Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78135 

facilitated Exchange (FFE) platform. 

Certain changes that affect FFE 

processes may make a waiver proposal 

not feasible to implement at this time. 

Until further guidance is issued, the 

Federal platform cannot accommodate 

different rules for different states. For 

example, waivers that would require 

changes to the calculation of Exchange 

financial assistance, non-standard 

enrollment period determinations, 

customized plan management review 

options, or changes to the design used 

to display plan options are generally not 

feasible at this time due to operational 

limitations. In addition, the Federal 

platform cannot accommodate changes 

to its plan management templates in the 

near term. States contemplating a 

waiver that requires such changes may 

consider establishing their own platform 

administered by the state. 

As noted in Section I.D. of this 

guidance, costs associated with changes 

to Federal administrative processes are 

taken into account in determining 

whether a waiver application satisfies 

the deficit neutrality requirement. 

Regulations at 31 CFR part 33 and 45 

CFR part 155, subpart N require that 

such costs be included in the 10-year 

budget plan submitted by the state. 

B. Internal Revenue Service 

Certain changes that affect Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) administrative 

processes may make a waiver proposal 

not feasible to implement. At this time, 

the IRS is not generally able to 

administer different sets of rules in 

different states. As a result, while a state 

may propose to entirely waive the 

application of one or more of the tax 

provisions listed in Section 1332 to 

taxpayers in the state, it is generally not 

feasible to design a waiver that would 

require the IRS to administer an 

alteration to these provisions for 

taxpayers in the state. For example, it is 

generally not feasible to have the IRS 

administer a different set of eligibility 

rules for the premium tax credit for 

residents of a particular state. States 

contemplating a waiver proposal that 

includes a modified version of a Federal 

tax provision may consider waiving the 

provision entirely and relying on a tax 

program administered by the state. 

In addition, a waiver proposal that 

completely waives one or more tax 

provisions in a state may create 

administrative costs for the IRS. As 

noted in Section I.D. above, costs 

associated with changes to Federal 

administrative processes are taken into 

account in determining whether a 

waiver application satisfies the deficit 

neutrality requirement. Regulations at 

31 CFR part 33 and 45 CFR part 155, 

subpart N require that such costs be 

included in the 10-year budget plan 

submitted by the state. 

VI. Public Input on Waiver Proposals 

Consistent with the statutory 

provisions of Section 1332, regulations 

at 31 CFR 33.112 and 45 CFR 155.1312 

require states to provide a public notice 

and comment period for a waiver 

application sufficient to ensure a 

meaningful level of public input prior to 

submitting an application. As part of the 

public notice and comment period, a 

state with one or more Federallyrecognized tribes must conduct a 

separate process for meaningful 

consultation with such tribes. Because 

State Innovation Waiver applications 

may vary significantly in their 

complexity and breadth, the regulations 

provide states with flexibility in 

determining the length of the comment 

period required to allow for meaningful 

and robust public engagement. The 

comment period must be sufficient to 

ensure a meaningful level of public 

input and in no case can be less than 30 

days. 

Consistent with HHS regulations, 

waiver applications must be posted 

online in a manner that meets national 

standards to assure access to individuals 

with disabilities. Such standards are 

issued by the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board, and are referred to as ‘‘section 

508’’ standards. Alternatively, the 

World Wide Web Consortium’s Web 

Content Accessibility Guidelines 

(WCAG) 2.0 Level AA standards would 

also be considered as acceptable 

national standard for Web site 

accessibility. For more information, see 

the WCAG Web site at http://

www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. 

Section 1332 and its implementing 

regulations also require the Federal 

Government to provide a public notice 

and comment period, once the 

Secretaries receive an application. The 

period must be sufficient to ensure a 

meaningful level of public input and 

must not impose requirements that are 

in addition to, or duplicative of, 

requirements imposed under the 

Administrative Procedures Act, or 

requirements that are unreasonable or 

unnecessarily burdensome with respect 

to state compliance. As with the 

comment period described above, the 

length of the comment period should 

reflect the complexity of the proposal 

and in no case can be less than 30 days. 

Dated: December 8, 2015. 

Andrew M. Slavitt, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

Dated: December 11, 2015. 

Sylvia M. Burwell, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Approved: December 10, 2015. 

Mark J. Mazur, 

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax 

Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2015–31563 Filed 12–11–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4150–28–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0950; A–1–FRL– 

9940–15–Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; NH; Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan 

Requirements for Ozone, Lead, and 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving 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, 2008 ozone, 

and 2010 nitrogen dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). EPA is also converting 

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 updating the 

classification for one of New 

Hampshire’s air quality control regions 

for ozone based on recent air quality 

monitoring data collected by the state, 

and are granting the state’s request for 

an exemption from the infrastructure 

SIP contingency plan obligation for 

ozone. Last, we are conditionally 

approving 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: This rule is effective on January 

15, 2016. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
78136 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 

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

particles. 

2 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2012–0950. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site, although 

some information, such as confidential 

business information or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute is not publically 

available. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

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

Copies of the documents relevant to this 

action are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at: Air Resources 

Division, Department of Environmental 

Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, 

Concord, NH 03302–0095. 

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 

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Public Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

This rulemaking addresses 

infrastructure SIP submissions from the 

New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NH–DES) for 

the 2008 ozone, 2008 lead (Pb), and 

2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

The state submitted these infrastructure 

SIPs on the following dates: 2008 lead 

NAAQS—November 7, 2011; 2008 

ozone NAAQS—December 31, 2012; 

and 2010 NO2 NAAQS—January 28, 

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. Additionally, in this final 

rulemaking we are updating the 

classification for one of New 

Hampshire’s air quality control regions 

for ozone based on recent air quality 

monitoring data collected by the state, 

and are granting the state’s request for 

an exemption from the infrastructure 

SIP contingency plan obligation for 

ozone. Last, we are conditionally 

approving certain elements of New 

Hampshire’s submittal relating to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) requirements. 

II. Public Comments 

EPA received just one set of 

comments in response to the NPR. 

Those comments—the full set of which 

are included in the docket for this final 

rulemaking—were submitted by the 

Sierra Club and focused 

overwhelmingly on our proposed 

approval of New Hampshire’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS, which is not addressed in this 

final rulemaking. Relevant to this 

action, one aspect of the comments 

touched glancingly on the infrastructure 

submittals for the 2008 ozone and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. EPA received no public 

comments on our proposed approval of 

New Hampshire’s infrastructure 

submittals for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

Comment: The commenter argued, 

among other things, that EPA must 

disapprove the SIP submittal for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, because New 

Hampshire did not include a submittal 

to satisfy section 110(D)(i)(I) (the socalled ‘‘Good Neighbor’’ provision). In a 

footnote, the commenter contended that 

New Hampshire had similarly not 

included a submittal to satisfy the same 

provision for the 2008 ozone or 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. The commenter argued 

that these omissions, coming as they did 

more than three years after EPA’s 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, are in violation of the Act and 

the Supreme Court’s ruling in EPA v. 

EME Homer City Generation, LP.2

Accordingly, the commenter contended 

that ‘‘EPA must take immediate action 

here to disapprove the SO2 I–SIP 

Certification (as well as the 2008 ozone 

and 2010 NO2 I–SIPs, for that matter) 

and initiate the FIP [Federal 

Implementation Plan] process with 

regard to the I–SIP’s ‘‘ ‘Good Neighbor’ 

provisions.’’ 

Response: To be clear, EPA reiterates 

that this final rulemaking does not 

address New Hampshire’s infrastructure 

SIP submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA will take final action on that 

submittal in a future final action, which 

will include a response to the Sierra 

Club’s comments as to that submittal. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) addresses 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state. However, although EPA is acting 

on New Hampshire’s submittals for the 

2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS in 

this rulemaking, EPA is not taking any 

action with respect to section 

110(D)(i)(I). As the commenter notes, 

New Hampshire did not include any 

provisions to address the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in its 

December 31, 2012 and January 28, 2013 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 

respectively. In the NPR, EPA did not 

propose to take any action with respect 

to New Hampshire’s obligations 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the December 31, 2012 and January 28, 

2013 infrastructure SIP submittals. 

Because New Hampshire did not 

make a submission in its December 31, 

2012 and January 28, 2013 SIP 

submittals to address the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA is not 

required to have proposed or to take 

final SIP approval or disapproval action 

on this element under section 110(k) of 

the CAA. In this case, there has been no 

substantive submission for EPA to 

evaluate under section 110(k). Nor does 

the lack of a submission addressing 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require EPA to 

disapprove New Hampshire’s December 

31, 2012 and January 28, 2013 SIP 

submittals as to the other elements of 

section 110(a)(2). EPA interprets its 

authority under section 110(k)(3) of the 

CAA as affording EPA the discretion to 

approve, or conditionally approve, 

individual elements of New 

Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions, separate and apart from 

any action with respect to the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA views discrete 

infrastructure SIP requirements in 

section 110(a)(2), such as the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as 

severable from the other infrastructure 

elements and interprets section 

110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78137 

3 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

4See 80 FR 42446, 42452 (July 17, 2015) (‘‘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.’’). 

individual severable measures in a plan 

submission. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA holding, among 

other things, that states had no 

obligation to submit good neighbor SIPs 

until the EPA had first quantified each 

state’s good neighbor obligation.3

Accordingly, under that decision the 

submission deadline for good neighbor 

SIPs under the CAA would not 

necessarily be tied to the promulgation 

of a new or revised NAAQS. While the 

EPA sought review first with the D.C. 

Circuit en banc and then with the 

United States Supreme Court, the EPA 

complied with the D.C. Circuit’s ruling 

during the pendency of its appeal. The 

D.C. Circuit declined to consider EPA’s 

appeal en banc, but, on April 29, 2014, 

the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. 

Circuit’s EME Homer City opinion and 

held, among other things, that under the 

plain language of the CAA, states must 

submit SIPs addressing the good 

neighbor requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA 

first provides guidance, technical data 

or rulemaking to quantify the state’s 

obligation. 

With respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, on November 18, 2014, the 

Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians 

filed a complaint in U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of California 

seeking an order to compel the EPA to 

make findings of failure to submit good 

neighbor SIPs for over twenty states, 

including New Hampshire. On May 15, 

2015, the court entered judgment 

ordering the EPA to sign a notice issuing 

its findings of failure to submit with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

interstate transport SIPs for states 

addressed in the case. Effective August 

12, 2015, EPA found that 24 states, 

including New Hampshire, had not 

made a complete good neighbor SIP 

submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 80 FR 39961 (July 

13, 2015). Pursuant to CAA section 

110(c)(1), EPA is authorized and 

obligated to promulgate a FIP, if EPA 

takes any of the following actions: (1) 

Finds that a state has failed to make a 

required SIP submission; (2) finds that 

a required submission was incomplete; 

or (3) disapproves a required SIP 

submission in whole or in part. 

Accordingly, EPA must issue a relevant 

FIP with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS within two years, if New 

Hampshire has not submitted, and EPA 

has not approved, a plan revision 

appropriately addressing the good 

neighbor provision requirements. Thus, 

EPA is not required to issue a FIP at this 

time but will take appropriate action at 

a future date. 

With respect to the 2010 NO2

NAAQS, EPA has not issued a similar 

finding of failure to submit and, 

consequently, the two-year FIP clock 

has not yet begun to run. EPA agrees in 

general that sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) 

of the CAA require states to submit, 

within three years of promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS, a plan that 

addresses cross-state air pollution under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In this 

rulemaking, however, EPA is only 

approving portions of New Hampshire’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS, which did not 

include provisions for interstate 

transport under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A finding of failure to 

submit a SIP submission for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS addressing section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) could occur in a 

separate rulemaking. As that issue was 

not addressed in the July 17, 2015 NPR,4

and is thus not pertinent to this 

rulemaking, EPA provides no further 

response. In sum, New Hampshire’s 

obligations regarding interstate transport 

of pollution for the 2008 ozone and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS will be addressed in 

later rulemakings. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving SIP submissions 

from New Hampshire certifying that the 

state’s current SIP is sufficient to meet 

the required infrastructure elements 

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

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2

NAAQS, with the exception of certain 

aspects relating to the state’s PSD 

program which we are conditionally 

approving. On September 25, 2015, we 

conditionally approved the portion of 

New Hampshire’s PSD program that 

pertains to providing notification to 

neighboring states of certain permitting 

actions in New Hampshire. See 80 FR 

57722. Therefore, we are conditionally 

approving herein the related portions of 

New Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals affected by our September 

25, 2015 conditional approval. A 

summary of EPA’s actions regarding 

these infrastructure SIP requirements 

are contained in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—ACTION TAKEN ON NH INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS FOR LISTED NAAQS 

Element 2008 Pb 2008 Ozone 2010 NO2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
78138 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—ACTION TAKEN ON NH INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS FOR LISTED NAAQS—Continued 

Element 2008 Pb 2008 Ozone 2010 NO2

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

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

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

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

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

New Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals 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, 

October 16, 2012. As discussed in our 

July 17, 2015 notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) (see 80 FR 42446), 

New Hampshire has since met the 

conditions outlined in our October 16, 

2012 action. However, in keeping with 

the conditional approval we are issuing 

today for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect to the 

notification to neighboring states aspect 

of the state’s PSD program, we are also 

newly conditionally approving New 

Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals for elements (C)(ii), (D)(i)(II) 

(prong 3), (D)(ii), and (J)(iii) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In addition, we are incorporating 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 updating the 

classification at 40 CFR 52.1521 for the 

Merrimack Valley—Southern New 

Hampshire air quality control region for 

ozone based on recent air quality 

monitoring data collected by the state, 

and are granting, pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.152(d)(1), the state’s request for an 

exemption from the infrastructure SIP 

contingency plan obligation for ozone. 

EPA is conditionally approving an 

aspect of New Hampshire’s SIP revision 

submittals pertaining to the state’s PSD 

program. The outstanding issue with the 

PSD program concerns 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. On September 

25, 2015, we conditionally approved 

New Hampshire’s PSD program for this 

reason. See 80 FR 57722. Accordingly, 

we are also conditionally approving this 

aspect of New Hampshire’s 

infrastructure SIP revisions for the 2008 

lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 1997 PM2.5, 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. New 

Hampshire must submit to EPA a SIP 

submittal addressing the above 

mentioned deficiency in the state’s PSD 

program within the timeframe provided 

by our September 25, 2015 action. If the 

State fails to do so, the elements we are 

conditionally approving in this 

rulemaking will be disapproved on that 

date. 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 

timeframe, 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 aspect of New 

Hampshire’s PSD program will also be 

disapproved at that time. If EPA 

approves the revised PSD program 

submittal, then the portions of New 

Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals that were conditionally 

approved will be fully approved in their 

entirety and replace the conditional 

approval in the SIP. In addition, final 

disapproval of an infrastructure SIP 

submittal triggers the Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) requirement 

under section 110(c). 

Other specific requirements of 

infrastructure SIPs and the rationale for 

EPA’s final action on New Hampshire’s 

submittals are explained in the NPR and 

will not be restated here. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this 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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78139 

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 (Public Law 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). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by February 16, 

2016. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: December 2, 2015. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart EE—New Hampshire 

■ 2. Section 52.1519 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(3) and (4) and adding paragraphs 

(a)(6) through (10) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1519 Identification of plan— 

conditional approval. 

(a) * * * 

(6) 2008 Ozone NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP submitted on 

December 31, 2012, is conditionally 

approved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), 

and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect 

of the PSD program pertaining to 

providing notification to neighboring 

states of certain permitting activity 

being considered by New Hampshire. 

This conditional approval is contingent 

upon New Hampshire taking actions to 

address these requirements as detailed 

within a final conditional approval 

dated September 25, 2015. 

(7) 2008 Lead NAAQ: The 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP submitted on 

November 7, 2011, is conditionally 

approved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), 

and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect 

of the PSD program pertaining to 

providing notification to neighboring 

states of certain permitting activity 

being considered by New Hampshire. 

This conditional approval is contingent 

upon New Hampshire taking actions to 

address these requirements as detailed 

within a final conditional approval 

dated September 25, 2015. 

(8) 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS: 

The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP 

submitted on January 28, 2013, is 

conditionally approved for Clean Air 

Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), 

(D)(i)(II), D(ii), and (J)(iii) only as it 

relates to the aspect of the PSD program 

pertaining to providing notification to 

neighboring states of certain permitting 

activity being considered by New 

Hampshire. This conditional approval is 

contingent upon New Hampshire taking 

actions to address these requirements as 

detailed within a final conditional 

approval dated September 25, 2015. 

(9) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP submitted on April 3, 

2008, is conditionally approved for 

Clean Air Act (CAA) elements 

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

(J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect of 

the PSD program pertaining to 

providing notification to neighboring 

states of certain permitting activity 

being considered by New Hampshire. 

This conditional approval is contingent 

upon New Hampshire taking actions to 

address these requirements as detailed 

within a final conditional approval 

dated September 25, 2015. 

(10) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 

110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted 

on September 18, 2009, is conditionally 

approved for Clean Air Act (CAA) 

elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), 

and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect 

of the PSD program pertaining to 

providing notification to neighboring 

states of certain permitting activity 

being considered by New Hampshire. 

This conditional approval is contingent 

upon New Hampshire taking actions to 

address these requirements as detailed 

within a final conditional approval 

dated September 25, 2015. 

■ 3. Section 52.1520 is amended by: 

■ a. In the table in paragraph (c), adding 

three entries at the end of the table; and 

■ b. In the table in paragraph (e), adding 

six entries at the end of the table. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.1520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
78140 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approved date 1 Explanations 

*******

Title 1 of the New Hampshire Statues: The 

State and Its Government, Chapter 21-O.

Department of Environmental Services.7/1/86 12/16/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Section 21–O:11, Air Resources Council. 

Title X of the New Hampshire Statutes: Public 

Health, Chapter 125–C.

Air Pollution Control ........ 7/1/79 12/16/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

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 of the New Hampshire Statutes: Public 

Health, Chapter 125–O.

Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program.7/1/2002 12/16/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Section 125–O:1—Findings and Purpose; 

Section 125—O:3—Integrated Power 

Plant Strategy. 

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

NEW HAMPSHIRE NONREGULATORY

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approved date 3 Explanations 

*******

Infrastructure SIP for 

2008 ozone NAAQS.

Statewide ......................... 12/31/2012 12/16/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. See 52.1519. 

Infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS.

Statewide ......................... 11/7/2011 12/16/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. See 52.1519. 

Infrastructure SIP for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS.

Statewide ......................... 1/28/2013 12/16/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. See 52.1519. 

Infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ......................... 7/3/2012 12/16/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Items that were previously conditionally 

approved on 10/16/12 now fully approved. 

Infrastructure SIP for 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ......................... 9/18/2009 12/16/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Items that were previously conditionally 

approved on 10/16/12 now fully approved. 

Request for exemption 

from contingency plan 

obligation.

Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire 

AQCR.

12/31/2012 12/16/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

State’s request for exemption from contingency plan obligation, made pursuant to 40 CFR 51.122(d), is granted in 

light of the area’s designation as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 78141 

■ 4. In § 52.1521, revise the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1521 Classification of regions. 

* * * * * 

Air quality control region 

Pollutant 

Particulate 

matter Sulfur oxides Nitrogen dioxide 

Carbon 

monoxide Ozone 

Androscoggin Valley Interstate ............................................ IA IA III III III 

Central New Hampshire Intrastate ...................................... III III III III III 

Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire Interstate .... I I III III I 

[FR Doc. 2015–31525 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0762; FRL–9939–54] 

Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens MBI600 

(Antecedent Bacillus Subtilis MBI600); 

Amendment to an Exemption From the 

Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the 

existing exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of the microbial pesticide Bacillus 

subtilis strain MBI600 to change the 

name to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 

strain MBI600 (antecedent Bacillus 

subtilis strain MBI600) in or on all food 

commodities, including residues 

resulting from post-harvest uses, when 

applied or used in accordance with 

good agricultural practices. BASF 

Corporation submitted a petition to EPA 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an 

amendment to the existing exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance. 

This regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of Bacillus 

amyloliquefaciens strain MBI600. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

December 16, 2015. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before February 16, 2016, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0762, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert McNally, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http:// 

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2008–0762 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before February 16, 2016. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2008–0762, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES