42446 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon Monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Portable facilities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 8, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17468 Filed 7–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0950; FRL–9930–53- 

Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submissions from New Hampshire 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 8- 

hr ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 

convert conditional approvals for 

several infrastructure requirements for 

the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM2.5) 

NAAQS to full approval under the CAA. 

Furthermore, we are proposing to 

update the classifications for several of 

New Hampshire’s air quality control 

regions for ozone and sulfur dioxide 

based on recent air quality monitoring 

data collected by the state, and to grant 

the state’s request for an exemption 

from the infrastructure SIP contingency 

plan obligation for ozone. Last, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve 

certain elements of New Hampshire’s 

submittal relating to prevention of 

significant deterioration requirements. 

The infrastructure requirements are 

designed to ensure that the structural 

components of each state’s air quality 

management program are adequate to 

meet the state’s responsibilities under 

the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by the appropriate Docket ID 

number as indicated in the instructions 

section below, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs 

Branch, Mail Code OEP05–2, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 

Massachusetts, 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air 

Programs Branch, Mail Code OEP05–2, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 

Massachusetts, 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID. EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0950. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 1, Air Programs Branch, 

5 Post Office Square, Boston, 

Massachusetts. This facility is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

McConnell, Environmental Engineer, 

Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs 

Branch (Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 

100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109– 

3912; (617) 918–1046; 

mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42447 

1PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 

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

particles. 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background of these State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions? 

A. What New Hampshire SIP submissions 

does this rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

these SIP submissions? 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review of 

these SIP submissions? 

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 

i. Sub-element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

measures 

ii. Sub-element 2: Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program for major 

sources and major modifications 

iii. Sub-element 3: Preconstruction 

permitting for minor sources and minor 

modifications 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

transport 

i. Sub-element 1: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to 

nonattainment (prong 1) and interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS 

(prong 2) 

ii. Sub-element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (prong 3) 

iii. Sub-element 3: Section 

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

(prong 4) 

iv. Sub-element 4: Section 

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

abatement 

v. Sub-element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)— 

International pollution abatement 

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; PSD; visibility protection 

i. Sub-element 1: Consultation with 

government officials 

ii. Sub-element 2: Public notification 

iii. Sub-element 3: PSD 

iv. 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 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background of these 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submissions? 

A. What New Hampshire SIP 

submissions does this rulemaking 

address? 

This rulemaking addresses 

submissions from the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

(NH–DES). The state submitted its 

infrastructure SIP for each NAAQS on 

the following dates: 2008 Pb— 

November 7, 2011; 2008 ozone— 

December 31, 2012; 2010 NO2—January 

28, 2013; and, 2010 SO2—September 13, 

2013. 

This rulemaking also addresses 

certain infrastructure SIP elements for 

the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM2.5) 1

NAAQS for which EPA previously 

issued a conditional approval. See 77 

FR 63228, October 16, 2012. The state 

submitted these infrastructure SIPs on 

April 3, 2008, and September 18, 2009, 

respectively. 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These 

submissions must contain any revisions 

needed for meeting the applicable SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), or 

certifications that their existing SIPs for 

the NAAQS already meet those 

requirements. 

EPA highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

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

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA 

issued an additional guidance document 

pertaining to the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo), 

followed by the October 14, 2011, 

‘‘Guidance on infrastructure SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently, 

EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions 

referenced in this rulemaking pertain to 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) and address the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, and to elements of New 

Hampshire’s submittals for the 1997 

PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS which we 

previously conditionally approved. See 

77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012. To the 

extent that the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program is 

comprehensive and non-NAAQS 

specific, a narrow evaluation of other 

NAAQS, such as the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, will be included in the 

appropriate sections. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from New Hampshire that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

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

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, we 

are proposing to convert conditional 

approvals for several infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 63228, 

October 16, 2012) to full approval, 

proposing approval of the statutes 

submitted by New Hampshire that 

support the infrastructure SIP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42448 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

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

67034 (Nov. 12, 2008). 

submittals, and proposing to 

conditionally approve certain aspects of 

the infrastructure SIP which pertain to 

the State’s PSD program. 

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 planning requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources (‘‘SSM’’ 

emissions) that may be contrary to the 

CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions; (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

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

purport to permit revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’); and, (iii) existing 

provisions for 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 27242–27245). 

III. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate these SIP submissions? 

EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

non-binding guidance documents to 

make recommendations for states’ 

development and EPA review of 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements. EPA guidance 

applicable to these infrastructure SIP 

submissions is embodied in several 

documents. Specifically, attachment A 

of the 2007 Memo (Required Section 

110 SIP Elements) identifies the 

statutory elements that states need to 

submit in order to satisfy the 

requirements for an infrastructure SIP 

submission. The 2009 Memo provides 

additional guidance for certain elements 

regarding the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2011 Memo provides guidance 

specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Lastly, 

the 2013 Memo identifies and further 

clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs 

that are not NAAQS specific. 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of these SIP submissions? 

Pursuant to section 110(a), and as 

noted in the 2011 Memo and the 2013 

Memo, states must provide reasonable 

notice and opportunity for public 

hearing for all infrastructure SIP 

submissions. NH–DES held public 

hearings for each infrastructure SIP on 

the following dates: 2008 Pb—October 

3, 2011; 2008 ozone—December 31, 

2012; 2010 NO2—January 16, 2013; and, 

2010 SO2—May 24, 2013. New 

Hampshire received comments from 

EPA on each of its proposed 

infrastructure SIPs, and also received 

comments from the Sierra Club on its 

proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP. EPA is 

also soliciting comment on our 

evaluation of the state’s infrastructure 

SIP submissions in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. New Hampshire 

provided detailed synopses of how 

various components of its SIP meet each 

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

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as applicable. 

The following review evaluates the 

state’s submissions in light of section 

110(a)(2) requirements and relevant EPA 

guidance. The review also evaluates 

certain infrastructure requirements for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

which EPA previously issued a 

conditional approval. (See 77 FR 63228, 

October 16, 2012). 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section 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.2 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. 

New Hampshire’s Revised Statutes 

Annotated (RSA) at Chapter 21–O 

established the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

(NH–DES), and RSA Chapter 125–C 

provides the Commissioner of NH–DES 

with the authority to develop rules and 

regulations necessary to meet state and 

Federal ambient air quality standards. 

New Hampshire also has SIP-approved 

provisions for specific pollutants. For 

example, NH–DES has adopted primary 

and secondary ambient air quality 

standards for each of these pollutants in 

its Chapter Env–A 300 Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, as follows: for PM2.5, 

Part Env–A 303; for SO2, Part Env–A 

304; for NO2, Part Env–A 306; for ozone, 

Part Env–A 307; and, for lead, Part Env– 

A 308. As noted in EPA’s approval of 

New Hampshire’s Chapter Env–A 300, 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, on June 

24, 2014 (79 FR 35695), New 

Hampshire’s standards are consistent 

with the current federal NAAQS. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that New 

Hampshire has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In 

addition, we previously issued a 

conditional approval for New 

Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal made for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS because portions of Env– 

A 300 were outdated. (See 77 FR 63228, 

October 16, 2012). However, as noted in 

our June 24, 2014 action mentioned 

above, New Hampshire has revised their 

standards and they are now consistent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42449 

3 In EPA’s April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking 

for several states’ infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, we stated that each state’s 

PSD program must meet applicable requirements 

for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in 

PSD permits (See 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view 

was reiterated in EPA’s August 2, 2012 proposed 

rulemaking for several infrastructure SIPs for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In 

other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to 

adequately address Pb, NOX as a precursor to ozone, 

PM2.5 precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, 

PM2.5 increments, or the Federal GHG permitting 

thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requiring a suitable PSD permitting program must 

be considered not to be met irrespective of the 

NAAQS that triggered the requirement to submit an 

infrastructure SIP, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

4Note that EPA subsequently proposed a 

conditional approval of New Hampshire’s PSD 

program due to a lack of a provision requiring 

notification to neighboring states of the issuance of 

PSD permits. See 80 FR 22957; April 24, 2015. 

with the federal NAAQS. In light of this, 

we propose to convert the conditional 

approval for this infrastructure 

requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 

2012) to full approval. 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 include 

provisions to provide for establishing 

and operating ambient air quality 

monitors, collecting and analyzing 

ambient air quality data, and making 

these 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. 

NH–DES continues to operate a 

monitoring network, and EPA approved 

the state’s most recent Annual Air 

Monitoring Network Plan for Pb, ozone, 

NO2, and SO2 on October 10, 2014. 

Furthermore, NH–DES 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 NH–DES has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

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

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

States are required to include a 

program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures and the regulation of 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources to meet NSR 

requirements under PSD and 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA 

(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD, 

while part D of the CAA (sections 171– 

193) addresses NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

following: (i) Enforcement of SIP 

measures; (ii) PSD program for major 

sources and major modifications; and, 

(iii) permitting program for minor 

sources and minor modifications. A 

discussion of GHG permitting and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 3 is included within 

our evaluation of the PSD provisions of 

New Hampshire’s submittals. 

i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

NH–DES staffs and implements an 

enforcement program pursuant to RSA 

Chapter 125–C: Air Pollution Control, of 

the New Hampshire Statutes. 

Specifically, RSA Chapter 125–C:15, 

Enforcement, authorizes the 

Commissioner of the NH–DES or the 

authorized representative of the 

Commissioner, upon finding a violation 

of Chapter 125–C has occurred, to issue 

a notice of violation or an order of 

abatement, and to include within it a 

schedule for compliance. Additionally, 

RSA 125–C:15 I–b, II, III, and IV provide 

for penalties for violations of Chapter 

125–C. EPA proposes that New 

Hampshire has met the enforcement of 

SIP measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

ii. 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. NH–DES’s EPAapproved PSD rules, contained at Part 

Env-A 619, contain provisions that 

address the majority of the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements related 

to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. One aspect of 

New Hampshire’s PSD rules relating to 

notification of neighboring states 

regarding the issuance of PSD permits, 

however, has not been fully addressed 

at this time. However, on April 24, 

2015, EPA proposed to conditionally 

approve a recent update from New 

Hampshire to address this deficiency. 

(See 80 FR 22957). Once we have 

published a final conditional approval 

for that action, we intend to 

conditionally approve this aspect of 

sub-element 2 of the state’s 

infrastructure SIPs as well. Accordingly, 

we propose to approve the majority of 

New Hampshire’s submittals for this 

sub-element pertaining to section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS, but to conditionally approve 

the aspect pertaining to provision of 

notice to neighboring states. 

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 

(See 70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 

71679, 71699–71700, November 29, 

2005). This requirement was codified in 

40 CFR 51.166, and requires that states 

submit SIP revisions incorporating the 

requirements of the rule, including 

these specific NOX as a precursor to 

ozone provisions, by June 15, 2007 (See 

70 FR 71612 at 71683, November 29, 

2005). 

On November 15, 2012, New 

Hampshire submitted revisions to its 

PSD program incorporating the 

necessary changes regarding NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, consistent with the 

requirements of the Phase 2 Rule. EPA 

proposed approval of New Hampshire’s 

SIP revisions with respect to the NSR 

portion of the Phase 2 Rule on January 

21, 2015, (See 80 FR 2860),4 and we will 

take final action on those revisions prior 

to, or in conjunction with, finalizing our 

action on these infrastructure SIP 

requirements. Therefore, we are 

proposing to find that New Hampshire 

has met this set of requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS regarding the explicit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42450 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

5EPA 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 

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

2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s 

requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, 

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

for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 (Natural 

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

As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to 

nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements 

for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

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

not anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR rule in 

order to comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, the EPA’s approval of New 

Hampshire’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 revision 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. 

6Note that EPA subsequently proposed a 

conditional approval of New Hampshire’s PSD 

program due to a lack of a provision requiring 

notification to neighboring states of the issuance of 

PSD permits. See 80 FR 22957; April 24, 2015. 

7Note that EPA subsequently proposed a 

conditional approval of New Hampshire’s PSD 

program due to a lack of a provision requiring 

notification to neighboring states of the issuance of 

PSD permits. See 80 FR 22957; April 24, 2015. 

identification of NOX as a precursor to 

ozone, consistent with our Phase 2 Rule. 

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

EPA issued the Final Rule on the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 

NSR Rule finalized several new 

requirements for SIPs to address sources 

that emit direct PM2.5 and other 

pollutants that contribute to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for NSR permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 rule, 

EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for 

the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and NOX, unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

NOX emissions in an area are not a 

significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The 2008 

NSR Rule also specifies that volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) are not 

considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in 

the PSD program, unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

emissions of VOCs in an area are 

significant contributors to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). 

As part of identifying pollutants that are 

precursors to PM2.5, the 2008 NSR Rule 

also required states to revise the 

definition of ‘‘significant’’ as it relates to 

a net emissions increase or the potential 

of a source to emit pollutants. 

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

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

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct 

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

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The deadline for states 

to submit SIP revisions to their PSD 

programs incorporating these changes 

was May 16, 2011 (See 73 FR 28321 at 

28341, May 16, 2008).5

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5

and PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. 73 FR 28321 at 

28334. This requirement is codified in 

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

52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states’ 

PSD programs incorporating the 

inclusion of condensables were required 

be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 

(See 73 FR 28321 at 28341). 

On November 15, 2012, New 

Hampshire submitted revisions to its 

PSD program incorporating the 

necessary changes obligated by the 2008 

NSR Rule, including provisions that 

explicitly identify precursors to PM2.5

and account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits. EPA’s proposed 

approval of New Hampshire’s SIP 

revision with respect to the 2008 NSR 

Rule was published on January 21, 2015 

(See 80 FR 2860),6 and we will take final 

action on these revisions prior to, or in 

conjunction with, finalizing our action 

on these infrastructure SIP revisions 

from New Hampshire. 

Therefore, we are proposing that New 

Hampshire has met this set of 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS regarding the 

requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR 

Rule. Additionally, we are also 

proposing to convert our prior 

conditional approval for this 

infrastructure requirement for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 

63228, October 16, 2012) to full 

approval. 

On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the 

final rule on the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). 75 FR 64864. 

This rule established several 

components for making PSD permitting 

determinations for PM2.5, including a 

system of ‘‘increments’’ which is the 

mechanism used to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant. These increments are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c). 

The 2010 NSR Rule also established a 

new ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for 

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

trigger date for PM2.5 as October 20, 

2011. These revisions are codified in 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), 

and 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 of 0.3 micrograms 

per cubic meter, annual average, for 

PM2.5. This change is codified in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(15)(i) and 52.21(b)(15)(i). 

On November 15, 2012, New 

Hampshire submitted revisions to its 

PSD program incorporating the 

necessary changes obligated by the 2010 

NSR Rule, including the increments 

established by the 2010 NSR Rule for 

incorporation into the SIP, as well as the 

revised major source baseline date, 

trigger date, and baseline area level of 

significance for PM2.5. EPA’s proposed 

approval of New Hampshire’s SIP 

revision with respect to the 2010 NSR 

Rule was published on January 21, 

2015, (See 80 FR 2860),7 and we will 

take final action on that submittal prior 

to, or in conjunction with, finalizing our 

action on these infrastructure SIP 

submittals from New Hampshire. 

Therefore, we are proposing that New 

Hampshire has met this set of 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS regarding the 

requirements obligated by the 2010 NSR 

Rule. Additionally, we are also 

proposing to convert our prior 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42451 

8 In this rulemaking, ‘‘element C’’ refers to section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA. References to other 

‘‘elements’’ have similar meanings, e.g., element 

D(i)(II) refers to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the 

CAA. 

conditional approval for this 

infrastructure requirement for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 

63228) to full approval. 

With respect to greenhouse gas 

permitting, EPA’s ‘‘Tailoring Rule,’’ and 

element C,8 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. New Hampshire has shown 

that it currently has a PSD program in 

place that covers all regulated NSR 

pollutants, including greenhouse gases 

(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 the 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 the 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 Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). In order to 

act consistently with its understanding 

of the Court’s decision, the EPA is not 

continuing to apply EPA regulations 

that would require that SIPs include 

permitting requirements that the 

Supreme Court found impermissible. 

Specifically, EPA is not applying the 

requirement that a state’s SIP-approved 

PSD program require that sources obtain 

PSD permits when GHGs are the only 

pollutant (i) that the source emits or has 

the potential to emit above the major 

source thresholds, or (ii) for which there 

is a significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a 

need to revise federal PSD rules in light 

of the Supreme Court opinion. In 

addition, EPA anticipates that many 

states will revise their existing SIPapproved PSD programs in light of the 

Supreme Court’s decision. At this 

juncture, EPA is not expecting states to 

have revised their PSD programs for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP 

submissions and is only evaluating such 

submissions to assure that the state’s 

program correctly addresses GHGs 

consistent with the Supreme Court’s 

decision. 

At present, EPA has determined that 

New Hampshire’s SIP is sufficient to 

satisfy element C with respect to GHGs 

because the PSD permitting program 

previously approved by EPA into the 

SIP continues 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. Although the approved New 

Hampshire PSD permitting program 

may currently contain provisions that 

are no longer necessary in light of the 

Supreme Court decision, this does not 

render the infrastructure SIP submission 

inadequate to satisfy element C. The SIP 

contains the necessary PSD 

requirements at this time, and the 

application of those requirements is not 

impeded by the presence of other 

previously-approved provisions 

regarding the permitting of sources of 

GHGs that EPA does not consider 

necessary at this time in light of the 

Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, 

the Supreme Court decision does not 

affect EPA’s proposed approval of New 

Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP as to the 

requirements of element C. 

For the purposes of the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIPs, EPA reiterates that 

NSR Reform regulations are not in the 

scope of these actions. Therefore, we are 

not taking action on existing NSR 

Reform regulations for New Hampshire. 

In summary, we are proposing to 

approve the majority of New 

Hampshire’s submittals for this subelement pertaining to section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NOX, and 2010 S02

NAAQS, but to conditionally approve 

the aspect pertaining to provision of 

notice to neighboring states. In addition, 

EPA previously issued a conditional 

approval to New Hampshire regarding 

the state’s infrastructure submittals for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

because the state had not met the 

requirements of EPA’s 2008 and 2010 

NSR rules. See 77 FR 63228. Given that 

we have now proposed approval of New 

Hampshire’s PSD program SIP revision 

with respect to the 2008 and 2010 NSR 

rules, we are also proposing to convert 

the prior conditional approval for this 

infrastructure requirement for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 

63228) from conditional approval to 

approval. Note, however, that our April 

24, 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking 

on New Hampshire’s November 15, 

2012 submittal proposes a conditional 

approval of the aspect of the state’s 

permitting program pertaining to 

providing notification to neighboring 

states regarding the issuance of PSD 

permits. Accordingly, we are proposing 

to conditionally approve the aspect of 

New Hampshire’s 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals 

regarding provision of notification to 

neighboring states of the issuance of 

PSD permits. 

iii. 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 regulates emissions of the relevant 

NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved New 

Hampshire’s minor NSR program on 

September 22, 1980 (45 FR 62814), and 

approved updates to the program on 

August 14, 1992. (See 57 FR 36606). 

Since this date, New Hampshire and 

EPA have relied on the existing minor 

NSR program to ensure that new and 

modified sources not captured by the 

major NSR permitting programs do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

We are proposing to find that New 

Hampshire has met this set of 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 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 that states 

must address. It covers the following 5 

topics, categorized as sub-elements: 

Sub-element 1, Contribute 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 4 prongs discussed 

below, 2 of which are found within subelement 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are 

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

the Act and include provisions insuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42452 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

9Note that EPA subsequently proposed a 

conditional approval of New Hampshire’s PSD 

program due to a lack of a provision requiring 

notification to neighboring states of the issuance of 

PSD permits. See 80 FR 22957; April 24, 2015. 

of the Act relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

i. Sub-Element 1: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to 

Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere 

With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 

2) 

With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 

the 2011 Memo notes that the physical 

properties of Pb prevent it from 

experiencing the same travel or 

formation phenomena as PM2.5 or 

ozone. Specifically, there is a sharp 

decrease in Pb concentrations as the 

distance from a Pb source increases. 

Accordingly, although it may be 

possible for a source in a state to emit 

Pb at a location and in such quantities 

that contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interference with 

maintenance by, any other state, EPA 

anticipates that this would be a rare 

situation (e.g., sources emitting large 

quantities of Pb in close proximity to 

state boundaries). The 2011 Memo 

suggests that the applicable interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to lead can 

be met through a state’s assessment as 

to whether or not emissions from Pb 

sources located in close proximity to its 

borders have emissions that impact a 

neighboring state such that they 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in that state. 

New Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

notes that there are no sources of Pb 

emissions located in close proximity to 

any of the state’s borders with 

neighboring states. Additionally, New 

Hampshire’s submittal and the 

emissions data the state collects from its 

sources indicate that there is no single 

source of Pb, or group of sources, 

anywhere within the state that emits 

enough Pb to cause ambient 

concentrations to approach the Pb 

NAAQS. Our review of data within our 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

database confirms this, and therefore we 

propose that New Hampshire has met 

this set of requirements related to 

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

NAAQS. 

In today’s rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove 

New Hampshire’s compliance with 

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

the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS, since New Hampshire’s 

infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS do 

not include a submittal with respect to 

transport for sub-element 1, prongs 1 

and 2. 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3) 

One aspect of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

another state. 

EPA notes that New Hampshire has 

satisfied the majority of the applicable 

infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, but as detailed in 

the section of this notice addressing 

section 110(a)(2)(C), we are 

conditionally approving one element of 

the state’s PSD program. We note that 

the proposed actions in that section 

related to PSD are consistent with the 

proposed actions related to PSD for 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are 

reiterated below. 

New Hampshire has submitted 

revisions to its PSD regulations that are 

consistent with the EPA’s requirements 

contained in the Phase 2 Rule, the 2008 

NSR Rule, and the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA 

proposed approval of a number of these 

SIP revisions on January 21, 2015, (see 

80 FR 2860),9 and we will take final 

action on these revisions prior to, or in 

conjunction with, finalizing our action 

on these infrastructure requirements. 

Additionally, we proposed to 

conditionally approve an aspect of this 

program relating to providing 

notification to neighboring states of the 

issuance of PSD permits within a notice 

of proposed rulemaking published on 

April 24, 2015. (See 80 FR 22957). 

Therefore, in this rulemaking, we are 

proposing to approve all but one of the 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for this sub-element for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the 

applicable PSD requirements associated 

with the permitting of GHG emitting 

sources, and are proposing to 

conditionally approve the remaining 

aspect of the state’s program relating to 

notification to neighboring states 

mentioned above. Furthermore, we are 

also proposing to convert our prior 

conditional approval for this 

infrastructure requirement for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 

63228, October 16, 2012) to an approval, 

except for the aspect relating to 

notification to neighboring states for 

which we are proposing a conditional 

approval. 

States also have an obligation to 

ensure that sources located in 

nonattainment areas do not interfere 

with a neighboring state’s PSD program. 

One way that this requirement can be 

satisfied is through an NNSR program 

consistent with the CAA that addresses 

any pollutants for which there is a 

designated nonattainment area within 

the state. 

EPA approved New Hampshire’s 

NNSR regulations on July 27, 2001 (66 

FR 39104). These regulations contain 

provisions for how the state must treat 

and control sources in nonattainment 

areas, consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or 

appendix S to 40 CFR part 51. EPA 

proposes that New Hampshire has met 

the requirements with respect to the 

prohibition of interference with a 

neighboring state’s PSD program for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS related to section 

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

iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 

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

(Prong 4) 

With regard to the 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). The 2009 Memo, the 2011 

Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these 

requirements can be satisfied by an 

approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, or an approved SIP addressing 

regional haze. 

New Hampshire’s Regional Haze SIP 

was approved by EPA on August 22, 

2012 (See 77 FR 50602). Accordingly, 

EPA proposes that New Hampshire has 

met the visibility protection 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 

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

Abatement 

One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires each SIP to contain adequate 

provisions requiring compliance with 

the applicable 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42453 

10By letter dated August 22, 2013, EPA received 

a petition from the town of Eliot, Maine, requesting 

that, pursuant to Section 126 of the CAA, a coal 

fired electric utility in New Hampshire be required 

to lower its SO2 emissions. As of this time, EPA is 

currently evaluating the merits of this petition. 

by new or modified sources. A lack of 

such a requirement in state rules would 

be grounds for disapproval of this 

element. 

As mentioned elsewhere in this 

notice, in a separate action we are 

proposing to conditionally approve one 

element of New Hampshire’s PSD 

program pertaining to notification to 

neighboring states of the issuance of 

PSD permits. Therefore, we propose to 

also conditionally approve New 

Hampshire’s compliance with the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 126(a) with respect to the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. New Hampshire has no 

obligations under any other provision of 

section 126.10

v. Sub-Element 5: Section 

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

Abatement 

One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires each SIP to contain adequate 

provisions requiring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of section 

115 relating to international pollution 

abatement. New Hampshire does not 

have any pending obligations under 

section 115 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, or 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing that New 

Hampshire has met the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

115 of the CAA (international pollution 

abatement) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

This section requires each state to 

provide for adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under state 

law to carry out its SIP, and related 

issues. Additionally, 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 adequate 

implementation of SIP obligations with 

respect to relevant NAAQS. This subelement, however, is inapplicable to this 

action, because New Hampshire 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 

New Hampshire, through its 

infrastructure SIP submittals, has 

documented that its air agency has the 

requisite authority and resources to 

carry out its SIP obligations. New 

Hampshire RSA 125–C:6, Powers and 

Duties of the Commissioner, authorizes 

the Commissioner of the NH–DES to 

enforce the state’s air laws, establish a 

permit program, accept and administer 

grants, and exercise incidental powers 

necessary to carry out the law. 

Additionally, RSA–125–C:12, 

Administrative Requirements, 

authorizes the Commissioner to collect 

fees to recover the costs of reviewing 

and acting upon permit applications 

and enforcing the terms of permits 

issued. The New Hampshire SIP, as 

originally submitted on January 27, 

1972, and subsequently amended, 

provides additional descriptions of the 

organizations, staffing, funding and 

physical resources necessary to carry 

out the plan. EPA proposes that New 

Hampshire has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

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

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

New Hampshire has made several 

amendments to its Statutory Authority 

since its statutes were submitted to EPA 

for approval in 1972. In its December 

31, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal for 

ozone, New Hampshire submitted an 

updated amendment to the statutory 

authority within Title I: The State and 

its Government: Chapter 21–O:11 

Department of Environmental Services, 

Air Resources Council. Additionally, 

within its September 13, 2013 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, New Hampshire included 

updated amendments to its statutory 

authority within Title X: Public Health, 

Chapter 125: Air Pollution Control, for 

incorporation into the SIP, although it 

later withdrew section 125–C:15, 

Enforcement, within a May 21, 2015 

letter to EPA. The amendments we are 

proposing to approve are included in 

the following table: 

TABLE 1—NEW HAMPSHIRE STATUTES SUBMITTED FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE SIP 

Title I—The State and its Government 

Chapter 21–O: Department of Environmental Services Section 21–O:11 Air Resources Council Effective September 19, 2010 

Title X: Public Health 

Chapter 125–C: Air Pollution Control 

Section 125–C:1 .............................. Declaration of Policy and Purpose ........................................................ Effective July 1, 1979. 

Section 125–C:2 .............................. Definitions .............................................................................................. Effective July 21, 2010. 

Section 125–C:4 .............................. Rulemaking Authority; Subpoena Power ............................................... Effective June 21, 2010. 

Section 125–C:6 .............................. Powers and Duties of the Commissioner .............................................. Effective June 21, 2010. 

Section 125–C:8 .............................. Administration of Chapter; Delegation of Duties ................................... Effective July 1, 1996. 

Section 125–C:9 .............................. Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency ....................... Effective July 1, 1996. 

Section 125–C:10 ............................ Devices Contributing to Air Pollution ..................................................... Effective August 9, 1996. 

Section 125–C:10-a ........................ Municipal Waste Combustion Units ....................................................... Effective January 1, 2006. 

Section 125–C:11 ............................ Permit Required ..................................................................................... Effective June 21, 2010. 

Section 125–C:12 ............................ Administrative Requirements. ................................................................ Effective June 18, 2012. 

Section 125–C:13 ............................ Criteria for Denial; Suspension or Revocation; Modification ................. Effective June 21, 2010. 

Section 125–C:14 ............................ Rehearings and Appeals ....................................................................... Effective July 1, 1996. 

Section 125–C:18 ............................ Existing Remedies Unimpaired ............................................................. Effective July 1, 1979. 

Section 125–C:19 ............................ Protection of Powers ............................................................................. Effective July 1, 1996. 

Section 125–C:21 ............................ Severability ............................................................................................ Effective August 16, 1981. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42454 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—NEW HAMPSHIRE STATUTES SUBMITTED FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE SIP—Continued 

Title X: Public Health 

Chapter 125–O: Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program 

Section 125–O:1 ............................. Findings and Purpose ............................................................................ Effective July 1, 2002. 

Section 125–O:3 ............................. Integrated Power Plant Strategy ........................................................... Effective January 1, 2013. 

EPA proposes to approve these 

statutes into the SIP, and also proposes 

that upon final approval of these 

statutes into the SIP, New Hampshire 

will have demonstrated that it has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements for 

this section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

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

SIP to contain provisions that comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. That provision 

contains two explicit requirements: (i) 

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 (ii) 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. 

Of relevance within New Hampshire, 

RSA 21–O:11, Air Resources Council, 

establishes the New Hampshire Air 

Resources Council, a state board that 

has the authority to hear enforcement 

and permit appeals. The Council 

consists of 11 members, 6 of whom must 

represent the public interest. Those 

representing the public interest ‘‘may 

not derive any significant portion of 

their income from persons subject to 

permits or enforcement orders, and may 

not serve as attorney for, act as 

consultant for, serve as officer or 

director of, or hold any other official or 

contractual relationship with any 

person subject to permits or 

enforcement orders.’’ New Hampshire 

RSA 21–0:11 further provides that ‘‘[a]ll 

potential conflicts of interest shall be 

adequately disclosed.’’ 

EPA’s review of New Hampshire’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions has 

raised one issue that warrants further 

evaluation. Section 128(a)(2) requires 

that a state’s SIP provide for adequate 

disclosure of conflicts of interest by 

‘‘members of such board or body or the 

head of an executive agency with 

similar powers.’’ The use of the 

disjunctive ‘‘or’’ between ‘‘board or 

body’’ and ‘‘head of an executive 

agency’’ results in ambiguity concerning 

whether merely one or both of these 

parties must disclose conflicts of 

interest, and if it is only one of these 

entities, which one? This ambiguity is 

relevant in the case of the submission 

from New Hampshire because under 

state law included within such 

submission, only the members of the Air 

Resources Council are required to 

disclose conflicts of interest, not the 

head of the executive agency. In order 

to determine whether this is sufficient 

for purposes of meeting the 

requirements of section 128(a)(2), we 

have evaluated the statutory language 

more closely. 

First, the term ‘‘or’’ can be interpreted 

as ‘‘one or the other, but not necessarily 

both,’’ or it can be interpreted as ‘‘and.’’ 

Although the word ‘‘or’’ could be read 

to mean ‘‘and’’ in some circumstances, 

we believe that, in this instance, it is 

appropriate to give the word ‘‘or’’ its 

most straightforward meaning. In 

isolation, it could seem unreasonable to 

give ‘‘or’’ the first meaning, as that 

would allow a state to require adequate 

disclosure of conflict of interest by 

either the members of the state board or 

the head of an agency, without regard to 

whether that disclosure requirement 

applies to the entity that makes the final 

permit or enforcement order decision. 

To read section 128(a)(2) to require 

disclosure by the entity that is not the 

actual final decisionmaker appears 

logically inconsistent and contrary to 

the overall purposes of section 128. EPA 

believes that the purpose of section 

128(a)(2) is to assure that conflicts of 

interest are disclosed by the entity 

making the permit or enforcement order 

decision, and requiring this of the 

ultimate decisionmaker rather than 

other parties that may be involved in the 

process. 

As discussed above, under New 

Hampshire law pertaining to the Air 

Resources Council, ‘‘[a]ll potential 

conflicts of interest shall be adequately 

disclosed.’’ Under the structure of the 

State’s program, the Commissioner 

makes certain decisions such as the 

issuance of air permits and enforcement 

orders. However, under state law these 

permits and enforcement orders issued 

by the Commissioner can be appealed to 

the Air Resources Council in an 

adjudicative proceeding. RSA 21–O:11, 

IV; RSA 21–O:14, I. Given this division 

of authority in the State, we believe that 

the Air Resources Council is 

functionally the final decisionmaker 

with respect to permits and enforcement 

orders in New Hampshire, and thus the 

disclosure of conflicts of interest by 

members of the Council is necessary to 

meet the requirements of section 

128(a)(2). Naturally, a state may elect to 

require disclosure of conflicts of interest 

by other state officials and employees as 

well, and this would be fully consistent 

with the explicit reservation of authority 

for states to impose more stringent 

requirements than those imposed by 

section 128. 

For the foregoing reasons, the EPA 

believes that New Hampshire’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals contain 

provisions that meet the requirements of 

section 128(a)(1) and section 128(a). 

Accordingly, we are proposing approval 

of the infrastructure SIP submissions as 

meeting the requirements of section 128. 

New Hampshire submitted RSA 21– 

O:11, Air Resources Council, for 

incorporation into the SIP on December 

31, 2012, and we are proposing to 

approve it into the New Hampshire SIP. 

Upon approval of RSA 21–O:11 into the 

SIP, EPA proposes that New Hampshire 

has met the applicable infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this section of 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In 

addition, EPA previously issued a 

conditional approval to New Hampshire 

for this infrastructure requirement for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 

77 FR 63228. This conditional approval 

occurred prior to New Hampshire’s SIP 

submittal of RSA 21–0:11 to EPA, which 

occurred on December 31, 2012. Given 

that New Hampshire has now addressed 

this issue, we are also proposing to 

convert the prior conditional approval 

for this infrastructure requirement for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 

FR 63228) to full approval. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42455 

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 established 

pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

New Hampshire RSA 125–C:6, Powers 

and Duties of the Commissioner, 

authorizes the Commissioner of NH– 

DES to require the installation, 

maintenance, and use of emissions 

monitoring devices and to require 

periodic reporting to the Commissioner 

of the nature and extent of the 

emissions. This authority also enables 

the Commissioner to correlate this 

information to any applicable emissions 

standard and to make such information 

available to the public. NH–DES 

implements Chapter Env-A 800, Testing 

and Monitoring Procedures, and 

Chapter Env-A 900, Owner or Operator 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Obligations, as the primary means of 

fulfilling these obligations. New 

Hampshire’s Chapters Env-A 800 and 

900 have been approved into the SIP 

(See 77 FR 66388; November 5, 2012). 

Additionally, under RSA 125–C:6, VII, 

and Env-A 103.04, emissions data are 

not considered confidential information. 

EPA recognizes that New Hampshire 

routinely collects information on air 

emissions from its industrial sources 

and makes this information available to 

the public. EPA, therefore, proposes that 

New Hampshire has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for authority that is analogous 

to what is provided 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 New 

Hampshire’s submittals and certain state 

statutes provide for authority 

comparable to that in section 303. New 

Hampshire’s submittals specify that 

RSA 125–C:9, Authority of the 

Commissioner in Cases of Emergency, 

authorizes the Commissioner of NH– 

DES, with the consent of the Governor 

and Air Resources Council, to issue an 

order requiring actions to be taken as 

the Commissioner deems necessary to 

address an air pollution emergency. 

Such orders are effective immediately 

upon issuance. We note also that RSA 

125–C:15, I, provides that, ‘‘[u]pon a 

finding by the commissioner that there 

is an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to the public health or 

welfare or the environment, the 

commissioner shall issue an order of 

abatement requiring immediate 

compliance and said order shall be final 

and enforceable upon issuance, but may 

be appealed to the council within 30 

days of its issuance, and the council 

may, after hearing, uphold, modify, or 

abrogate said order.’’ With regard to the 

authority to bring suit, RSA 125–C:15, 

II, further provides that violation of 

such an order ‘‘shall be subject to 

enforcement by injunction, including 

mandatory injunction, issued by the 

superior court upon application of the 

attorney general.’’ 

Furthermore, New Hampshire has 

broad statutory authority (see RSA 125– 

C:9, Authority of the Commissioner in 

Cases of Emergency) to address 

activities causing imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health; however, New Hampshire does 

not have regulations that specifically 

address all the 40 CFR part 51 subpart 

H requirements. New Hampshire does, 

however, as a matter of practice, post on 

the internet daily forecasted ozone 

levels through the EPA AIRNOW and 

EPA ENVIROFLASH systems. 

Information regarding these two systems 

is available on EPA’s Web site at 

www.airnow.gov. Notices are sent out to 

ENVIROFLASH participants when 

levels are forecast to exceed the current 

8-hour ozone standard. In addition, 

when levels are expected to exceed the 

ozone standard in New Hampshire, 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 of 40 CFR 

51.152. 

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

for any NAAQS, except lead, New 

Hampshire have an approved 

contingency plan for any Air Quality 

Control Region (AQCR) within the state 

that is classified as Priority I, IA, or II. 

A contingency plan is not required if the 

entire state is classified as Priority III for 

a particular pollutant. See 40 CFR part 

51 subpart H. Classifications for all 

pollutants for AQCRs in New 

Hampshire can be found at 40 CFR 

52.1521. The entire state of New 

Hampshire is classified as Priority III for 

ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon 

monoxide. 

With regard to ozone, however, we 

note that New Hampshire’s December 

31, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS contends that it 

is a Priority I region for ozone, although 

as mentioned above each AQCR in the 

state is listed as Priority III for ozone 

within 40 CFR 52.1521. New 

Hampshire’s submittal cites air quality 

monitoring data to substantiate its view. 

EPA’s last update to the priority 

classifications for New Hampshire 

occurred in 1972. See 37 FR 10879, May 

31, 1972. As noted above, New 

Hampshire’s submittal, and a 

supplement to that submittal made on 

May 21, 2015, cite more recent ozone air 

quality data. This information indicates 

that the proper ozone classification for 

the New Hampshire portion of the 

Merrimack Valley—Southern New 

Hampshire Interstate AQCR would be 

Priority I. Therefore, we are proposing 

to revise New Hampshire’s priority 

classification for the Merrimack 

Valley—Southern New Hampshire 

Interstate AQCR from Priority III to 

Priority I for ozone. This reclassification 

triggers the contingency plan obligation 

requirement of 40 CFR 51.151, but New 

Hampshire’s submittal requests, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.152(d)(1), an 

exemption from the contingency plan 

obligation because the state is 

designated as unclassifiable/attainment 

for the 2008 ozone standard. In 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.152(d), we 

are proposing to grant New Hampshire’s 

request for an exemption from the 

contingency obligation in light of the 

state being designated as unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

See 40 CFR 81.330. Additionally, as 

documented within the state’s 

submittal, we note that recent air 

monitoring data have not come close to 

the significant harm level for ozone of 

0.6 parts per million (ppm) on a 2-hour 

average, and the state has only exceeded 

0.1 ppm on three occasions in the 2012– 

2014 timeframe. See 40 CFR 51.151. 

Regarding SO2, the Androscoggin 

Valley Interstate AQCR is classified as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42456 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Priority IA, the Merrimack ValleySouthern New Hampshire Interstate 

AQCR is classified as Priority I, and the 

Central New Hampshire Interstate 

AQCR is classified as Priority III. 

However, these classifications were 

made in 1972 when SO2 emissions in 

New Hampshire were significantly 

higher than they are today. As emission 

levels change, states are encouraged to 

periodically evaluate the priority 

classifications and propose changes to 

the classifications based on the three 

most recent years of air quality data. See 

40 CFR 51.153. 

In its September 13, 2013 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, New Hampshire provided 

air quality data for SO2 from 2005–2012. 

New Hampshire supplemented this with 

more recent data in a letter dated May 

21, 2015. In this letter, New Hampshire 

requested the entire state be re-classified 

as Priority III for SO2 based on the air 

quality data from 2012–2014. New 

Hampshire’s SO2 monitoring program is 

focused on the more populous and more 

industrial southern portion of the state 

represented by the Merrimack Valley— 

Southern New Hampshire area, and 

there are currently no SO2 monitors in 

the more northerly Central New 

Hampshire Intrastate and Androscoggin 

Valley Interstate AQCRs. EPA has 

reviewed the SO2 monitoring data, 

which the state has certified, and agrees 

that the SO2 levels are significantly 

below the threshold of a Priority I, IA, 

or II level. 

The Public Service Company of New 

Hampshire’s (PSNH’s) Merrimack 

Station, a large coal-fired electric utility 

located in Bow, has historically been the 

largest SO2 emitter in the Merrimack 

Valley—Southern New Hampshire 

AQCR, and also in the state, by a wide 

margin. By 2012, however, the facility 

had installed and begun operating an air 

pollution control device for this 

pollutant. In 2011, the last year that 

Merrimack Station’s SO2 emissions were 

essentially uncontrolled, the facility 

emitted 22,393 tons of SO2. For context, 

the next largest SO2 emitter that year in 

the entire state was PSNH’s Schiller 

Station, which emitted 1,708 tons of 

SO2. The requirement for operation of 

SO2 controls at Merrimack Station are 

contained within Permit TP–0008. This 

permit was submitted to EPA and we 

have approved it into the SIP. See 77 FR 

50602, August 22, 2012. Since 

installation of the control equipment, 

Merrimack Station’s SO2 emissions have 

fallen considerably, registering 1,004 

tons in 2012, and 1,400 tons in 2013, 

and 1,044 tons in 2014. The ambient 

SO2 air monitoring data submitted by 

NH–DES within their May 21, 2015 

correspondence for the years 2012–2014 

have also declined considerably when 

compared to data recorded for prior 

time periods. 

As mentioned above, New 

Hampshire’s SO2 monitoring network is 

focused on the more populous and more 

industrial southern part of the state 

represented by the Merrimack Valley— 

Southern New Hampshire AQCR. Based 

on our review of the monitoring data for 

this area, we propose to reclassify the 

New Hampshire portion of the 

Merrimack Valley—Southern New 

Hampshire Interstate AQCR to Priority 

III for SO2. The more northerly AQCRs 

are much less likely to experience high 

SO2 levels due to their lower population 

and lesser industrial base, and based on 

the low amounts of SO2 emitted by 

sources in these areas. For example, the 

most recent 3 year cycle emissions 

inventory data contained within EPA’s 

National Emissions Inventory database 

is for 2011, and for New Hampshire the 

data indicate that approximately 95% of 

the state’s SO2 emissions occur in the 

counties within the Merrimack Valley— 

Southern New Hampshire AQCR. Given 

that the monitoring data in the New 

Hampshire portion of the Merrimack 

Valley—Southern New Hampshire 

AQCR indicate that the appropriate 

classification for this region is Priority 

III, and given that the preponderance of 

SO2 emissions occur in this region, we 

also propose to grant New Hampshire’s 

request that the state’s portion of the 

Androscoggin Valley Interstate AQCR 

also be reclassified to Priority III for 

SO2. Accordingly, a contingency plan 

for SO2 is not required. See 40 CFR 

51.152(c). 

EPA proposes that New Hampshire 

has met the applicable infrastructure 

SIP requirements for this portion of 

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

2008 Pb NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires states to have 

the authority to revise their SIPs in 

response to changes in the NAAQS, 

availability of improved methods for 

attaining the NAAQS, or an EPA finding 

that the SIP is substantially inadequate. 

New Hampshire RSA 125–C:6, Powers 

and Duties of the Commissioner, 

provides that the Commissioner of NH– 

DES may develop a comprehensive 

program and provide services for the 

study, prevention, and abatement of air 

pollution. Additionally, Chapter Env-A 

200, Procedural Rules, which was 

approved into the New Hampshire SIP 

on October 28, 2002 (see 67 FR 65710) 

provides for public hearings for SIP 

revision requests prior to their submittal 

to EPA. EPA proposes that New 

Hampshire has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

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; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submissions 

from New Hampshire with respect to 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(J) are described below. 

i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

States must provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

carrying out NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

New Hampshire RSA 125–C:6 Powers 

and Duties of the Commissioner, 

authorizes the Commissioner of NH– 

DES to advise, consult, and cooperate 

with the cities, towns, and other 

agencies of the state and federal 

government, interstate agencies, and 

other groups or agencies in matters 

relating to air quality. Additionally, 

RSA 125–C:6 enables the Commissioner 

to coordinate and regulate the air 

pollution control programs of political 

subdivisions to plan and implement 

programs for the control and abatement 

of air pollution. Furthermore, New 

Hampshire regulations at Part Env-A 

621 direct NH DES to notify town 

officials, regional planning agencies, 

and FLMs, among others, of the receipt 

of certain permit applications and the 

NH DES’ preliminary determination to 

issue, amend, or deny such permits. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that New 

Hampshire has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

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

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

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

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42457 

exceeded in an area and must enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. 

As part of the fulfillment of RSA 125– 

C:6, Powers and Duties of the 

Commissioner, New Hampshire issues 

press releases and posts warnings on its 

Web site advising people what they can 

do to help prevent NAAQS exceedances 

and avoid adverse health effects on poor 

air quality days. New Hampshire is also 

an active partner in EPA’s AIRNOW and 

Enviroflash air quality alert programs. 

EPA proposes that New Hampshire has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

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

with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD 

States must meet applicable 

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

related to PSD. New Hampshire’s PSD 

program in the context of infrastructure 

SIPs has already been discussed in the 

paragraphs addressing section 

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

EPA notes that the proposed actions for 

those sections are consistent with the 

proposed actions for this portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(J). Our proposed 

actions are reiterated below. 

New Hampshire’s PSD regulations are 

consistent with the EPA’s requirements 

regarding this sub-element with the 

exception of the notification to 

neighboring states provision. Therefore, 

we are proposing that New Hampshire 

has met the applicable infrastructure 

SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

as they relate to the requirements 

obligated by EPA’s PSD regulations, 

with the exception of the notification to 

neighboring states provision, for which 

we are proposing a conditional 

approval. In addition, EPA previously 

issued a conditional approval to New 

Hampshire for this infrastructure 

requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 

2012. This conditional approval 

occurred prior to New Hampshire’s 

submittal of its November 15, 2012 PSD 

program SIP revision. Given that we 

have now proposed approval of New 

Hampshire’s SIP revision with respect 

to the 2008 and 2010 NSR rules, we are 

also proposing to convert the prior 

conditional approval for this 

infrastructure requirement for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to approval. 

However, in this action we are also 

proposing to conditionally approve this 

sub-element for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS with respect to the notification 

to neighboring states issue previously 

mentioned. 

iv. 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, 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 SIPs for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

To satisfy element K, the state air 

agency must demonstrate that it has the 

authority to perform air quality 

modeling to predict effects on air 

quality of emissions of any NAAQS 

pollutant and submission of such data 

to EPA upon request. 

Pursuant to the authority granted to 

the Commissioner of NH–DES in RSA 

125–C:6, New Hampshire reviews the 

potential impact of major sources 

consistent with 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W, ‘‘Guidelines on Air Quality 

Models.’’ The modeling data are sent to 

EPA along with the draft major permit. 

For non-major sources, Part Env–A 606, 

Air Pollution Dispersion Modeling 

Impact Analysis Requirements, specifies 

the air pollution dispersion modeling 

impact analysis requirements that apply 

to owners and operators of certain 

sources and devices in order to 

demonstrate compliance with the New 

Hampshire State Implementation Plan, 

RSA 125–C, RSA 125–I, and any rules 

adopted thereunder. The state also 

collaborates with the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC), the Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Air Management Association, 

and EPA in order to perform large scale 

urban airshed modeling. EPA proposes 

that New Hampshire has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

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

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

This section requires SIPs to mandate 

that each major stationary source pay 

permitting fees to cover the cost of 

reviewing, approving, implementing, 

and enforcing a permit. 

New Hampshire implements and 

operates the Title V permit program, 

which EPA approved on September 24, 

2001. See 66 FR 48806. Chapter Env–A 

700, Permit Fee System, establishes a 

fee system requiring the payment of fees 

to cover the costs of: Reviewing and 

acting upon applications for the 

issuance of, amendment to, 

modification to, or renewal of a 

temporary permit, state permit to 

operate, or Title V operating permit; 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of these permits; and 

developing, implementing, and 

administering the Title V operating 

permit program. In addition, Part Env– 

A 705 establishes the emission-based fee 

program for Title V and non-Title V 

sources. EPA proposes that New 

Hampshire has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

Pursuant to element M, states must 

consult with, and allow participation 

from, local political subdivisions 

affected by the SIP. 

As previously mentioned, Chapter 

Env–A 200, Part Env–A 204 provides a 

public participation process for all 

stakeholders that includes a minimum 

of a 30-day comment period and an 

opportunity for public hearing for all 

SIP-related actions. Additionally, RSA 

125–C:6, Powers and Duties of the 

Commissioner, provides that the 

Commissioner shall consult with the 

cities, towns, other agencies of the state 

and federal government, interstate 

agencies, and other affected agencies or 

groups in matters relating to air quality. 

EPA proposes that New Hampshire has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

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

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve SIP 

submissions from New Hampshire 

certifying that its current SIP is 

sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS, with the exception of certain 

aspects relating to PSD which we are 

proposing to conditionally approve. 

EPA’s proposed actions regarding these 

infrastructure SIP requirements are 

contained in Table 2 below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

42458 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED ACTION ON NH INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS FOR VARIOUS NAAQS 

Element 2008 

Pb 

2008 

Ozone 

2010 

NO2

2010 

SO2

(A): Emission limits and other control measures ....................................................................................................... A A A A 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system ................................................................................................. A A A A 

(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures ......................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major modifications ............................................................................. A* A* A* A* 

(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications .................................................................... A A A A 

(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1 and 2) ............................... A NS NS NS 

(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3) ............................................................................................................................................. A* A* A* A* 

(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4) ...................................................................................................................... A A A A 

(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement ........................................................................................................................ A* A* A* A* 

(D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement ................................................................................................................... A A A A 

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

(E)(ii): State boards .................................................................................................................................................... A A A A 

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

(F): Stationary source monitoring system .................................................................................................................. A A A A 

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

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

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D ..................................................................................... + + + + 

(J)(i): Consultation with government officials ............................................................................................................. A A A A 

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

(J)(iii): PSD ................................................................................................................................................................. A* A* A* A* 

(J)(iv): Visibility protection .......................................................................................................................................... + + + + 

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

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

(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities .................................................................................... A A A A 

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

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

A* ......... Approve, but conditionally approve 

aspect of PSD program relating 

to notification to neighboring 

states 

+ ........... Not germane to infrastructure SIPs 

NS ........ No Submittal 

NA ........ Not applicable 

Also, with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is proposing to 

approve that New Hampshire has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements 

pertaining to elements (A) and (E)(ii), 

and the PSD elements (C)(ii), 

(D)(i)(II)(prong 3), and (J)(iii) for which 

a conditional approval was previously 

issued. See 77 FR 63228. As discussed 

in detail above, New Hampshire has 

since met the conditions outlined in 

that action. Furthermore, in keeping 

with our recently proposed conditional 

approval of the New Hampshire PSD 

program with respect to the requirement 

that neighboring states be notified of the 

issuance of a PSD permit by New 

Hampshire DES (80 FR 22957), we are 

also proposing a conditional approval 

for elements (C)(ii), (D)(i)(II)(prong 3) 

and (J)(iii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, with respect to the 

requirement to notify neighboring states. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

incorporate into the New Hampshire SIP 

the following New Hampshire statutes 

which were included for approval in 

New Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals: 

Title I, The State and Its Government, 

Chapter 21–O: Department of 

Environmental Services, Section 21– 

O:11, Air Resources Council. 

Title X Public Health, Chapter 125–C 

Air Pollution Control, Section 125– 

C:1—Declaration of Policy and Purpose; 

Section 125–C:2—Definitions; Section 

125–C:4—Rulemaking Authority; 

Subpoena Power; Section 125–C:6— 

Powers and Duties of the Commissioner; 

Section 125–C:8—Administration of 

Chapter; Delegation of Duties; Section 

125–C:9—Authority of the 

Commissioner in Cases of Emergency; 

Section 125–C:10—Devices Contributing 

to Air Pollution; Section 125–C:10a— 

Municipal Waste Combustion Units; 

Section 125–C:11—Permit Required; 

Section 125–C:12—Administrative 

Requirements; Section 125–C:13— 

Criteria for Denial; Suspension or 

Revocation; Modification; Section 125– 

C:14—Rehearings and Appeals; Section 

125–C:18—Existing Remedies 

Unimpaired; Section 125–C:19— 

Protection of Powers; and Section 125– 

C:21—Severability. 

Title X Public Health, Chapter 125–O: 

Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program, 

Section 125–O:1—Findings and 

Purpose; and Section 125–O:3— 

Integrated Power Plant Strategy. 

Additionally, we are proposing to 

update the 40 CFR 52.1521 

classifications for several of New 

Hampshire’s air quality control regions 

for ozone and sulfur dioxide based on 

recent air quality monitoring data 

collected by the state, and to grant the 

state’s request for an exemption from 

the infrastructure SIP contingency plan 

obligation for ozone. 

As noted in Table 2, we are proposing 

to conditionally approve one portion of 

New Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals pertaining to the state’s PSD 

program. The outstanding issues with 

the PSD program concern the lack of a 

requirement that neighboring states be 

notified of the issuance of a PSD permit 

by the New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services. For this reason, 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve this portion of New 

Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP revisions 

for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, consistent with our 

proposed conditional approval of New 

Hampshire’s PSD program published in 

the Federal Register on April 24, 2015. 

See 80 FR 22957. 

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 

in a final rulemaking action, the State 

must meet its commitment to submit an 

update to its PSD program that fully 

remedies the lack of notification 

requirement mentioned above. If the 

State fails to do so, this action will 

become a disapproval one year from the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 137 / Friday, July 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 42459 

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 

New Hampshire 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 new 

submittal. If EPA disapproves the new 

submittal, the conditionally approved 

infrastructure SIP elements will also be 

disapproved at that time. In addition, a 

final disapproval would trigger the 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

requirement under section 110(c). If 

EPA approves the new submittal, the 

PSD program and relevant infrastructure 

SIP elements will be fully approved and 

replace the conditionally approved 

program in the SIP. 

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 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register, or by submitting comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Federal Register. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is 

proposing to include in a final EPA rule 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference into the New 

Hampshire SIP the statutes identified 

within Table 1 of this proposal. The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action merely approves state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Sulfur Oxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 1, 2015. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17475 Filed 7–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0404; FRL–9930–61– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Adoption of Control 

Techniques Guidelines for Metal 

Furniture Coatings and Miscellaneous 

Metal Parts Coatings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Maryland (Maryland). This revision 

includes amendments to Maryland’s 

regulation for the control of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and meets 

the requirement to adopt reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) for 

sources covered by EPA’s Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) standards 

for coatings for metal furniture and 

miscellaneous metal parts. These 

amendments will reduce emissions of 

VOC from these source categories and 

help Maryland attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone. This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2015–0404 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0404, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS