[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39957-39970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17247]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87e4e8e9f5e8fea9e3e6f1e2c7e2f7e6a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c5f53524e534512585d4a597c594c5d125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>. 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-epa-dockets. 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; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#780b11151b1700561914110b1716381d0819561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd8e94909e9285d39c91948e9293bd988d9cd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>\1\) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 
The primary, health-based annual standard is set at 12.0 micrograms per 
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) and the 24-hour standard is set at 35 
[micro]g/m\3\. 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 
or less in diameter, often referred to as ``fine'' particles.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39958]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SIP-
approved 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This memorandum and other referenced guidance documents and 
memoranda are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 EPA-approved SIP meet each of the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964, 67034 (November 12, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Maine DEP consists of the Board of Environmental Protection 
(``Board'') and a Commissioner. 38 MRSA Sec.  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. Sec.  
341-H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Maine submittal cites two dozen specific rules that the state 
has adopted to control the emissions of criteria pollutants and 
precursors, including PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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

[[Page 39959]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 Sec. Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See EPA approval letter located in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>. EPA proposes that Maine has met the enforcement 
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 EPA-
approved 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)'' (2008 NSR Rule). 
The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to 
address sources that emit direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and other pollutants 
that contribute to secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation. One of these 
requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for 
the secondary formation of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, otherwise known as 
precursors. In the 2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> for the PSD program to be SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's 
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in an 
area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies that 
VOCs are not considered to be precursors to PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the PSD 
program unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's 
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are

[[Page 39960]]

significant contributors to that area's ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations.
    The explicit references to SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and VOCs 
as they pertain to secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per 
year (tpy) of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>; 40 tpy of SO<INF>2</INF>; and 40 
tpy of NO<INF>X</INF> (unless the state demonstrates to the 
Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's 
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50353), EPA approved revisions to Maine's 
PSD program that identify SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> as 
precursors to PM<INF>2.5</INF> and revise the state's regulatory 
definition of ``significant'' for PM<INF>2.5</INF> to mean 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions, 40 tpy or more 
of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, or 40 tpy or more of NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> emission limits 
in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> condensables for applicability 
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF>.
    Therefore, we propose to approve Maine's infrastructure SIP 
submittal for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)--Increments, Significant 
Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' 
(2010 NSR Rule). This rule established several components for making 
PSD permitting determinations for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> increments in 06-096 CMR 
Chapter 110 of Maine's regulations.
    The 2010 NSR Rule also established a new ``major source baseline 
date'' for PM<INF>2.5</INF> as October 20, 2010, and a new trigger date 
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 ([micro]g/m\3\), annual average, for 
PM<INF>2.5.</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 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 
sub-element with respect to the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    We are proposing to find that Maine has met the requirement to have 
a SIP-approved minor new source review permit program as required under 
Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 sub-
elements: Sub-element 1, Significant contribution to nonattainment, and 
interference with maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 2, PSD; Sub-
element 3, Visibility protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate pollution 
abatement; and Sub-element 5, International pollution abatement. Sub-
elements 1 through 3 above are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 
the Act, and these items are further categorized into the four prongs 
discussed below, two of which are found within sub-element 1. Sub-
elements 4 and 5 are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act 
and include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of 
the Act relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong 1 
and 2 interstate-transport requirements with respect to the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed both the 1997 and 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 39962]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Consistent with step 1 of the framework, the 
2016 memorandum provides projected future-year annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate. 
Accordingly, because the available data included 2017 and 2025 
projected average and maximum PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values calculated 
through the CAMx photochemical model, the memorandum suggests 
approaches states might use to interpolate PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
that were used in conjunction with measured data to project annual 
average PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values for 2017 and 2025. Areas that 
were designated as moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas for 
the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> air-quality 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/20151001ria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maine's Submission for Prongs 1 and 2
    On July 6, 2016, Maine DEP submitted an infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS that addressed prongs 1 
and 2 for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. As discussed below, EPA concludes 
that emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors 
(NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>) in Maine will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in any other state.
Analysis of Maine's Submission for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
    As noted above, the modeling discussed in EPA's 2016 memorandum 
identified one potential maintenance receptor for the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 
Although the modeling was not conducted for purposes of analyzing 
upwind states' impacts on downwind receptors with respect to the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 [mu]g/m\3\) 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, EPA notes 
that Maine's impact on the Liberty monitor is far below the threshold 
of 1% for the annual 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (i.e., 0.12 [mu]g/
m\3\) that EPA previously used to evaluate the contribution of upwind 
states to downwind air-quality monitors. (A spreadsheet showing

[[Page 39963]]

CSAPR contributions for ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS at that monitor.
    In addition, the Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, and expected emissions reductions in the 
next four years will lead to additional reductions in measured 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. There are both local and regional 
components to measured PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 [mu]g/m\3\ higher than other monitors in 
Allegheny County.
    Specifically, previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional 
emissions from upwind states, particularly SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, contribute to PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment 
at the Liberty monitor. In recent years, large SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions from power plants have occurred in 
Pennsylvania and states upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. 
Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS (82 FR 57689; December 7, 2017).
    In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures, 
additional local reductions to both direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are expected to occur and should contribute to 
further declines in Allegheny County's PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitor 
concentrations. For example, significant SO<INF>2</INF> reductions have 
recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill facilities in 
southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr SO<INF>2</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions in the immediate future. The 
Allegheny SO<INF>2</INF> SIP also projects lower SO<INF>2</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.achd.net/air/pubs/SIPs/SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_9-14-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor 
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
data-quality issues identified as part of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
designations process. In particular, some ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS as well. Given this, and the fact that the 
state's PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values for all ambient monitors have 
been well below the 2012 24-hour NAAQS (35 [micro]g/m\3\) and the 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (12.0 [micro]g/m\3\) since 2005-2007,\9\ 
EPA concludes that it is highly unlikely that Maine significantly 
contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in areas with data-quality issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Maine's PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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/air-quality-design-values_.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from 2002 through 2020 for various source 
categories for Maine, and results of EPA CSAPR modeling. As mentioned 
above, the state's PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values for all ambient 
monitors have been well below the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS since 2005-2007.
    At specific monitors in Maine, the highest 24-hour mean value 
satisfying minimum data completion criteria was 25 [micro]g/m\3\ in 
2016 at a monitor in Rumford in Oxford County. The highest annual mean 
value satisfying minimum data completion criteria was 9 [micro]g/m\3\ 
in 2014 at a monitor in Madawaska in Aroostook County.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 24-hour and annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitor values for 
individual monitoring sites throughout Maine are available at 
www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Maine's sources are well-controlled. Maine's July 2016 
submission indicates that the state has many SIP-approved rules and 
programs that limit emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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, ``NO<INF>X</INF> Control Program'' 
(70 FR 11879, March 10, 2005), as well the state's Title V permitting 
program (38 MRSA Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
at a level that contributes significantly to non-attainment or 
interferes with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS

[[Page 39964]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, Sec.  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, 
Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Consequently, EPA proposes 
to approve Maine's infrastructure SIP submittals for this sub-element 
with respect to the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Sec.  115 relating 
to international pollution abatement. There are no final findings under 
section 115 against Maine with respect to the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Sec.  341-A, ``Department of 
Environmental Protection,'' 38 MRSA Sec.  341-D, ``Board 
responsibilities and duties,'' 38 MRSA Sec.  342, ``Commissioner, 
duties'' and 38 MRSA Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 39965]]

portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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. Sec.  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. Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in an email dated July 17, 
2018), DEP committed to revise section 341-C to address the CAA Sec.  
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 (NO<INF>2</INF>) 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 Sec.  128(a)(1) for the 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Sec.  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 NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, EPA determined that Maine's conflict of 
interest statute, 5 MRSA Sec.  18, and a provision explicitly making it 
applicable to Board members, 38 MRSA Sec.  341-C(7), together satisfy 
the CAA Sec.  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 Sec.  
128(a)(2) with respect to Board members for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS for the same reasons discussed in the infrastructure SIP action 
for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
    Regarding the DEP Commissioner, state law at 38 MRSA Sec.  341-
A(3)(D) also explicitly makes that official subject to 5 MRSA Sec.  18, 
the same conflict-of-interest statute to which the Board is subject. In 
the above-referenced infrastructure SIP action, EPA also determined 
that together 5 MRSA Sec.  18 (which is in the Maine SIP) and 38 MRSA 
Sec.  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 
NO<INF>2</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. While 38 MRSA 
Sec.  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 NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. See 83 FR 28157. 
Consequently, EPA proposes to conditionally approve Maine's 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the conflict of interest requirement 
of CAA Sec.  128(a)(2) with respect to the DEP Commissioner for the 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.

[[Page 39966]]

    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 Sec. Sec.  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-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-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 EPA-approved regulations, ``Except 
as expressly made confidential by law; the commissioner shall make all 
documents available to the public for inspection and copying including 
the following: 1. All applications or other forms and documents 
submitted in support of any license application: 2. All correspondence, 
into or out of the Department, and any attachments thereto . . . .'' 
See 06-096 CMR Chapter 1, Sec.  6(A). Furthermore, ``The Commissioner 
shall keep confidential only those documents which may remain 
confidential pursuant to 1 MRSA Section 402.'' Id. Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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. Sec.  347-A(1)(A)(4). Similarly, 
38 MRSA Sec.  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. Sec.  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,

[[Page 39967]]

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. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, or PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors may be causing or contributing to an ``imminent and 
substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the 
environment,'' a violation of Sec.  591 would also occur, since Maine 
law provides that ambient air quality standards are designed to prevent 
``air pollution,'' id. Sec.  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. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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. Sec.  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. Sec.  
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. Sec.  742(1)(C)(12). Thus, even if there may otherwise be no 
violation of a DEP-administered 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5,</INF> EPA has not promulgated regulations 
that provide the ambient levels to classify different priority levels 
for the 2012 standard (or any PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS). For the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, EPA's 2009 Guidance recommends that states 
develop emergency episode plans for any area that has monitored and 
recorded 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels greater than 140 [mu]g/m\3\ 
since 2006. EPA's review of Maine's certified air quality data in AQS 
indicates that the highest 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> level recorded 
since 2006 was 83.3 [mu]g/m\3\, which occurred in 2017 in the town of 
Madawaska in Aroostook County.\11\ Therefore, EPA proposes that a 
specific contingency plan from Maine for PM<INF>2.5</INF> is not 
necessary. Furthermore, although not expected, if PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 24-hour and annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitor values for 
individual monitoring sites throughout Maine are available at 
www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 39968]]

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 Sec.  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. Sec.  341-
H(2); see also id. Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 Sec.  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. Sec.  
341-B, and authorizes it to ``cooperate with other state or federal 
departments or agencies to carry out'' its responsibilities, id. Sec.  
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, Sec.  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 Sec.  583-B; 06-096 CMR Chapter 114, 
Sec.  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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Sec.  341-A(1). 
State law also authorizes Maine DEP to ``educate the public on natural 
resource use, requirements and issues. Id. Sec.  341-A(1). To that end, 
Maine DEP makes real-time and historical air quality information 
available on its website.
    The agency also provides extended-range 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.

[[Page 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 Sec. Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Sec.  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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         A
 measures.
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data   A
 system.
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures............  A
(C)2: PSD program for major sources and major  A
 modifications.
(C)3: PSD program for minor sources and minor  A
 modifications.
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere    A
 with maintenance of NAAQS.
(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     NA
 local agencies.
(F): Stationary source monitoring system.....  A
(G): Emergency power.........................  A
(H): Future SIP revisions....................  A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan           NG
 revisions under part D.
(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         A
 affected local entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 39970]]

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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
regulatory action because this action is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866.
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>