended judgment vacating 

the regulations that implemented Step 2 

of the EPA’s PSD and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not 

the regulations that implement Step 1 of 

that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule 

covers sources that are required to 

obtain a PSD permit based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 

applied to sources that emitted only 

GHGs above the thresholds triggering 

the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. 

The amended judgment preserves, 

without the need for additional 

rulemaking by EPA, the application of 

the Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) requirement to GHG emissions 

from Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’ sources. With 

respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. 

Circuit’s amended judgment vacated the 

regulations at issue in the litigation, 

including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39961 

the extent they require a stationary 

source to obtain a PSD permit if 

greenhouse gases are the only pollutant 

(i) that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the applicable 

major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emission 

increase from a modification.’’ 

On August 19, 2015, EPA amended its 

PSD and title V regulations to remove 

from the Code of Federal Regulations 

portions of those regulations that the 

D.C. Circuit specifically identified as 

vacated. EPA intends to further revise 

the PSD and title V regulations to fully 

implement the Supreme Court and D.C. 

Circuit rulings in a separate rulemaking. 

This future rulemaking will include 

revisions to additional definitions in the 

PSD regulations. 

Some states have begun to revise their 

existing SIP-approved PSD programs in 

light of these court decisions, and some 

states may prefer not to initiate this 

process until they have more 

information about the additional 

planned revisions to EPA’s PSD 

regulations. EPA is not expecting states 

to have revised their PSD programs in 

anticipation of EPA’s additional actions 

to revise its PSD program rules in 

response to the court decisions for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Instead, EPA is only 

evaluating such submissions to assure 

that the state’s program addresses GHGs 

consistent with both the court decision, 

and the revisions to PSD regulations 

that EPA has completed at this time. 

On October 5, 2012 (77 FR 49404), 

EPA approved revisions to the Maine 

SIP that modified Maine’s PSD program 

to establish appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to Maine’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions. Therefore, EPA has 

determined that Maine’s SIP is 

sufficient to satisfy Elements C, D(i)(II), 

and J with respect to GHGs. The 

Supreme Court decision and subsequent 

D.C. Circuit judgment do not prevent 

EPA’s approval of Maine’s infrastructure 

SIP as to the requirements of Element C, 

as well as sub-elements D(i)(II), and 

J(iii). 

For the purposes of this rulemaking 

on Maine’s infrastructure SIP, EPA 

reiterates that NSR Reform is not in the 

scope of these actions. 

In summary, we are proposing to 

approve Maine’s submittal for this subelement with respect to the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction 

Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor 

Modifications 

To address the pre-construction 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of minor stationary sources 

and minor modifications of major 

stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP 

submission should identify the existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or 

include new provisions that govern the 

minor source pre-construction program 

that regulate emissions of the relevant 

NAAQS pollutants. EPA last approved 

revisions to Maine’s minor NSR 

program on August 1, 2016 (81 FR 

50353). Maine and EPA rely on the 

existing minor NSR program in 06–096 

CMR Chapter 115 to ensure that new 

and modified sources not captured by 

the major NSR permitting programs do 

not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

We are proposing to find that Maine 

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

permit program as required under 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport. 

This section contains a 

comprehensive set of air quality 

management elements pertaining to the 

transport of air pollution with which 

states must comply. It covers the 

following five topics, categorized as subelements: Sub-element 1, Significant 

contribution to nonattainment, and 

interference with maintenance of a 

NAAQS; Sub-element 2, PSD; Subelement 3, Visibility protection; Subelement 4, Interstate pollution 

abatement; and Sub-element 5, 

International pollution abatement. Subelements 1 through 3 above are found 

under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, 

and these items are further categorized 

into the four prongs discussed below, 

two of which are found within subelement 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are 

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

the Act and include provisions insuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

Sub-Element 1: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to 

Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere 

With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 

2) 

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

requires a SIP to prohibit any emissions 

activity in the state that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any downwind state. EPA 

commonly refers to these requirements 

as prong 1 (significant contribution to 

nonattainment) and prong 2 

(interference with maintenance), or 

jointly as the ‘‘Good Neighbor’’ or 

‘‘transport’’ provisions of the CAA. This 

rulemaking proposes action on the 

portions of Maine’s July 6, 2016, SIP 

submission that address the prong 1 and 

2 requirements with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA has developed a consistent 

framework for addressing the prong 1 

and 2 interstate-transport requirements 

with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

several previous federal rulemakings. 

The four basic steps of that framework 

include: (1) Identifying downwind 

receptors that are expected to have 

problems attaining or maintaining the 

NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind 

states contribute to these identified 

problems in amounts sufficient to 

warrant further review and analysis; (3) 

for states identified as contributing to 

downwind air quality problems, 

identifying upwind emissions 

reductions necessary to prevent an 

upwind state from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states 

that are found to have emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, 

reducing the identified upwind 

emissions through adoption of 

permanent and enforceable measures. 

This framework was most recently 

applied with respect to PM2.5 in the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

which addressed both the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 

1997 ozone standard. See 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011). 

EPA’s analysis for CSAPR, conducted 

consistent with the four-step framework, 

included air-quality modeling that 

evaluated the impacts of 38 eastern 

states on identified receptors in the 

eastern United States. EPA indicated 

that, for step 2 of the framework, states 

with impacts on downwind receptors 

that are below the contribution 

threshold of 1% of the relevant NAAQS 

would not be considered to significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the relevant 

NAAQS, and would, therefore, not be 

included in CSAPR. See 76 FR 48220. 

EPA further indicated that such states 

could rely on EPA’s analysis for CSAPR 

as technical support in order to 

demonstrate that their existing or future 

interstate transport SIP submittals are 

adequate to address the transport 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39962 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

7See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: https://

www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/20151001ria.pdf. 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

regard to the relevant NAAQS. Id. 

In addition, as noted above, on March 

17, 2016, EPA released the 2016 

memorandum to provide information to 

states as they develop SIPs addressing 

the Good Neighbor provision as it 

pertains to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Consistent with step 1 of the framework, 

the 2016 memorandum provides 

projected future-year annual PM2.5

design values for monitors throughout 

the country based on quality-assured 

and certified ambient-monitoring data 

and recent air-quality modeling and 

explains the methodology used to 

develop these projected design values. 

The memorandum also describes how 

the projected values can be used to help 

determine which monitors should be 

further evaluated to potentially address 

if emissions from other states 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

at these monitoring sites. The 2016 

memorandum explained that the 

pertinent year for evaluating air quality 

for purposes of addressing interstate 

transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 

2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas 

classified as Moderate. Accordingly, 

because the available data included 

2017 and 2025 projected average and 

maximum PM2.5 design values 

calculated through the CAMx 

photochemical model, the 

memorandum suggests approaches 

states might use to interpolate PM2.5

values at sites in 2021. 

For all but one monitor site in the 

eastern United States, the modeling data 

provided in the 2016 memorandum 

showed that monitors were expected to 

both attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. The 

modeling results project that this one 

monitor, the Liberty monitor, (ID 

number 420030064), located in 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, will 

be above the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

in 2017, but only under the model’s 

maximum projected conditions, which 

are used in EPA’s interstate transport 

framework to identify maintenance 

receptors. The Liberty monitor (along 

with all the other Allegheny County 

monitors) is projected to both attain and 

maintain the NAAQS in 2025. The 2016 

memorandum suggests that under such 

a condition (again, where EPA’s 

photochemical modeling indicates an 

area will maintain the 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025, but not in 2017), 

further analysis of the site should be 

performed to determine if the site may 

be a nonattainment or maintenance 

receptor in 2021 (which, again, is the 

attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5

areas). The memorandum also indicates 

that for certain states with incomplete 

ambient monitoring data, additional 

information including the latest 

available data, should be analyzed to 

determine whether there are potential 

downwind air quality problems that 

may be impacted by transported 

emissions. This rulemaking considers 

these analyses for Maine, as well as 

additional analysis conducted by EPA 

during review of Maine’s submittal. 

To develop the projected values 

presented in the memorandum, EPA 

used the results of nationwide 

photochemical air-quality modeling that 

it recently performed to support several 

rulemakings related to the ozone 

NAAQS. Base-year modeling was 

performed for 2011. Future-year 

modeling was performed for 2017 to 

support the proposed CSAPR Update for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 

75705 (December 3, 2015). Future-year 

modeling was also performed for 2025 

to support the Regulatory Impact 

Assessment of the final 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS.7 The outputs from these model 

runs included hourly concentrations of 

PM2.5 that were used in conjunction 

with measured data to project annual 

average PM2.5 design values for 2017 

and 2025. Areas that were designated as 

moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas for 

the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014 

must attain the NAAQS by December 

31, 2021, or as expeditiously as 

practicable. Although neither the 

available 2017 nor 2025 future-year 

modeling data corresponds directly to 

the future-year attainment deadline for 

moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas, 

EPA believes that the modeling 

information is still helpful for 

identifying potential nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in the 2017–2021 

period. Assessing downwind PM2.5 airquality problems based on estimates of 

air-quality concentrations in a future 

year aligned with the relevant 

attainment deadline is consistent with 

the instructions from the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit in North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911–12 (DC Cir. 

2008) that upwind emission reductions 

should be harmonized, to the extent 

possible, with the attainment deadlines 

for downwind areas. 

Maine’s Submission for Prongs 1 and 2 

On July 6, 2016, Maine DEP submitted 

an infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS that addressed 

prongs 1 and 2 for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. The state’s submission relied 

in part on EPA’s analysis performed for 

the CSAPR rulemaking to conclude that 

the state will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in any downwind area. 

EPA analyzed the state’s July 2016 

submittal to determine whether it fully 

addresses the prong 1 and 2 transport 

provisions with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed below, EPA 

concludes that emissions of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors (NOX and SO2) in 

Maine will not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in any other state. 

Analysis of Maine’s Submission for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

As noted above, the modeling 

discussed in EPA’s 2016 memorandum 

identified one potential maintenance 

receptor for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at 

the Liberty monitor (ID number 

420030064), located in Allegheny 

County. The memorandum also 

identified certain states with incomplete 

ambient monitoring data as areas that 

may require further analysis to 

determine whether there are potential 

downwind air quality problems that 

may be impacted by transported 

emissions. 

While developing the 2011 CSAPR 

rulemaking, EPA modeled the impacts 

of all 38 eastern states in its modeling 

domain on PM2.5 concentrations at 

downwind receptors in other states in 

the 2012 analysis year in order to 

evaluate the contribution of upwind 

states on downwind states with respect 

to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5. Although 

the modeling was not conducted for 

purposes of analyzing upwind states’ 

impacts on downwind receptors with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

contribution analysis for the 1997 and 

2006 standards can be informative for 

evaluating Maine’s compliance with the 

Good Neighbor provision for the 2012 

standard. 

This CSAPR modeling showed that 

Maine had a very small impact (0.003 

mg/m3) on the Liberty monitor in 

Allegheny County, which is the only 

out-of-state monitor that may be a 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor 

in 2021. Although EPA has not 

proposed a specific threshold for 

evaluating the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA 

notes that Maine’s impact on the Liberty 

monitor is far below the threshold of 1% 

for the annual 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 

0.12 mg/m3) that EPA previously used to 

evaluate the contribution of upwind 

states to downwind air-quality 

monitors. (A spreadsheet showing 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39963 

8http://www.achd.net/air/pubs/SIPs/SO2_2010_

NAAQS_SIP_9-14-2017.pdf. 

9Maine’s PM2.5 design values for all ambient 

monitors from 2005–2007 through 2013–2015 are 

available on the Design Value Reports at https://

19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/air-trends/airquality-design-values_.html. 

10 24-hour and annual PM2.5 monitor values for 

individual monitoring sites throughout Maine are 

available at www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/ 

monitor-values-report. 

CSAPR contributions for ozone and 

PM2.5 is included in docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0491–4228.) Therefore, even 

if the Liberty monitor were considered 

a receptor for purposes of transport, the 

EPA proposes to conclude that Maine 

will not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

at that monitor. 

In addition, the Liberty monitor is 

already close to attaining the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, and expected emissions 

reductions in the next four years will 

lead to additional reductions in 

measured PM2.5 concentrations. There 

are both local and regional components 

to measured PM2.5 levels. All monitors 

in Allegheny County have a regional 

component, with the Liberty monitor 

most strongly influenced by local 

sources. This is confirmed by the fact 

that annual average measured 

concentrations at the Liberty monitor 

have consistently been 2–4 mg/m3 higher 

than other monitors in Allegheny 

County. 

Specifically, previous CSAPR 

modeling showed that regional 

emissions from upwind states, 

particularly SO2 and NOX emissions, 

contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the 

Liberty monitor. In recent years, large 

SO2 and NOX reductions from power 

plants have occurred in Pennsylvania 

and states upwind from the Greater 

Pittsburgh region. Pennsylvania’s energy 

sector emissions of SO2 will have 

decreased 166,000 tons between 2015– 

2017 as a result of CSAPR 

implementation. This is due to both the 

installation of emissions controls and 

retirements of electric generating units 

(EGUs). Projected power plant closures 

and additional emissions controls in 

Pennsylvania and upwind states will 

help further reduce both direct PM2.5

and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission 

reductions will continue to occur from 

current on-the-books federal and state 

regulations such as the federal on-road 

and non-road vehicle programs, and 

various rules for major stationary 

emissions sources. See proposed 

approval of the Ohio Infrastructure SIP 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (82 FR 

57689; December 7, 2017). 

In addition to regional emissions 

reductions and plant closures, 

additional local reductions to both 

direct PM2.5 and SO2 emissions are 

expected to occur and should contribute 

to further declines in Allegheny 

County’s PM2.5 monitor concentrations. 

For example, significant SO2 reductions 

have recently occurred at US Steel’s 

integrated steel mill facilities in 

southern Allegheny County as part of a 

1-hr SO2 NAAQS SIP.8 Reductions are 

largely due to declining sulfur content 

in the Clairton Coke Work’s coke oven 

gas (COG). Because this COG is burned 

at US Steel’s Clairton Coke Works, Irvin 

Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel Mill, 

these reductions in sulfur content 

should contribute to much lower PM2.5

precursor emissions in the immediate 

future. The Allegheny SO2 SIP also 

projects lower SO2 emissions resulting 

from vehicle fuel standards, reductions 

in general emissions due to declining 

population in the Greater Pittsburgh 

region, and several shutdowns of 

significant sources of emissions in 

Allegheny County. 

EPA modeling projections, the recent 

downward trend in local and upwind 

emissions reductions, the expected 

continued downward trend in emissions 

between 2017 and 2021, and the 

downward trend in monitored PM2.5

concentrations all indicate that the 

Liberty monitor will attain and be able 

to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by 2021. See proposed approval 

of the Ohio Infrastructure SIP (82 FR 

57689). 

As noted in the 2016 memorandum, 

several states have had recent dataquality issues identified as part of the 

PM2.5 designations process. In 

particular, some ambient PM2.5 data for 

certain time periods between 2009 and 

2013 in Florida, Illinois, Idaho, 

Tennessee, and Kentucky did not meet 

all data-quality requirements under 40 

CFR part 50, appendix L. The lack of 

data means that the relevant areas in 

those states could potentially be in 

nonattainment or be maintenance 

receptors in 2021. However, as 

mentioned above, EPA’s analysis for the 

2011 CSAPR rulemaking with respect to 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS determined that 

Maine’s impact to all these downwind 

receptors would be well below the 1% 

contribution threshold for this NAAQS. 

That conclusion informs the analysis of 

Maine’s contributions for purposes of 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as well. Given 

this, and the fact that the state’s PM2.5

design values for all ambient monitors 

have been well below the 2012 24-hour 

NAAQS (35 mg/m3) and the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS (12.0 mg/m3) since 2005– 

2007,9 EPA concludes that it is highly 

unlikely that Maine significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS in areas with data-quality 

issues. 

Information in Maine’s July 2016 SIP 

submission corroborates EPA’s 

proposed conclusion that Maine’s SIP 

meets its Good Neighbor obligations. 

The state’s technical analysis in that 

submission includes 2012–2014 design 

values for monitors in Maine, actual and 

projected PM2.5 emissions from 2002 

through 2020 for various source 

categories for Maine, and results of EPA 

CSAPR modeling. As mentioned above, 

the state’s PM2.5 design values for all 

ambient monitors have been well below 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS since 2005– 

2007. In addition, the 24-hour and 

annual design values for all monitors in 

the neighboring and nearby states of 

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and 

Vermont also have been below the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS since 2005–2007. 

At specific monitors in Maine, the 

highest 24-hour mean value satisfying 

minimum data completion criteria was 

25 mg/m3 in 2016 at a monitor in 

Rumford in Oxford County. The highest 

annual mean value satisfying minimum 

data completion criteria was 9 mg/m3 in 

2014 at a monitor in Madawaska in 

Aroostook County.10

Second, Maine’s sources are wellcontrolled. Maine’s July 2016 

submission indicates that the state has 

many SIP-approved rules and programs 

that limit emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors and the interstate transport 

of pollution, including 06–096 Code of 

Maine Regulations (CMR) Chapter 102, 

‘‘Open Burning Regulation’’ (73 FR 

9459, February 21, 2008); 06–096 CMR 

Chapter 103, ‘‘Fuel Burning Equipment 

Particulate Emission Standard’’ (50 FR 

7770, February 26, 1985); and Chapter 

145, ‘‘NOX Control Program’’ (70 FR 

11879, March 10, 2005), as well the 

state’s Title V permitting program (38 

MRSA § 353–A; 06–096 CMR Chapter 

140, which was approved by EPA on 

October 18, 2001 (66 FR 52874)). 

It should also be noted that Maine is 

not in the CSAPR program because EPA 

analyses show that the state does not 

emit NOX at a level that contributes 

significantly to non-attainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other 

state. 

For the reasons explained herein, EPA 

agrees with Maine’s conclusions and 

proposes to determine that Maine will 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39964 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

in any other state. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve the July 2016 

infrastructure SIP submission from 

Maine with regard to prongs 1 and 2 of 

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

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3) 

To prevent significant deterioration of 

air quality, this sub-element requires 

SIPs to include provisions that prohibit 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures that are required in any 

other state’s SIP under Part C of the 

CAA. One way for a state to meet this 

requirement, specifically with respect to 

in-state sources and pollutants that are 

subject to PSD permitting, is through a 

comprehensive PSD permitting program 

that applies to all regulated NSR 

pollutants and that satisfies the 

requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules. For in-state 

sources not subject to PSD, this 

requirement can be satisfied through a 

fully-approved nonattainment new 

source review (NNSR) program with 

respect to any previous NAAQS. EPA 

last approved revisions to Maine’s 

NNSR regulations on February 14, 1996 

(61 FR 5690). 

To meet the requirements of Prong 3, 

Maine DEP cites to its PSD permitting 

programs under 06–096 CMR Chapter 

115, ‘‘Major and Minor Source Air 

Emission License Regulations,’’ to 

ensure that new and modified major 

sources of PM2.5, SO2, and NOX

emissions do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfere with maintenance, of those 

standards. As noted above in our 

discussion of Element C, Maine’s PSD 

program fully satisfies the requirements 

of EPA’s PSD implementation rules. 

Consequently, we are proposing to 

approve Maine’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

Prong 3 for the reasons discussed under 

Element C. 

Sub-Element 3: Section 

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

(Prong 4) 

With regard to applicable 

requirements for visibility protection of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are 

subject to visibility and regional-haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). EPA’s 2009, 2011, and 2013 

memoranda recommend that these 

requirements can be satisfied by an 

approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, or an approved SIP addressing 

regional haze. A fully approved regional 

haze SIP meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308 will ensure that emissions 

from sources under an air agency’s 

jurisdiction are not interfering with 

measures required to be included in 

other air agencies’ plans to protect 

visibility. EPA approved Maine’s 

Regional Haze SIP on April 24, 2012 (77 

FR 24385). Accordingly, EPA proposes 

that Maine has met the visibility 

protection requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 4: Section 

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

Abatement 

This sub-element requires each SIP to 

contain provisions requiring compliance 

with requirements of section 126 

relating to interstate pollution 

abatement. Section 126(a) requires new 

or modified sources to notify 

neighboring states of potential impacts 

from the source. The statute does not 

specify the method by which the source 

should provide the notification. States 

with SIP-approved PSD programs must 

have a provision requiring such 

notification by new or modified sources. 

EPA-approved regulations require the 

Maine DEP to provide pre-construction 

notice of new or modified sources to, 

among others, ‘‘any State . . . whose 

lands may be affected by emissions from 

the source or modification.’’ See 06–096 

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

March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15422). Such 

notice ‘‘shall announce availability of 

the application, the Department’s 

preliminary determination in the form 

of a draft order, the degree of increment 

consumption that is expected from the 

source or modification, as well as the 

opportunity for submission of written 

public comment.’’ 06–096 CMR Chapter 

115, § IX(E)(2). These provisions are 

consistent with EPA’s PSD regulations 

and require notice to affected states of 

a determination to issue a draft PSD 

permit. Regarding section 126(b), no 

source or sources within the state are 

the subject of an active finding with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Consequently, EPA proposes to approve 

Maine’s infrastructure SIP submittals for 

this sub-element with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 5: Section 

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

Abatement 

This sub-element requires each SIP to 

contain provisions requiring compliance 

with the applicable requirements of 

CAA § 115 relating to international 

pollution abatement. There are no final 

findings under section 115 against 

Maine with respect to the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes that 

Maine has met the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to section 

115 for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

This section requires each state to 

provide for personnel, funding, and 

legal authority under state law to carry 

out its SIP and related issues. In 

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

requires each state to comply with the 

requirements with respect to state 

boards under section 128. Finally, 

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

where a state relies upon local or 

regional governments or agencies for the 

implementation of its SIP provisions, 

the state retain responsibility for 

ensuring implementation of SIP 

obligations with respect to relevant 

NAAQS. This last sub-element, 

however, is inapplicable to this action, 

because Maine does not rely upon local 

or regional governments or agencies for 

the implementation of its SIP 

provisions. 

Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, 

Funding, and Legal Authority Under 

State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and 

Related Issues 

Maine, through its infrastructure SIP 

submittal, has documented that its air 

agency has authority and resources to 

carry out its SIP obligations. Maine cites 

to 38 MRSA § 341–A, ‘‘Department of 

Environmental Protection,’’ 38 MRSA 

§ 341–D, ‘‘Board responsibilities and 

duties,’’ 38 MRSA § 342, 

‘‘Commissioner, duties’’ and 38 MRSA 

§ 581, ‘‘Declaration of findings and 

intent.’’ These statutes provide the 

Maine DEP with the legal authority to 

enforce air pollution control 

requirements and carry out SIP 

obligations with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, state law 

provides Maine DEP with the authority 

to assess preconstruction permit fees 

and annual operating permit fees from 

air emissions sources and establishes a 

general revenue reserve account within 

the general fund to finance the state 

clean air programs. Maine also receives 

CAA sections 103 and 105 grant funds 

through Performance Partnership Grants 

along with required state-matching 

funds to provide funding necessary to 

carry out SIP requirements. Maine DEP 

states that these funding sources 

provide it with adequate resources to 

carry out the SIP. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Maine has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39965 

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

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

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

SIP to provide requirements that the 

State comply with the state board 

requirements of section 128 of the CAA. 

Section 128(a) contains two explicit 

requirements: (1) That any board or 

body which approves permits or 

enforcement orders under this chapter 

shall have at least a majority of members 

who represent the public interest and do 

not derive any significant portion of 

their income from persons subject to 

permits and enforcement orders under 

this chapter, and (2) that any potential 

conflicts of interest by members of such 

board or body or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed. 

As mentioned earlier, the Maine DEP 

consists of a Commissioner and a Board 

of Environmental Protection (‘‘BEP’’ or 

‘‘Board’’), which is an independent 

authority under state law that reviews 

certain permit applications in the first 

instance and also renders final decisions 

on appeals of permitting actions taken 

by the Commissioner as well as some 

enforcement decisions by the 

Commissioner. Because the Board has 

authority under state law to hear 

appeals of some CAA permits and 

enforcement orders, EPA considers that 

the Board has authority to ‘‘approve’’ 

those permits or enforcement orders, as 

recommended in the 2013 

Memorandum, and that the requirement 

of CAA § 128(a)(1) applies to Maine— 

that is, that ‘‘any board or body which 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under this chapter shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits and 

enforcement orders under this chapter.’’ 

Pursuant to state law, the BEP 

consists of seven members appointed by 

the Governor, subject to confirmation by 

the State Legislature. See 38 MRSA 

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

to provide informed, independent and 

timely decisions on the interpretation, 

administration and enforcement of the 

laws relating to environmental 

protection and to provide for credible, 

fair and responsible public participation 

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

State law further provides that Board 

members ‘‘must be chosen to represent 

the broadest possible interest and 

experience that can be brought to bear 

on the administration and 

implementation of’’ Maine’s 

environmental laws and that ‘‘[a]t least 

3 members must have technical or 

scientific backgrounds in environmental 

issues and no more than 4 members may 

be residents of the same congressional 

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

to find that these provisions fulfill the 

requirement that at least a majority of 

Board members represent the public 

interest, but do not address the 

requirement that at least a majority ‘‘not 

derive any significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to’’ air 

permits and enforcement orders. 

Furthermore, section 341–C is not 

currently in Maine’s SIP. By letter dated 

March 1, 2018 (extended to apply to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in an email dated 

July 17, 2018), DEP committed to revise 

section 341–C to address the CAA 

§ 128(a)(1) requirement that at least a 

majority of Board members ‘‘not derive 

a significant portion of their income 

from persons subject to’’ air permits or 

enforcement orders and to submit, for 

inclusion in the SIP, the necessary 

provisions to EPA within one year of 

EPA final action on its infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, 

and 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

NAAQS. Final action on these SIPs was 

published on June 18, 2018 (83 FR 

28157). Consequently, EPA proposes to 

conditionally approve Maine’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal for this 

requirement of CAA § 128(a)(1) for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

the Act provides that ‘‘any potential 

conflicts of interest by members of such 

board or body or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed.’’ As EPA has 

explained in other infrastructure SIP 

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

is to assure that conflicts of interest are 

disclosed by the ultimate decision 

maker in permit or enforcement order 

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

(July 17, 2015). Although the Board is 

the ultimate decision maker on air 

permitting decisions in Maine, certain 

air enforcement orders of the DEP 

Commissioner are not reviewable by the 

Board, but rather may be appealed 

directly to Maine Superior Court. For 

this reason, EPA interprets the conflict 

of interest requirement of CAA 

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

both Board members and the DEP 

Commissioner. 

In a recent infrastructure SIP action 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS, EPA determined that 

Maine’s conflict of interest statute, 5 

MRSA § 18, and a provision explicitly 

making it applicable to Board members, 

38 MRSA § 341–C(7), together satisfy 

the CAA § 128(a)(2) requirement for 

Maine with respect to Board members, 

and EPA approved both statutes into the 

Maine SIP. 83 FR 28157 (June 18, 2018). 

For more information, see 83 FR 12905, 

12912 (March 26, 2018). EPA proposes 

that Maine’s SIP also satisfies CAA 

§ 128(a)(2) with respect to Board 

members for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

the same reasons discussed in the 

infrastructure SIP action for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

Regarding the DEP Commissioner, 

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

explicitly makes that official subject to 

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

subject. In the above-referenced 

infrastructure SIP action, EPA also 

determined that together 5 MRSA § 18 

(which is in the Maine SIP) and 38 

MRSA § 341–A(3)(D) (which is not 

currently in the SIP) satisfy the conflict 

of interest requirement with respect to 

the DEP Commissioner. See 83 FR 

28157; 83 FR 12905, 12912. For the 

same reasons discussed in the 

infrastructure SIP action for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 

EPA proposes that together the two state 

statutes would also satisfy the conflict 

of interest requirement with respect to 

the DEP Commissioner for the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. While 38 MRSA § 341– 

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

Maine DEP has already committed to 

submitting it to EPA for inclusion 

within one year of EPA’s final action on 

Maine’s infrastructure SIP submissions 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. See 83 FR 28157. 

Consequently, EPA proposes to 

conditionally approve Maine’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

conflict of interest requirement of CAA 

§ 128(a)(2) with respect to the DEP 

Commissioner for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

States must establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and submit periodic emissions 

reports. Each plan shall also require the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources. The state plan shall 

also require periodic reports on the 

nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such 

sources, and correlation of such reports 

by each state agency with any emission 

limitations or standards. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39966 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Maine’s infrastructure submittal 

references several existing state 

regulations previously approved by EPA 

that require sources to monitor 

emissions and submit reports. The first 

reference is to 06–096 CMR Chapter 

115, ‘‘Major and Minor Source Air 

Emission License Regulations.’’ This 

regulation contains compliance 

assurance requirements for licensed 

sources and stipulates that licenses shall 

include the following compliance 

assurance elements: (a) A description of 

all required monitoring and analysis 

procedures or test methods required 

under the requirements applicable to 

the source; (b) A description of all 

recordkeeping requirements; and (c) A 

description of all reporting 

requirements. The second reference is to 

06–096 CMR Chapter 117, ‘‘Source 

Surveillance.’’ This regulation specifies 

which air emission sources are required 

to operate continuous emission 

monitoring systems (CEMS) and details 

the performance specifications, quality 

assurance requirements and procedures 

for such systems, and subsequent record 

keeping and reporting requirements. In 

addition, Maine cites its regulations 

implementing its operating permit 

program pursuant to 40 CFR part 70: 

06–096 CMR Chapter 140, ‘‘Part 70 Air 

Emission License Regulations.’’ These 

regulations, although not in the SIP, 

identify the sources of air emissions that 

require a Part 70 air emission license 

and incorporate the requirements of 

Title IV and Title V of the Clean Air Act, 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., and 

38 MRSA §§ 344 and 590. Chapter 140 

contains compliance assurance 

requirements regarding monitoring and 

reporting for licensed sources requiring 

a Part 70 air emission license. The 

regulation was approved by EPA on 

October 18, 2001 (66 FR 52874). While 

Chapter 140 and the referenced 

provisions of Chapter 115 are not 

formally approved into Maine’s SIP, 

they are legal mechanisms the state can 

use to assure the enforcement of the 

monitoring requirements approved in 

the SIP. 

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

requirements that the SIP provide for 

the correlation and public availability of 

emission reports, Maine’s emission 

statement rule, Chapter 137, requires 

facilities to report emissions of air 

pollutants on an annual basis. The DEP 

uses a web-based electronic reporting 

system, the Maine Air Emissions 

Inventory Reporting System 

(‘‘MAIRIS’’), for this purpose that allows 

it to package and electronically submit 

reported emissions data to EPA under 

the national emission inventory (NEI) 

program. NEI data are available to the 

public. See www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories/national-emissionsinventory-nei. The MAIRIS system is 

structured to electronically correlate 

reported emissions with permit 

conditions and other applicable 

standards, and identify all 

inconsistencies and potential 

compliance concerns. 

Furthermore, pursuant to DEP’s EPAapproved regulations, ‘‘Except as 

expressly made confidential by law; the 

commissioner shall make all documents 

available to the public for inspection 

and copying including the following: 1. 

All applications or other forms and 

documents submitted in support of any 

license application: 2. All 

correspondence, into or out of the 

Department, and any attachments 

thereto . . . .’’ See 06–096 CMR 

Chapter 1, § 6(A). Furthermore, ‘‘The 

Commissioner shall keep confidential 

only those documents which may 

remain confidential pursuant to 1 

MRSA Section 402.’’ Id. § 6(B). In its 

July 6, 2016, submittal, DEP certified 

that, ‘‘[e]xcept as specifically exempted 

by the Maine statute (1 MRSA Chapter 

13 Public Records and Proceedings), 

Maine makes all records, reports or 

information obtained by the MEDEP or 

referred to at public hearings available 

to the public.’’ Maine DEP further 

certified therein that the information 

submitted to Maine DEP is ‘‘available to 

the public at reasonable times for public 

inspection pursuant to Maine law.’’ By 

letter dated March 1, 2018 (extended to 

apply to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in an 

email dated July 17, 2018), Maine 

further certified that Maine’s Freedom 

of Access law does not include any 

exceptions that apply to stationary 

source emissions. For these reasons, we 

propose to find that Maine satisfies the 

requirement that emissions statements 

be available at reasonable times for 

public inspection. 

Finally, in the March 1, 2018, letter 

(extended to apply to the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in an email dated July 17, 

2018), DEP also certified that there are 

no provisions in Maine law that would 

prevent the use of any credible evidence 

of noncompliance, as required by 40 

CFR 51.212. See also 06–096 CMR 

Chapter 140, § 3(E)(7)(a)(v) 

(‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision 

in the State Implementation Plan 

approved by the EPA or Section 114(a) 

of the CAA, any credible evidence may 

be used for the purpose of establishing 

whether a person has violated or is in 

violation of any statute, regulation, or 

Part 70 license requirement.’’). For the 

above reasons, EPA proposes to approve 

Maine’s submittals for this requirement 

of section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for state authority comparable 

to that provided to the EPA 

Administrator in section 303 of the 

CAA, and adequate contingency plans 

to implement such authority. Section 

303 of the CAA provides authority to 

the EPA Administrator to seek a court 

order to restrain any source from 

causing or contributing to emissions 

that present an ‘‘imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment.’’ 

Section 303 further authorizes the 

Administrator to issue ‘‘such orders as 

may be necessary to protect public 

health or welfare or the environment’’ in 

the event that ‘‘it is not practicable to 

assure prompt protection . . . by 

commencement of such civil action.’’ 

We propose to find that a combination 

of state statutes and regulations 

discussed in Maine DEP’s July 6, 2016, 

submittal and a March 1, 2018, letter 

(extended to apply to the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in an email dated July 17, 2018) 

provides for authority comparable to 

that given the Administrator in CAA 

section 303, as explained below. First, 

38 MRSA § 347–A, ‘‘Emergency 

Orders,’’ provides that ‘‘[w]henever it 

appears to the commissioner, after 

investigation, that there is a violation of 

the laws or regulations [DEP] 

administers or of the terms or 

conditions of any of [DEP’s] orders that 

is creating or is likely to create a 

substantial and immediate danger to 

public health or safety or to the 

environment, the commissioner may 

order the person or persons causing or 

contributing to the hazard to 

immediately take such actions as are 

necessary to reduce or alleviate the 

danger.’’ See 38 MRSA § 347–A(3). 

Section 347–A further authorizes the 

DEP Commissioner to initiate an 

enforcement action in state court in the 

event of a violation of such emergency 

order issued by the Commissioner. Id. 

§ 347–A(1)(A)(4). Similarly, 38 MRSA 

§ 348, ‘‘Judicial Enforcement,’’ 

authorizes Maine DEP to institute 

injunction proceedings ‘‘[i]n the event 

of a violation of any provision of the 

laws administered by [DEP] or of any 

order, regulation, license, permit, 

approval, administrative consent 

agreement or decision of the board or 

commissioner.’’ Id. § 348(1). Section 348 

also authorizes Maine DEP to seek a 

court order to a restrain a source if it 

‘‘finds that the discharge, emission or 

deposit of any materials into any waters, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39967 

11 24-hour and annual PM2.5 monitor values for 

individual monitoring sites throughout Maine are 

available at www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/ 

monitor-values-report. 

air or land of th[e] State constitutes a 

substantial and immediate danger to the 

health, safety or general welfare of any 

person, persons or property.’’ Id. 

§ 348(3). Thus, these provisions 

authorize Maine DEP to issue an 

administrative order or to seek a court 

order to restrain any source from 

causing or contributing to emissions 

that present an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment, if 

there is also a violation of a law, 

regulation, order, or permit 

administered or issued by DEP, as the 

case may be. 

Second, in its March 1, 2018, letter, 

Maine DEP also cites to 38 MRSA § 591, 

‘‘Prohibitions,’’ as contributing to its 

authority. Section 591 provides that 

‘‘[n]o person may discharge air 

contaminants into ambient air within a 

region in such manner as to violate 

ambient air quality standards 

established under this chapter or 

emission standards established pursuant 

to section 585, 585–B or 585–K.’’ In 

those cases where emissions of PM2.5, or 

PM2.5 precursors may be causing or 

contributing to an ‘‘imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment,’’ 

a violation of § 591 would also occur, 

since Maine law provides that ambient 

air quality standards are designed to 

prevent ‘‘air pollution,’’ id. § 584, which 

state law expressly defines as ‘‘the 

presence in the outdoor atmosphere of 

one or more air contaminants in 

sufficient quantities and of such 

characteristics and duration as to be 

injurious to human, plant or animal life 

or to property, or which unreasonably 

interfere with the enjoyment of life and 

property,’’ id. § 582(3) (emphasis 

added). In its March 1, 2018, letter, 

Maine further explains that sections 

347–A and 591 ‘‘together authorize the 

Commissioner to issue an emergency 

order upon finding an apparent 

violation of DEP laws or regulations to 

address emissions of criteria pollutants, 

air contaminants governed by standards 

promulgated under section 585, and 

hazardous air pollutants governed by 

standards promulgated under section 

585–B.’’ 

Third, in the unlikely event that air 

emissions are creating a substantial or 

immediate threat to the public health, 

safety or to the environment without 

violating any DEP law, regulation, order, 

or permit, emergency authority to issue 

an order to restrain a source may also 

be exercised pursuant to 37–B MRSA 

§ 742, ‘‘Emergency Proclamation.’’ 

Maine explains that the DEP 

Commissioner can notify the Governor 

of an imminent ‘‘disaster,’’ and the 

Governor can then exercise authority to 

‘‘declare a state of emergency in the 

State or any section of the State.’’ See 

37–B MRSA § 742(1)(A). State law 

defines ‘‘disaster’’ in this context to 

mean ‘‘the occurrence or imminent 

threat of widespread or severe damage, 

injury or loss of life or property 

resulting from any natural or man-made 

cause, including, but not limited to . . . 

air contamination.’’ Id. § 703(2). Upon 

the declaration of a state of emergency, 

the Governor may, among other things, 

‘‘[o]rder the termination, temporary or 

permanent, of any process, operation, 

machine or device which may be 

causing or is understood to be the cause 

of the state of emergency,’’ id. 

§ 742(1)(C)(11), or ‘‘[t]ake whatever 

action is necessary to abate, clean up or 

mitigate whatever danger may exist 

within the affected area,’’ id. 

§ 742(1)(C)(12). Thus, even if there may 

otherwise be no violation of a DEPadministered or -issued law, regulation, 

order, or permit, state authorities exist 

to restrain the source. 

Finally, Maine’s submittal cites 06– 

096 CMR Chapter 109, ‘‘Emergency 

Episode Regulations,’’ which sets forth 

various emission reduction plans 

intended to prevent air pollution from 

reaching levels that would cause 

imminent and substantial harm and 

recognizes the Commissioner’s authority 

to issue additional emergency orders 

pursuant to 38 MRSA § 347–A, as 

necessary to the health of persons, by 

restricting emissions during periods of 

air pollution emergencies. For these 

reasons, we propose to find that certain 

state statutes and regulations provide for 

authority comparable to that provided to 

the Administrator in CAA § 303. 

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

state to submit for EPA approval a 

contingency plan (also known as an 

emergency episode plan) to implement 

the air agency’s emergency episode 

authority for any Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR) within the state that is 

classified as Priority I, IA, or II for 

certain pollutants. See 40 CFR 51.150. 

For classifications for Maine, see 40 CFR 

52.1021. AQCRs classified as Priority III 

do not require contingency plans. See 

40 CFR 51.152(c). In general, 

contingency plans for Priority I, IA, and 

II areas must meet the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H (40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153) 

(‘‘Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes’’) for the relevant 

NAAQS, if the NAAQS is covered by 

those regulations. In the case of PM2.5,

EPA has not promulgated regulations 

that provide the ambient levels to 

classify different priority levels for the 

2012 standard (or any PM2.5 NAAQS). 

For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA’s 2009 

Guidance recommends that states 

develop emergency episode plans for 

any area that has monitored and 

recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater 

than 140 mg/m3 since 2006. EPA’s 

review of Maine’s certified air quality 

data in AQS indicates that the highest 

24-hour PM2.5 level recorded since 2006 

was 83.3 mg/m3, which occurred in 2017 

in the town of Madawaska in Aroostook 

County.11 Therefore, EPA proposes that 

a specific contingency plan from Maine 

for PM2.5 is not necessary. Furthermore, 

although not expected, if PM2.5

conditions in Maine were to change, 

Maine DEP has general authority to 

order a source to reduce or discontinue 

air pollution as required to protect the 

public health or safety or the 

environment, as discussed earlier. In 

addition, as a matter of practice, Maine 

posts on the internet daily forecasted 

PM2.5 levels through the EPA AirNow 

and EPA Enviroflash systems. 

Information regarding these two systems 

is available on EPA’s website at 

www.airnow.gov. When levels are 

forecast to exceed the 24-hour PM2.5

standard in Maine, notices are sent out 

to Enviroflash participants, the media 

are alerted via a press release, and the 

National Weather Service (NWS) is 

alerted to issue an Air Quality Advisory 

through the normal NWS weather alert 

system. These actions are similar to the 

notification and communication 

requirements for contingency plans in 

40 CFR 51.152. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that Maine, 

through the combination of statutes and 

regulations discussed above and 

participation in EPA’s AirNow program, 

meets the applicable infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires that a state’s SIP 

provide for revision from time to time 

as may be necessary to take into account 

changes in the NAAQS or availability of 

improved methods for attaining the 

NAAQS and whenever the EPA finds 

that the SIP is substantially inadequate. 

To address this requirement, Maine’s 

infrastructure submittal references 38 

MRSA § 581, ‘‘Declaration of findings 

and intent,’’ which characterizes the 

state’s laws regarding the Protection and 

Improvement of Air as an exercise of 

‘‘the police power of the State in a 

coordinated state-wide program to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39968 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

control present and future sources of 

emission of air contaminants to the end 

that air polluting activities of every type 

shall be regulated in a manner that 

reasonably insures the continued health, 

safety and general welfare of all of the 

citizens of the State; protects property 

values and protects plant and animal 

life.’’ In addition, we note that Maine 

DEP is required by statute to ‘‘prevent, 

abate and control the pollution of the air 

[, to] preserve, improve and prevent 

diminution of the natural environment 

of the State [, and to] protect and 

enhance the public’s right to use and 

enjoy the State’s natural resources.’’ See 

38 MRSA § 341–A(1). Furthermore, 

Maine DEP is authorized to ‘‘adopt, 

amend or repeal rules and emergency 

rules necessary for the interpretation, 

implementation and enforcement of any 

provision of law that the department is 

charged with administering.’’ Id. § 341– 

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

DEP’s rulemaking authority to propose 

SIP revisions). These general 

authorizing statutes give Maine DEP the 

power to revise the Maine SIP from time 

to time as may be necessary to take 

account of changes in the NAAQS or 

availability of improved methods for 

attaining the NAAQS and whenever the 

EPA finds that the SIP is substantially 

inadequate. 

Consequently, EPA proposes that 

Maine meets the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part 

D 

The CAA requires that each plan or 

plan revision for an area designated as 

a nonattainment area meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment 

areas. EPA has determined that section 

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

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 

takes action on part D attainment plans 

through separate processes. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submission 

from Maine with respect to the 

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

is described below. 

Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

States must provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) in 

carrying out NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

Pursuant to state law, Maine DEP is 

authorized to, among other things, 

‘‘educate the public on natural resource 

use, requirements and issues.’’ See 38 

MRSA § 341–A(1). State law further 

provides that one of the purposes of the 

BEP is ‘‘to provide for credible, fair and 

responsible public participation in 

department decisions,’’ id. § 341–B, and 

authorizes it to ‘‘cooperate with other 

state or federal departments or agencies 

to carry out’’ its responsibilities, id. 

§ 341–F(6). Furthermore, pursuant to 

Maine’s EPA-approved regulations, 

Maine DEP is required to provide notice 

to relevant municipal officials and 

FLMs, among others, of DEP’s 

preparation of a draft permit for a new 

or modified source. See 06–096 CMR 

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

23, 1993 (58 FR 15422)). In addition, 

with respect to area reclassifications to 

Class I, II, or III for PSD purposes, the 

DEP is required to offer an opportunity 

for a public hearing and to consult with 

appropriate FLMs. See 38 MRSA § 583– 

B; 06–096 CMR Chapter 114, § 1(E). 

Maine’s Transportation Conformity rule 

at 06–096 CMR Chapter 139 also 

provides procedures for interagency 

consultation, resolution of conflicts, and 

public consultation and notification. 

Finally, the Maine Administrative 

Procedures Act (Maine Revised Statutes 

Title 5, Chapter 375, subchapter 2) 

requires notification and provision of 

comment opportunities to all parties 

affected by proposed regulations. All 

SIP revisions undergo public notice and 

opportunity for hearing, which allows 

for comment by the public, including 

local governments. 

EPA proposes that Maine has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

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

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area, advise the public 

of health hazards associated with 

exceedances, and enhance public 

awareness of measures that can be taken 

to prevent exceedances and of ways in 

which the public can participate in 

regulatory and other efforts to improve 

air quality. 

As mentioned elsewhere in this 

notice, state law directs Maine DEP to, 

among other things, ‘‘prevent, abate and 

control the pollution of the air . . . 

improve and prevent diminution of the 

natural environment of the State[, and] 

protect and enhance the public’s right to 

use and enjoy the State’s natural 

resources.’’ See 38 MRSA § 341–A(1). 

State law also authorizes Maine DEP to 

‘‘educate the public on natural resource 

use, requirements and issues. Id. § 341– 

A(1). To that end, Maine DEP makes 

real-time and historical air quality 

information available on its website. 

The agency also provides extendedrange air-quality forecasts, which give 

the public advanced notice of air quality 

events. This advance notice allows the 

public to limit their exposure to 

unhealthy air and enact a plan to reduce 

pollution at home and at work. Maine 

DEP forecasts daily ozone and particle 

levels and issues these forecasts to the 

media and to the public via its website, 

telephone hotline, and email. Alerts 

include information about the health 

implications of elevated pollutant levels 

and list actions to reduce emissions and 

to reduce the public’s exposure. In 

addition, Air Quality Data Summaries of 

the year’s air-quality monitoring results 

are issued annually and posted on the 

Maine DEP Bureau of Air Quality 

website. Maine is also an active partner 

in EPA’s AirNow and EnviroFlash air 

quality alert programs. 

EPA proposes that Maine has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

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

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: PSD 

State plans must meet the applicable 

requirements of part C of the CAA 

related to PSD. Maine’s PSD program in 

the context of infrastructure SIPs has 

already been discussed in sections 

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

as we have noted, fully satisfies the 

requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules. Consequently, we 

propose to approve the PSD sub-element 

of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, consistent with the actions we 

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

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

Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA (which 

includes sections 169A and 169B). In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, as 

noted in EPA’s 2013 memorandum, we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. In other words, the 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39969 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

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

requires that a SIP provide for the 

performance of such air quality 

modeling as the EPA Administrator may 

prescribe for the purpose of predicting 

the effect on ambient air quality of any 

emissions of any air pollutant for which 

EPA has established a NAAQS, and the 

submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling. 

EPA has published modeling guidelines 

at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, for 

predicting the effects of emissions of 

criteria pollutants on ambient air 

quality. EPA has interpreted section 

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

or reference the statutory or regulatory 

provisions that provide the air agency 

with the authority to conduct such air 

quality modeling and to provide such 

modeling data to EPA upon request. See 

2013 Memorandum at 55. 

Maine state law implicitly authorizes 

Maine DEP to perform air quality 

modeling and provide such modeling 

data to EPA upon request. See 38 MRSA 

§§ 341–A(1), 581, 591–B. In addition, 

Maine cites 06–096 CMR Chapters 115 

and 140, which provide that any 

modeling required for pre-construction 

permits and operating permits for minor 

and major sources be performed 

consistent with EPA-prescribed 

modeling guidelines at 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W. Chapters 115 and 140 also 

require that applicants submit data 

related to modeling to Maine DEP. See 

Email from Jeff Crawford, Maine DEP, to 

Alison Simcox, EPA (July 17, 2018). In 

its July 6, 2016, submission, Maine DEP 

further states that it performs modeling, 

provides modeling data to EPA upon 

request, and will continue to do both. 

Consequently, the SIP provides for such 

air quality modeling as the 

Administrator has prescribed and for 

the submission, upon request, of data 

related to such modeling. 

EPA proposes that Maine meets the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

This section requires SIPs to mandate 

that each major stationary source pay 

permitting fees sufficient to cover the 

reasonable cost of reviewing, approving, 

implementing, and enforcing a permit. 

Maine implements and operates a 

Title V permit program, see 38 MRSA 

§ 353–A; 06–096 CMR Chapter 140, 

which was approved by EPA on October 

18, 2001 (66 FR 52874). To gain this 

approval, Maine demonstrated the 

ability to collect sufficient fees to run 

the program. See 61 FR 49289, 49291 

(September 19, 1996). Maine state law 

provides for the assessment of 

application fees from air emissions 

sources for permits for the construction 

or modification of air contaminant 

sources and sets permit fees. See 38 

MRSA §§ 353–A (establishing annual air 

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

(providing that such fees ‘‘must be 

assessed to support activities for air 

quality control including licensing, 

compliance, enforcement, monitoring, 

data acquisition and administration’’). 

EPA proposes that Maine meets the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

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

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

To satisfy Element M, states must 

provide for consultation with, and 

participation by, local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

Maine’s infrastructure submittal 

references the Maine Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 MRSA Chapter 375, 

and explains that it requires public 

notice of all SIP revisions prior to their 

adoption, which allows for comment by 

the public, including local political 

subdivisions. In addition, Maine cites 

38 MRSA § 597, ‘‘Municipal air 

pollution control,’’ which provides that 

municipalities are not preempted from 

studying air pollution and adopting and 

enforcing ‘‘air pollution control and 

abatement ordinances’’ that are more 

stringent than those adopted by DEP or 

that ‘‘touch on matters not dealt with’’ 

by state law. Finally, Maine cites 

Chapter 9 of Maine’s initial SIP, which 

was approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 

10842), and contains intergovernmental 

cooperation provisions. 

EPA proposes that Maine meets the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV 

EPA proposes to approve Maine’s July 

6, 2016, infrastructure SIP submission 

certifying that its current SIP is 

sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, with the exception of CAA 

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

Boards and Conflicts of Interest, which 

we propose to conditionally approve, as 

described in more detail above. EPA’s 

proposed actions regarding these 

infrastructure SIP requirements are 

contained in Table 1 below. 

Element 2012 

PM2.5

(A): Emission limits and other control 

measures.

A 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring 

and data system.

A 

(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures A 

(C)2: PSD program for major sources 

and major modifications.

A 

(C)3: PSD program for minor sources 

and minor modifications.

A 

(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/ 

interfere with maintenance of 

NAAQS.

A 

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

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

(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement A 

(D)5: International Pollution Abatement.A 

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

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

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

(F): Stationary source monitoring 

system.

A 

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

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

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan 

revisions under part D.

NG 

(J)1: Consultation with government 

officials.

A 

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

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

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

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

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

(M): Consultation and participation by 

affected local entities.

A 

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

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

CA .......... Conditionally approve. 

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

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

SIPs. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

comments to this proposed rule by 

following the instructions listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. As noted in Table 1, EPA is 

proposing to conditionally approve one 

portion of Maine’s July 2016 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS pertaining to 

Element E(2) regarding State Boards and 

Conflicts of Interest. 

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

EPA may conditionally approve a plan 

based on a commitment from the State 

to adopt specific enforceable measures 

by a date certain, but not later than 1 

year from the date of approval. If EPA 

conditionally approves the commitment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39970 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

in a final rulemaking action, the State 

must meet its commitment to submit an 

update to its State Board rules that fully 

remedies the deficiency mentioned 

above under element E. If the State fails 

to do so, this action will become a 

disapproval one year from the date of 

final approval. EPA will notify the State 

by letter that this action has occurred. 

At that time, this commitment will no 

longer be a part of the approved Maine 

SIP. EPA subsequently will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

notifying the public that the conditional 

approval automatically converted to a 

disapproval. If the State meets its 

commitment, within the applicable time 

frame, the conditionally approved 

submission will remain a part of the SIP 

until EPA takes final action approving 

or disapproving the submission. If EPA 

disapproves the new submittal, the 

conditionally approved infrastructure 

SIP elements will also be disapproved at 

that time. If EPA approves the submittal, 

the conditionally approved 

infrastructure SIP elements will be fully 

approved in their entirety and replace 

the conditionally approved program in 

the SIP. 

If the conditional approval is 

converted to a disapproval, the final 

disapproval triggers the Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) requirement 

under section 110(c). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

because this action is not significant 

under Executive Order 12866. 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 6, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17247 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0060; FRL–9982– 

11—Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate 

Transport 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submission from Minnesota 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS 

or standard). The infrastructure 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the structural components of each 

state’s air quality management program 

are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. This 

action pertains specifically to 

infrastructure requirements concerning 

interstate transport provisions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 12, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2017–0060 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS